FUTILITY OF SELF DEFEATING LIBERALISM
FUTILITY OF SELF DEFEATING LIBERALISM By Robert Halfhill
(The following is a post written on the uhcan-mn discussion list, the dicussion list of an organization whose purpose is to obtain single payer health care, a system of universal health care in which the government pays health care providers out of tax revenues. This is the health care system in place in Canada and every other modern industrial society except the United States. A liberal had written in to say that single payer health care is unrealistic since the "all powerful insurance industry" would oppose it, politicians could not "just wave a magic wand" and bring it about, and quoted Hiliary Clinton's argument that we must "first have consensus" before we propose it. Another more radical poster urged that we tell the Democrats we would not vote for them unless they came through on a nuumber of minimal demands.) Because I have been struggling to keep my head above a tsunami of emails, I very rarely get around to checking up on my uhcan-mn messages. But tonight I have gotten around to it and I feel that I can add some new contributions to this discussion. First, if we can never introduce a proposal for single payer health care because the "all powerful" health insurance industry will fight it, how do you expect to obtain even the slightest improvements in the health care mess? If you are mesmerized under the illusion that your opposition is "all powerful" and can veto anything you propose, then you can never make any progress. It would not be possible to depict more vividly the futile, self defeating mental bind that liberalism is locked in. Single payer WILL be adopted if enough people get fed up with what we have now and DEMAND it. Second, therefore, instead of politicians silencing themselves because "they can not wave a magic wand" and bring single payer about, the kind of politician who is of any use to us will try to argue and convince more people of the need for single payer in the knowledge that the health care mess we have now will eventually enable them to convince enough people. Third, what does Hiliary mean when she says we must first have consensus for single payer and other proposals before we propose them. Let us be fair and assume that she does not mean 100% of the people must be for something before we can come out for it. Still, she is saying the 60%, 70%, 80%, or even 90% of the people must be for something before we can open our mouth and even advocate for it! Any politician who is of any use to use will not wait until 60-90% of people are for something before advocating for it. This is another example of the futile, self defeating nature of liberalism. This is not exactly an example of leadership if you are too timid to support something unless 60-90% of people are already for it. Another example is Ms. Clinton's vacillation on the Iraq War. People voted for the Democrats last year because around 70% of them are now against the war in Iraq and want it ended. They did not vote for the Democrats to elect someone who merely wants to put a cap on the present number of troops so that the present level of deaths and disabling injuries can continue. They did not vote for someone who refuses to even repudiate her original vote to invade Iraq! Finally, the suggestion has been made that we tell the Democrats we will not vote for them unless they make a real fight for single payer, an end to the Iraq War, etc. Why must we content ourselves with not voting at all when we can vote for a third party? The old liberal objection is that a third party cannot win and that we'll be "throwing our vote away." Even if this were true, voting for a third party cannot possibly be as futile as not voting at all. And, more importantly, the only reason a third party cannot win is that most of us won't vote for it. If enough of us vote for it, it CAN and WILL win. In fact, people who have devoted their efforts to fighting for single payer and against the Iraq War, not to mention a host of other issues, are going to have to ask themselves why they are voting for the Democrats if they are not going to do anything to implement what people voted for them to implement? You talk about "throwing your vote away;" voting for Democrats who won't do what you voted for them to achieve is REALLY throwing your vote away! And some have said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing that didn't work over and over again while expecting different results. The Nader campaign and the Green Party in 2000 provided the best chance of a critical mass of people breaking out of the two party strait jacket. Unfortunately, the Greens caved in under the pressure of hoards of liberals and Democrats hysterical accusations of "You elected Bush!" and refused to endorse Nader and instead endorsed a "safe states" candidate in 2004 who advocated a covert form of lesser evil support for the Democrats by only making a serious effort to campaign in states where there was no chance he could throw the election to the Republicans. But in spite of their wimping out in 2004, the Green Party still represents the best chance of a critical mass of people breaking out of the two party strait jacket. No other of the many third parties around shows an equal chance off leading people out of the two party duopoly. So I recommend that people who have been wasting their vote on the Democrats vote for the Green Party instead. I am assuming, of course, that the Green Party can be pulled back from its wimp out of 2000 and return to the independent challenge it mounted in 2004. And this is where those of you who have not only been wasting your vote on the Democrats but wasting your time, money and energies by working inside the Democratic Party. Those of us who have been opposing the present dysfunctional misleadership of the Green Party need your help. Instead join the Green Party and expend your efforts there. The tactic of trying to improve things by supporting the Democrats as the lesser evil has led to a steady rightward drift of the political climate in this country so that many people now will be surprised to learn that the President who told Planned Parenthood that as woman ought not to be denied access to family planning because of her economic circumstance was RICHARD NIXON! The news media reported in 2004 that the Democrat's standard bearer, John Kerry, was actually to the right of Richard Nixon. So stop doing over and over again what has led you to THIS. The Green Party still represents the best existing chance of a break from two party futility and if enough of you help and pitch in, the Green Party can be pulled back from its wimp out of 2004 and become a party that will actually do what you vote for it to do. Robert Halfhill
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.
