Single-payer advocate meets the progressive blogosphere

INT. OFFICE -- DAY

An OFFICIOUS GENTLEMAN sits at a desk and regards a VISITOR'S somewhat awkward entrance. An empty chair faces the desk.

VISITOR

Hello, is this the, uh... progressive blogosphere?

A-LIST BLOGGER

Oh, yes indeed! In fact, this is the A-list of the selfsame!

VISITOR

Ah, very good! Very good.

(sits)

I had some questions.

A-LIST BLOGGER

Have you donated to our campaign, Progressively Progressive Progressives for (mumbles)?

VISITOR

Sorry, I, uh... didn't quite catch that last part....

A-LIST BLOGGER

Oh, no bother. Forget I mentioned it. Now, with what may I help you?

VISTOR

Well, I'm interested in single-payer healthcare reform!

A-LIST BLOGGER

"Public option," wonderful, wonderful. Have you donated --

VISITOR

No, I said "single payer." Remember when the President and Congress said they'd have an open and transparent process that considered all options? Naturally, I assumed the progressive blogosphere...

A-LIST BLOGGER

(whistles an aimless, singsong tune)

VISITOR

Pardon?

A-LIST BLOGGER

Were you saying something? You wanted to donate, yes?

VISITOR

No, I don't want to donate, I wanted to ask about --

A-LIST BLOGGER

What? You don't donate to anything?

VISITOR

Oh, yes. To many lesser-known bloggers, some political campaigns, micro-lending, Habitat for --

A-LIST BLOGGER

Fine! Be that way. Stingy git!

VISITOR

Anyway, about that "public option"...

A-LIST BLOGGER

Yes!

VISITOR

How many people will have access to it?

(long, uncomfortable pause)

Hello?

(pause)

Look, I thought this was the progressive blogosphere!

A-LIST BLOGGER

Oh, quite right! Finest in the land! Uncontaminated by "single payer" talk, innit?

VISITOR

I thought this was where people came to discuss progressive issues.

A-LIST BLOGGER

Bloody purist!

VISITOR

Isn't this where liberals go to debate --

A-LIST BLOGGER

Oh, I'm sorry, you wanted a debate. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. Oh, no.

You see, I thought you wanted to donate! Are you sure you won't... a little?

VISITOR

So, can we have that debate now?

A-LIST BLOGGER

Sorry, too late. It's already been decided. "Public option," very good. Well done! That settles it.

VISITOR

When was it decided?

A-LIST BLOGGER

Just then. Good day!

VISITOR

Well, who decided it?

A-LIST BLOGGER

Oh, our best and brightest did. Our very best, I'll have you know. Nothing else was feasible, believe you me! 'Tis a fair blogosphere. Leave a donation, thank you!

VISITOR

(Gets up, pulls out a $5 bill and hands it over)

A-LIST BLOGGER

That's a good lad, be on your way.

VISITOR
(On the way out, turns toward the camera)

And to think, before netroots, I'd wouldn't have been able to make a difference. Thank you, progressive blogosphere!

A Star Chamber for "progressive" policy?

[Welcome Eschaton readers! An update for you appears below.]

(Originally posted in comments at Ian Welsh's blog)

"Follow the money" has proven a good way to solve a political mystery.

In our attention economy, we should (also) follow the meme.

How did "public option" become the One True Rallying Point for progressive elites? It's simply too vague -- and it quickly became too blatantly a bait-and-switch relative to Hacker's vaunted plan -- for even a moderately discerning person to think it had much merit.

Yet the top bloggers and biggest activist groups committed themselves to promoting and defending it -- simultaneously, wholeheartedly, and resolutely. They wouldn't answer the most obvious of questions (like how many people would have access to it, and what the yardsticks were for the oft-repeated notion that it should and would be "strong" and "robust"). Nor would they write about the most exciting progressive actions on health-care reform, like doctors, nurses, and everyday citizens getting themselves arrested to promote single-payer.

How does something like this happen?

The only theory that adds up (and for which I have received corroboration from sources I must keep anonymous) is that:

1. Insider listservs act as a Star Chamber for policy.

2. The dynamics are such that a small number of especially adamant, especially high-status bloggers can galvanize opinion -- which quickly solidifies into virtual commandments, after which dissent either inside or outside the group is, shall we say, frowned upon.

