Letters to the Editor

• Independent voters and the Democratic Party

  [Read the article: Newt Gingrich, supreme fear-monger]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Other than voting how else do independents contribute to advancing a progressive agenda that stalls or defeats neo-fascism?

  It would be nice if the Democratic Party would advance one- which I believe has been one of Glenn Greenwald's most persistent points.

  When they do, they seem to attract a lot of supporters. When they promise and they don't deliver, that energy dissipates- and the public at large is left with the impression that 1) they don't really care that much, it's all simply lip service; and/or 2)they're ineffectual, disunited, and weak. The first point indicts their integrity. The second indicts their competence and calls into question their ability to wield governing powers.

  Additionally, the Democratic leadership has gotten into a very bad habit of thinking that they deserve at least partial credit simply for symbolic gestures on bread-and-butter issues, even when they fail. But when it comes to bread-and-butter issues- health care, foreclosures, bankruptcy- what matters most is results. Voters typically only notice which party is coming through for them on economic issues when they notice the results in their wallets and pocketbooks.

  Thus, the Democrats will become "the party of health care" when they actually get universal health care enacted, and not before. Why they don't unite behind single-payer health insurance, I can only guess. None of those guesses increases my respect or support for the Democratic Party. Single-payer is so obviously the least bureaucratic, least "big-government" option, and the easiest to explain to the public, that I find the pre-emptive dismissal of it by the Democratic leadership to be inexplicable. I guarantee, any other program that they propose will be so inherently double-jointedly complicated that it will be easy for the Republicans to hamstring them by picking at the complexities.

  I'm well aware that the principal objection to single-payer health care by the Democratic Party leadership and its spokespeople is that it's "politically unfeasible." In fact, as far as I can tell, that's the only reason ever provided by those who refuse to support it. To which I can only reply: bullshit. It's by far the easiest case to make to the American public. Confront the hysterical cries of "socialized medicine" head-on (because it isn't), and have done with it. The Democrats are deluding themselves if they think that the Republicans aren't going to demagogue the issue, no matter what. Single-payer is flat-out the easiest universal health care plan to defend without stuttering.

  Ironically, when it comes to the types of issues where symbolic gestures actually count the most- including those with no hope of practical success, like supporting impeachment for George Bush- the Democratic leadership shies away, because it's "too risky."

  By contrast, the Republicans pursued impeachment against Bill Clinton, even though they must have known it was foredoomed by the simple arithmetic of the Senate. They pursued it even though Bill Clinton maintained popularity ratings in the 60-70%+ range in the polls during the entire duration of the proceedings. (In fact, the Marc Rich pardon hurt Clinton's popularity rating much more than the Monica Lewinsky affair ever did. Permanently.)

  Yet at the end of it all, despite their failure to impeach Clinton or even to turn the public against him over Lewinskygate, the Republicans paid no price in the 2000 elections.

  Permalink Tuesday, June 17, 2008 06:12 AM

• that button...

  [Read the article: The new racist, anti-Obama fashion statement]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  is not important. No need to take the bait. Unpacked, the insinuations don't amount to all that much.

  (Unfortunately, I expect much worse.)

  If I see someone wearing one of those buttons, what I'm going to want is an explanation of its meaning. Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it. A house changes color, depending on the ethnicity of the occupant?

  Is there a joke there, somewhere?

  Okay, for the sake of argument: maybe it won't be the "White House" any more. If you insist on seeing it that way. Big deal. You got a problem with that? What's so great about a house being white?

  I can't contemplate these sorts of "color questions" without reflecting at the fact that, although the House in question does fit the color criteria closely enough to be rightly characterized as "white", the people commonly referred to as "white" do not.

  Not even the albinos.

  Seriously- haven't you ever browsed a paint selection?

  Permalink Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:50 PM

• that button, part II

  [Read the article: The new racist, anti-Obama fashion statement]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  If I see someone wearing that button: when I'm done with my other questions, if they tell me that the questions are sort of dumb, or something like that, here's another thing I'm going to ask:

  "How much did you pay for that?"

  Permalink Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:58 PM