http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com
(The following is a post written on the uhcan-mn discussion list, the dicussion list of an organization whose purpose is to obtain single payer health care, a system of universal health care in which the government pays health care providers out of tax revenues. This is the health care system in place in Canada and every other modern industrial society except the United States. A liberal had written in to say that single payer health care is unrealistic since the "all powerful insurance industry" would oppose it, politicians could not "just wave a magic wand" and bring it about, and quoted Hiliary Clinton's argument that we must "first have consensus" before we propose it. Another more radical poster urged that we tell the Democrats we would not vote for them unless they came through on a nuumber of minimal demands.) Because I have been struggling to keep my head above a tsunami of emails, I very rarely get around to checking up on my uhcan-mn messages. But tonight I have gotten around to it and I feel that I can add some new contributions to this discussion. First, if we can never introduce a proposal for single payer health care because the "all powerful" health insurance industry will fight it, how do you expect to obtain even the slightest improvements in the health care mess? If you are mesmerized under the illusion that your opposition is "all powerful" and can veto anything you propose, then you can never make any progress. It would not be possible to depict more vividly the futile, self defeating mental bind that liberalism is locked in. Single payer WILL be adopted if enough people get fed up with what we have now and DEMAND it. Second, therefore, instead of politicians silencing themselves because "they can not wave a magic wand" and bring single payer about, the kind of politician who is of any use to us will try to argue and convince more people of the need for single payer in the knowledge that the health care mess we have now will eventually enable them to convince enough people. Third, what does Hiliary mean when she says we must first have consensus for single payer and other proposals before we propose them. Let us be fair and assume that she does not mean 100% of the people must be for something before we can come out for it. Still, she is saying the 60%, 70%, 80%, or even 90% of the people must be for something before we can open our mouth and even advocate for it! Any politician who is of any use to use will not wait until 60-90% of people are for something before advocating for it. This is another example of the futile, self defeating nature of liberalism. This is not exactly an example of leadership if you are too timid to support something unless 60-90% of people are already for it. Another example is Ms. Clinton's vacillation on the Iraq War. People voted for the Democrats last year because around 70% of them are now against the war in Iraq and want it ended. They did not vote for the Democrats to elect someone who merely wants to put a cap on the present number of troops so that the present level of deaths and disabling injuries can continue. They did not vote for someone who refuses to even repudiate her original vote to invade Iraq! Finally, the suggestion has been made that we tell the Democrats we will not vote for them unless they make a real fight for single payer, an end to the Iraq War, etc. Why must we content ourselves with not voting at all when we can vote for a third party? The old liberal objection is that a third party cannot win and that we'll be "throwing our vote away." Even if this were true, voting for a third party cannot possibly be as futile as not voting at all. And, more importantly, the only reason a third party cannot win is that most of us won't vote for it. If enough of us vote for it, it CAN and WILL win. In fact, people who have devoted their efforts to fighting for single payer and against the Iraq War, not to mention a host of other issues, are going to have to ask themselves why they are voting for the Democrats if they are not going to do anything to implement what people voted for them to implement? You talk about "throwing your vote away;" voting for Democrats who won't do what you voted for them to achieve is REALLY throwing your vote away! And some have said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing that didn't work over and over again while expecting different results. The Nader campaign and the Green Party in 2000 provided the best chance of a critical mass of people breaking out of the two party strait jacket. Unfortunately, the Greens caved in under the pressure of hoards of liberals and Democrats hysterical accusations of "You elected Bush!" and refused to endorse Nader and instead endorsed a "safe states" candidate in 2004 who advocated a covert form of lesser evil support for the Democrats by only making a serious effort to campaign in states where there was no chance he could throw the election to the Republicans. But in spite of their wimping out in 2004, the Green Party still represents the best chance of a critical mass of people breaking out of the two party strait jacket. No other of the many third parties around shows an equal chance off leading people out of the two party duopoly. So I recommend that people who have been wasting their vote on the Democrats vote for the Green Party instead. I am assuming, of course, that the Green Party can be pulled back from its wimp out of 2000 and return to the independent challenge it mounted in 2004. And this is where those of you who have not only been wasting your vote on the Democrats but wasting your time, money and energies by working inside the Democratic Party. Those of us who have been opposing the present dysfunctional misleadership of the Green Party need your help. Instead join the Green Party and expend your efforts there. The tactic of trying to improve things by supporting the Democrats as the lesser evil has led to a steady rightward drift of the political climate in this country so that many people now will be surprised to learn that the President who told Planned Parenthood that as woman ought not to be denied access to family planning because of her economic circumstance was RICHARD NIXON! The news media reported in 2004 that the Democrat's standard bearer, John Kerry, was actually to the right of Richard Nixon. So stop doing over and over again what has led you to THIS. The Green Party still represents the best existing chance of a break from two party futility and if enough of you help and pitch in, the Green Party can be pulled back from its wimp out of 2004 and become a party that will actually do what you vote for it to do. Robert Halfhill
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-888-212-5537.
http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com
posted by Robert Halfhill at 12:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home