3. Some of the influential listservs include both top bloggers and administration staffers. Bloggers, especially ones who crave ongoing and expanded access to insider circles, have powerful incentives to support administration agendas (or to push back only ever-so-lightly). The footsie between them isn't incidental; it's now been systematized.

4. Top bloggers and activists who are more idealistic, who aren't so inclined to toe the line on administration policies, are thus indirectly co-opted because they are disinclined to question the vision and integrity of their peers, nor to recognize and drop a dime on the fundamentally non-transparent system they joined for reasons that may have been wholly altruistic.

If this is a wacky conspiracy theory, then can someone please explain how else it is that elite progressive opinion coalesces into such stultifying orthodoxies that inhibit real progressive reform?

If it's not, who will join me in saying "Mr. Bowers and Ms. Hamsher, tear down this Star Chamber!"?


UPDATE:

The blogosphere A-list has an undeniable gift for belittlement and marginalization. And referencing this post by way of a site that thinks calling people "bugf**ker" is the height of wit, now that's a touch o' class, for sure.

I wonder, is anyone else old enough to remember when the A-list had interests other than promoting and defending deeply compromised politics at all costs?

Remember these golden oldies: concern for transparency and understanding of the Overton Window?

Putting aside their own utterly wholesome and refreshingly transparent processes, one might wonder why A-listers didn't make a peep when the administration and Congress lied their asses off about having an open and transparent process that considered all health-care reform options.

Single-payer advocates had to get arrested to gain visibility for a health-care access approach proven the world over, not that you'd know about that from reading the top lefty blogs.

Well, it's not like there's a well-understood process by which pushing for the far-end of what you want moves the debate in your favor. Nope, pre-compromise is all that's on the table, and dignifying people who want truly substantive progressive reform is off the table.

Don't let the blog name (nor the content-free posts that may have brought you here) fool you.

I have no particular attachment to the "listserv" theory (though I have received corroboration from knowledgeable sources that it's a factor in manufacturing A-list wide consent).

If someone can otherwise explain how all the big blogs settled in unison on an obviously crap course for health-care reform, let's hear it.

Why they settled on that course is a somewhat different story, perhaps for another day.

Personality goes a long way

Ignorant Palin supporters, it appears, have been swept away by a cult of personality:



Thank goodness we've got both feet on the ground!

Come on in, the Kool-Aid's fine!

I don't get why BooMan seems disappointed in Obama so far.

Here in the 11th dimension, he's the greatest progressive evah! And just wait until his Afghanistan speech! I hear tell there's a 12 dimension where they've already heard it, and it's transcendently transcendent!

If rationalizations were ponies, Obama fans would ride

Let's keep killing and dying in Afghanistan not for a just cause. But just 'cause.

Lame and ass-kickin' together again for the first time!

Commenter Dandy at Susie Madrak's place:

I still believe that Obama—as fucked up as he is right now—will deliver in a second term when he will have paid off Wall Street. As a lame duck, with nothing to lose, he’ll kick ass for the progressive legacy he’d like to go out with. We have no choice but to believe that that will be the case.

In the 11th dimension, "lame duck" is a superpower! Who knew?

And again, "we have no choice," the way we like it!

You don't say!

Glenn:

If Obama ran a campaign which purposely elevated the hopes of so many people -- particularly younger and new voters -- while secretly harboring the knowledge that he did not feel at all bound by what he was promising, isn't that a fairly serious indictment of his character, as well as a dangerous game to play for the Democratic Party?

About policy objections that suddenly disappeared when it was Obama, not Bush, pursuing them, he adds:

One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain.

I don't know about that. I think only people of very low character doubt whether the opinion-leaders in the blogosphere reliably do the right thing.

Religious people are the best people

Tell me again why you gotta have faith?

The [Irish] government said the investigation "shows clearly that a systemic, calculated perversion of power and trust was visited on helpless and innocent children in the archdiocese."

Thanks

I'm thankful for our era of Change, and for a country so rich in irony.

In a few short months, the filibuster has changed from a Pillar of Our Democracy into something expendable, if not downright evil.

