Don’t buy all the crap coming from GOP talking-point memos or the blather from mainstream pundits. The midterm elections do not signal a move to the center. Yes, a few conservative Democrats were elected, but the big gainers were progressives. In particular, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is on the rise. No longer will Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) be able… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (14)Page 1 of 1 pagesHR 676
United States National Health Insurance Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services.
Who is going to pay for this fiasco in the making? The poor benighted chumps who actually work for a living............It sounds great until you get the bill.
Posted by texasindependent on Nov 8, 2006 at 6:15 PM YU ARE PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY ...FOOL
Many who work do not have health coverage...is there a news white-out in Texas...or are yu just stupid...one would gather...both…
Maybe yu could get help for your....hetro-boredom....
TexasTagger...yu are just what the neo-cons love...ostentatiously uninformed , too psuedo- prideful...working middle-class idiot, that for some unexplained psycosomatic reasonings ; identifies with agendas that do not effect your own best interest....
Yu...Mr.Tagger need to be protected from yourself…
Maybe a rubber room or a straight jacket....meds...?
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 9, 2006 at 3:41 AM Look....Tex....Redhorse is gonna throw yu a bone, what good it will do is up to yu....
Google...Ben Cohens Cookie Graph...or go to Youtube and search for… Oreo cookies & BB’S....TOO MUCH LIKE RIGHT....with Tavis Smiley......
Now Ben Cohen is a Jewish name...so we don’t want to hear any denialist bullshit....
Maybe we will all learn something........
10 billion from nukes too health care....not so hard......eeh
ah.....the never ending wisdom of plain ol’ common sense...........
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 9, 2006 at 5:02 AM The article brings up a critical point: That of the cognitive political dissonance over ideological alignment in the USA today. It is a dissonance that covers the terms “conservative” and “liberal” as well as “progressive”. Thus radical rightists such as Bush/Cheney are called “conservatives”, liberals such as Pelosi are called “progressives”, and so forth. In general it masks the profound shift to the right that has occured since Reagan. The ‘06 election results only open a door of possible reversal, they do not actually reverse it.
It is in this befogged atmosphere that the Democrats are trying to carry out a hijacking of “progressivism”, in a frantic attempt to delay a mass bolt of grassroots progressive activists - who assume a RADICAL LEFT content for the term - from a conservative party with no substantial solutions to the deep problems facing America and the world. Unless of course one believes stem cell research is the solution to all our problems.
Mapping the actual history of the term “progressive” would begin to resolve this confusion. It would also reveal the the present is not the first time conservatives and liberals have hijacked “progressivism”.
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 10, 2006 at 9:06 PM Now on to the substance of the article:
The Bleifuss/Burt/Bowers comments promise a renewed assault upon independent-minded leftists. Given the bullying tone and abusive terminology, it looks to be nasty. It will have to be, for hard core Democrat leftists will have their work cut out over the next 2 years covering the left flank of the Democratic Party as it betrays the hopes placed in it by grassroots progressive left activists. Signally, these will be the failure to impeach Bush/Cheney - necessary for expeditious Iraq withdrawal - failure to repeal the Military Commissions Act and failure to repeal the Patriot Acts.
After 6 years of Roves’ lying spinmanship, are we now to be subject to a “Pwog” version of dissembling spin?
Example: The article headline claims “The big winners from the ‘06 midterms were members of the House Progressive Caucus”, misleading one into a sense that the Caucus received some sort of popular mandate in the 2006 elections. But as one reads a bit further, it is revealed that all this amounts to is that certain select progressive Democrats now occupy key House committee chairmanships due, not to popular election, but to the extremely undemocratic anachronism of House seniority rules! These invariably benefit Congresspeople in “safe” districts who are automatically relected term after term, which means for the Democrats, districts where Republicans are very weak, often weaker than the independent Left. This is not “democracy”, but bureaucracy, in action.
Example: “In an unprecedented move this fall, CPC members—coming together under the newly formed Progressive Majority Project—pooled their money, time and staff to lend support to progressives running in 12 House races. Eight of those CPC-backed candidates won, which makes all this talk about conservative Democrats in the ascendancy a bunch of bunk.” We are not told if these presumably “progressive” Democrats replaced Republicans or even conservative Democrats in “swing” districts - an event that, if it were true, would indicate a fairly dramatic and unprecedented (in recent times) shift to the left by formerly conservative voters. But no evidence of this is given at all. For all anybody knows, these are either liberal to progressive replacements for a previous liberal occupant. No change there.
Finally, no concrete analysis is presented of the politics of Democrats elected in Republican “swing” districts - the races that actually gave the Democrats the House majority.
The rest is largely hopeful happy talk. The day we have universal health care in the USA will be, under present conditions, the day Corporate America realizes how it is shooting itself in the foot with the present idiotic system. No doubt “pwogs” of the Bleifuss/Burt/Bowers stripe will be there to claim “credit” for Corporate America’s actions.
But what enables this sort of spin is a deliberately confounding abuse of the term “progressive”. In particular it is combined with “liberal”, the latter a different political species. In this way Pelosi is represented as a “progressive” simply because she is a member of the CPC. But Pelosi pledged 100% support for the murdurous, US sponsored apartheid state of Israel before AIPAC, now under criminal investigation: http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/11/nancy_pelosi_an.html
Since when is this stance - hardly a minor issue today - become “progressive”? It would be hardly be the only issue that would define Pelosi as something other than progressive.
Conversely, it is assumed that a correct stance on, say, abortion rights signifies “progressivism”. That would be news to Giuliani, McCain and may other genuine conservatives!
So dance, spinmeisters, dance! We on the independant Left are also pleased that the election results have placed such ripe and juicy targets in our sights!
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 10, 2006 at 9:14 PM There is a concerted effort to marginalize the progressive wing of the Democratic party....just watch Emanuel and others dismiss the need to investigate the crimes of this administration. Just watch.
Will they all just walk away? Will the criminals who planned and carried out an illegal war with huge consequences simply fade away into history at the end of their terms of office? Many already have, and many more will follow.
The new power that the Democrats have in Congress will be a telling moment for the resurrection of their lost backbones. The root of so much evil in the past six years has been hidden in the secret world of DICK CHENEY
It’s time to pull back the curtain.
This excerpt is part of a challenge to the Democrats in Congress to take on Cheney...who has already stated he would not answer a subpoena issued by any investigating committee. It’s time to test that assertion. Let’s see if anyone conjures up the guts to do so:
OK Democrats, Prove Yourselves: Investigate Cheney’s Energy Meetings!
By taking impeachment off the table before a single investigation is launched, before a single subpoena is issued and before a single confirmation of high crimes committed is achieved (in an official Congressional forum that is…we have plenty of confirmations of high crimes by this administration), the new Democratic leadership is proving true my assessment of our new Congress. It is starting to look like we got an oil change when we needed a blood transfusion. Not only did we get a simple oil change but it looks like they are still not changing the filter on this same old engine that is driving us all down a road to hell.
Well here is a way to measure the sincerity and dedication to democracy of this new Democratic leadership. Watch how they address Dick Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings or just watch to see if they address it at all! For those of you who do not know, and why should you know…the criminal corporate media pretended it never happened, before the events of 9/11 unfolded Dick Cheney decided that the nation’s energy policy decision making process should be kept secret from the citizens of this nation and from Congress. He also decided that the only participants in the process should be the rich corporations who can derive huge profits by controlling the energy supplies that we all depend on. Cheney also decided that energy policy meetings were no place for any people who had ideas about or solutions to the many problems faced by the world as a result of a growing dependency on expensive, polluting, global warming causing, war precipitating fossil fuels!…
Full editorial here:
CLICK HEREhttp://www.tvnewslies.org//blog/?p=486
Posted by skipper7 on Nov 10, 2006 at 9:15 PM I don’t get this article. Doesn’t Nancy Pelosi’s membership in the Progressive Caucus beg the question of what on earth the difference is between a conservative and a progressive Democrat? This article feels like a lot of hype, without definitions of terms, without analysis of similiarties or divisions between members of the caucus in question, without a sense of platform. I can see how yes, the landslide Dem victory shouldn’t JUST be seen as a victory for conservatives/ centrists in the party, since every constituency plays an important part in holding the 51-49 majority in the Senate. But this article provides almost no useful info for mapping these complex new relationships.