Each day is more historically historic than the last. Thank you, God, for blessing us Americans so!

Thought for the day

They say politicians make strange bedfellows, but why does it always have to be on the Republicans' bed?

To be fair, they've been shacking up together so long, it's hard to remember whose bed it is. But it's always on the far-right side of the room.

Why won't Dr. Dean stand with Dr. Dean?

Interesting.

But he's still pretending that "public option" actually means something, so pardon me if I remain skeptical that he's sworn off baiting and switching.

Q. Is there any evidence of prehistoric atheists?

A. There are no atheists in fossils.

Save our symbolism!

Mike Lux, in a post promisingly (ironically?) titled "Substance Over Symbolism," lists "policy over symbolism" among unpleasant compromises that might have to be swallowed so "this health care keeps moving forward":

It might involve re-naming the public option, concessions in other things, policy over symbolism, a new kind of stronger trigger, or all kinds of combinations of things- some pretty bad, some not as onerous.

Not only would good policy be an unhappy alternative to symbolism, this bill has become fully synonymous with health-care itself. Good to know.

It's best not to see how shit-sausage is made

From Arthur Silber's ultra-incomparable archives, I see that in 2007, Chris Bowers avowed that:

I want to be an active member of the small clique, coterie or circle that identified the possibility for massive change and precipitated its manifestation.

Ordinarily, the notion that our politics is foist upon us by "cliques, coteries, and circles" would be the stuff of conspiracy theorists (which, despite my blog name, just ain't my bag).

But when it's an express goal to operate that way, it's kinda hard not to notice. Like when you tell your friends the best way to make a million bucks is to start a religion... and then you start a religion.

On the other hand, top lefty bloggers are living saints who should never be questioned, even if their idea of "massive change" might bear a second-guess or two.

That is, they should never be questioned or else (my responses start here).

Besides, all's well that ends well.

(FDL link, h/t Lambert)

Meta-paranoia strikes deep

Stay classy, Sally!

Sarah Palin continues to be a concept by which we measure our personal loathsomeness, either by embracing her tired and terrible Reaganism, or — more popularly — utterly dehumanizing her in the name of our woman-hating, creative-class superiority:

Asketh Sally Quinn:

Did God plan for her to have a child with Down's Syndrome?

Should we be expecting Quinn to wax snarky about the Biden family's horrific car crash? Hey, he's hyper-religious, so why not mine that vein of comedy gold? His boss actually sent out brochures bragging that he was a "committed Christian" whom the Lord (presumably) "called to bring change," so why not score some cheap political points by dancing on their family tragedies? What could be the harm?

The thing is, Ms. Quinn — whose day job includes holding "a conversation on religion and politics" — doesn't ask this sort of question when bad things happen to whomever the Village considers "good people."

And, so long as she's saving her viciousness for our culturally correct human piñatas, we don't give a good goddamn. 'Cause we're the "good people," too!

What was the matter with the Democratic Party before the Age of Obama? Not enough bigots!

Peter Beinart explains that the Democrats jumped the shark when "they reluctantly chose racial and gender equality, and so the racists and the misogynists drifted away."

Thankfully, we've since come to our senses!

(via Reclusive Leftist)

Situation normal...

Reagan's 8th term (h/t, Dr. Sardonicus) proceeds apace:

President Barack Obama renewed some long-standing U.S. financial sanctions against Iran on Thursday, the White House said.

Obama notified Congress that, as expected, he was extending a set of existing U.S. measures against Tehran for another year, saying "our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal."

Like I said, the Democrats love the ladies!

Unless they're sluts like Carrie Prejean, of course.

Just so you know, this is how a vile Jezebel talks:

Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And, you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

And this is how a transformative hero talks:

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman [big applause], now for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union, now God's in the mix [applause].

Got it?

Why do we never get an answer, when we're knocking at the door?

Would someone who's not an official pariah at "public option" fanblogs see if you can get good answers to these questions?

Posted at Open Left, where our opinion-leaders on health-care "reform" surely have ready answers.

Four questions

1. Do you expect that this "public option" will be "strong" and "robust"?

2. How many people do you expect will have access to it?

3. Will it substantially "help keep insurance companies honest"?

4. Will it bring America anywhere in line with other countries on health-care costs?

I posted a version at Democratic Underground with two additional questions (which I'd left out of the Open Left version, in order to lessen the distraction of personal defensiveness):

The questions "public option" supporters won't answer:

. . .