Posted by tbone on Nov 12, 2006 at 12:00 PM Why don’t you so-called “progressives” be honest and call yourselves what you are: Socialists
Everyone knows this; why hide it?
Posted by W Otis on Nov 12, 2006 at 2:32 PM Well W Otis.....it works for the RICH....why not spend all that Gov’t mulla on the ones ya love the most......
If the label of Socialism gets yu up in the morning............cool.
Posted by Redhorse on Nov 12, 2006 at 3:07 PM I don’t try to hide my political identity. I would like to see a left political caucus of socialists like DSA and the Greens because I think socialism will eventually be a viable political option in this country. The middle class was not eliminated by socialism or the government but by unbridled corporate capitalism. The contradictions of this system and the stagnation for the majority of working masses that it produces will lead to a socialist agenda. One day that label will NOT be a stigma. Until then, we have to be content with the term progressive. By the Way W. Otis, America wasn’t built by the independant spirit or whatever passe romantic notion you deem a good rightist soundbite. America was built on the backs of hordes of cheap laborers who got little for what they did. Just remember this!!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Nov 14, 2006 at 1:56 AM As much as I would like to see Bush and gang locked in solitary confinement, I think it perhaps is not the way to go. Yes, you’ve heard this before. All I can offer is that the American middle probably wants changes and fixes for todays problems rather than dredge up the crimes. If progressives want the middle to swing left, the middle needs to be brought along, not quickly dragged into progressiveness.
We have the problem that impeaching Bush makes Cheney president. So Cheney would have to be impeached as well. But they could manuever with timed resignations and VP nominations that might actually bring to power an unknown at this time Republican that also could be an unwanted president. With less than two years until the 2008 election and essentially less time than that as the election campaign season begins in about a year, boxing in Bush might actually be the better strategy. Keeping him and Cheney in power (with determined Congressional oversight) and with the impeachment threat in the backpocket, I’m betting the veto might not ever be seen as Democrats (including progressives) pass legislation. The threat of impeachment is probably better than impeachment.
Posted by Jon B on Nov 16, 2006 at 1:16 PM Unfortunately, Jon B gives us no clue as to how the middle is to be enticed towards progressiveness. OTOH, half the polled population favors impeachment, so there is definitely a constituency there, especially if the leadup to impeachment involves a process of getting out the truth that you and I may know, but most of the population does not. Proceding towards impeachment - not ruling it “off the table” in advance - is currently the way open to us to do so.
This is all the more true now that it is clear that the entire political establishment - Republicans, Democrats, corporate media - have quickly moved to form a united front opposing the clear will of the American people expressed in the elections that the U.S. exit Iraq as soon as possible. This is really the most important reason for impeachment: it is the only way to exit Iraq soon before the end of Bushs’ term.
Impeachment then becomes a moral issue: To fail to press for impeachment means acquiesing in 2, 3 more years of a continuing bloodbath. It means one becomes complicit in prolonging the agony of Iraq.
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 22, 2006 at 7:09 PM BTW, I hardly think all, or even most, progressives are socialists.
Posted by Radical Left on Nov 22, 2006 at 7:10 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Nick Burt and Joel Bleifuss
- Progressive Caucus Rising
This election was no victory for centrists
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