5. Why didn't you complain about Obama and company's lies about conducting an open-and-transparent process that considered all options?

6. How did the wafty public option plan become the only plan that leading progressives would dignify? Which is it: are the big bloggers and activists playing too much footsie with Beltway insiders... or have they simply become Beltway insiders themselves?

Did I really?

Got this in a form e-mail from Chris Bowers:

Six months ago, Open Left held a fundraiser to keep us from shutting down operations. Because of your incredible support at that time, we were not only able to keep going, but to expand our capabilities and make a real impact on the legislative process.

Did I actually pay to be personally slandered, abused, and marginalized... and for health-care deform to be shoved down everyone's throats, including mine?

Well, that hangs it! Now everybody — including me — hates me.

Sometimes it's just too easy

Chris Bowers:

"If GOP wins 3 Senate seats, and Dems don't destroy filibuster, then Dems can't govern after 2010"

If the Democrats win 40 seats, they can't govern, either.

Unless by "govern" you mean lending ever more status to the status quo.

Dem or Die!

Nobody, but nobody, can outdo Mike Lux when it comes to well-meaning sounding "progressive" authoritarianism:

[T]he bottom line, friends, is that everything you do to depress Democratic voter turnout in your district is another nail in your coffin.

The man is a master!

Who the fuck does Dennis Kucinich think he is?

For months, Democrats have sold their souls and left their brains at the door to protect Obama, Daschle, Baucus and company from being scrutinized for outright lying about a health-reform process that would be "open and transparent" and which would "consider all options."

The administration made a secret deal with Big Pharma, and all the big bloggers and groups like MoveOn served zillions of gallons of STFU to anyone who questioned the wisdom of pre-compromising in favor of the wafty "public option" concept. And we proudly told anyone and everyone to stick it, if they dared ask how many people would actually have access to the vaunted public option.

Think about it: if declaring victory instead of achieving it weren't a goal worth having, would we have thrown women and their reproductive rights under the bus? Hell, no! Democrats love the ladies!

So, I must ask, where does Dennis Kucinich get the nerve to criticize this bill? And after we've all received dozens of e-mails from Barack Obama, Tim Kaine and company, announcing how historically historic it is and urging Democrats to send more money -- so in 2010 our powder can be kept more-historically dry than ever!

Shame on you, Mr. Kucinich, shame!

Doc, will I be able to play the violin? Yes? That's funny, I never could before!

Froomkin:

Any chance that the next time Obama does something bold, someone will have his back?

Was there a first time?

The audacity of symbolic violence against women

Not being bulimic, I don't plan to read David Plouffe's book.

I'm still reeling from being forced to watch most of the HBO documentary, "By the People: The Election of Barack Obama," last night — a backstage view of the greatestest, hopiest campaign ever. Ipecac: now in convenient video form!

Perhaps the most telling moment was Obama's supposedly conciliatory response to Hillary Clinton's concession. He framed it using the derisive "inevitability" meme. The man is pure class.

By passing on Plouffe's book, I'm depriving myself of inspiring glimpses into the campaign's mindset:

We had a mountain named Hillary Clinton in our path that we had to find some way to scale, get around, or blow a hole through.

This is what was so repugnant about the Clinton campaign and its tired and divisive politics. They failed to embrace uplifting goals like "blowing a whole through" your intra-party rival!

In the shiny new politics, one doesn't win the old-fashioned way, by outdebating one's opponent. Instead, it's about demeaning, dehumanizing, and destroying. Anything is fair game, except mentioning the month of "June," of course.

Now I get it: God sent Obama to destroy our civil liberties

Sting on Obama:

In many ways, he's sent from God.

Glenn Greenwald on Obama:

[H]e's now (a) seeking to immunize not only telecoms, but also Bush officials, from judicial review; (b) demanding that courts be barred from considering the legality of NSA surveillance programs under any circumstances; and (c) attempting to institutionalize the broadest claims of presidential immunity imaginable via radically broad secrecy claims.

Everything is for the best in this, the best of all possible administrations.