“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.” Frederick Douglass, 1857
This is a message to health care reform advocates who think the best way to get what we want is to “work with” Democrats who want to “work with” Republicans and come up with a “compromise solution” that gives everyone a little bit of what they want. Nonsense!
As Douglass also said, or should have said, power concedes nothing without a demand. It takes a fight, and there is no fight to be had if you don’t even know who your enemies are. (They are Democrats.)
Working with power to get things from the powerful is as useful as working with your bank to get your payment lowered. Unless you can somehow threaten them, hurt them in some manner, they yield nothing. The word that comes to mind concerning “working with” recalcitrant Democrats is “losing”.
With that in mind, Obama has suggested that MoveOn and others who have been running ads against Mary Landrieu in Louisiana stop doing so. That tells me something important: Those ads are hurting Landrieu, and should continue. Pain is good.
Too bad, however, that she just got reelected. Nonetheless, MoveOn should continue inflicting pain. If nothing else, hurting a “Frenemy“** is reward enough.
**I just learned this word today, and could not wait to use it.
Piece of Mindful 
>>>Working with power to get things from the powerful is as useful as working with your bank to get your payment lowered.<<<
This is off topic, sort of, but it's Friday and your comment above made me remember this:
Some forty years ago a bank where I had around $20,000 deposited charged me a $5.00 fee for "inactivity" (or some such thing). I went in and spoke to the manager and asked him to reverse the fee. He said he could not do that. I then filled out a withdrawal slip, went to the teller's window, and left with a cashier's check for the balance of my account, which I deposited in a Savings & Loan down the street. At home that night I received a phone call from the president of the bank where I withdrew my money. He said: "It seems as though we have damaged our relationship with you." I said: "No, you ended it. Goodbye."
LikeLike
A good Democrat would have conceded the fee and offered to increase the deposit to warrant off future fees.
LikeLike
So, the question seems to be, can Democrats reform from internal pressure, or can reform only come from a credible outside threat to their very existence? I think Nader answered that one more than once, in spades. Greens also represent, at least in the abstract, the same potential threat. “Too-big-to-fail” politics could be as vulnerable as AIG and BOA to insolvency,failure and extirpation. It’s time to test the waters.
LikeLike
Mark, I suggest to you, yet again, that you have crossed the line from the rational to blind bigotry. Republicans are the enemy. They have proven it time and time again. I can use that blanket brush in this way because their own actions have proven it. It doesn’t matter why they vote as a block, but they do, universally.
Democrats are not the enemy. Some Democrats are. I imagine it’s extra chafing to you that one of them happens to be your own senior Senator. But to claim that “Democrats are the enemy a) ignores the actual fight (which is taking place between Democrats and other Democrats), and b) is also just wildly and irresponsibly shooting into the dark with no regard for who gets hit.
There’s another cliche I’m certain that you’re aware of. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Let’s suppose, just for a second, that you succeed in your efforts to turn some Democratic leaners away from party politics. You often assume, as does ladybug, that these people will turn to an alternative that favors you. They often won’t (I would claim that they invariably won’t, but I don’t wish to overstate.) Who do you suppose will be the casualties in your campaign? Hopefully, Landrieu will be one. Baucus won’t. Lieberman wasn’t. No, the casualties will likely come from the friendlies. Sanders, Corzine, Boxer, Kucinich (though he’s actually pretty safe), Tester. It’s very easy for you to paint those persons as not being friendlies at all, but it won’t change the fact that you still won’t get what you want. You will simply have exchanged those who might work with you for those who will put a boot in your face.
And here’s the real kicker. Those who are not powerful will be convinced that it’s your fault, and that you do deserve a boot to the face (just as you are now convinced that others deserve that for supporting some Democrats.) No doubts, they (I) will be getting stomped as well, but they won’t blame those they knew to be enemies in the first place, Mark. They will be blaming you for handing the reigns of power to your ‘friends’.
I’m not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that you lay off Baucus, or Landrieu, or Raum. But your blackwash of Democrats is misguided, and often bigoted. I’m suggesting that you might want to rethink that a bit.
LikeLike
Let me summarize: You’re saying that not all Democrats are bad, only some, and that in attempting to get to some of them, we will hurt the good ones. You then listed five good ones.
That is the lamest argument I’ve ever heard from you. Why, pray tell, would anyone run a third party campaign against a good Democrat? And are you assuming that those of us who pay close attention to politics will not be able to distinguish between Baucus and Tester? (They are slowly blending – Tester is being assimilated – he’s been taken to that room that has writing all over the wall, but that’s another thread.)
You’re wrong. “Good” Democrats are a minority in the party. They are only there becuase they are given no other alternative. They are not threatened by any third party movement. It is only the right-of-center Democrats who need to be punished.
And don’t go off on who’s got the muscle to punish anyone. The energy for these things comes from the Democrats themselves. Gore could have cut Nader’s balls off by merely embracing a progressive issue or two. Health care is a critical issue for a majority of Americans – 72% want a meaningful public option. If the Democrats crap on them, as it appears they will, a movement will have formed. It will only need smart leaders.
LikeLike
Mark, that argument is lame. Too bad it isn’t mine. My entire argument was predicated on the simple fact that you are not trying to ‘get to’ some Democrats. You are attempting to get to ALL Democrats. At no point has your slogan been “Some Democrats are the enemy.” It is in your words, “Democrats are the enemy.” In such a free fire environment, you might get one or two of the bad ones, but you will definitely get some of the friendlies as well.
Upon rereading this post, you are more focused on the recalcitrant Democrats than you have been in the past. I admit to being rather gun shy of your previous commentary, and apologize, because this was probably not the appropriate post to level my complaint. But let’s at least be clear and accurate about what the complaint is.
LikeLike
You’re being obtuse. Of course I don’t mean all Democrats. That’s a mere rhetorical device, just like when they say “the White House today claimed …”, they don’t really mean the building is talking. Get real.
The question that you should be addressing is whether or not the whole party is useless because its leadership is corrupt. It seems that “good” Democrats are usually marginalized. Why does a worthless toady like Baucus end up in charge of finance?
LikeLike
Mark, I’m not being obtuse at all. I’m drawing off your own words. My entire comment was clearly to the point that you take your own ‘rhetorical device’ too seriously. Others will as well. Witness Big Swede. You have continued to castigate those who endorse ‘more and better Democrats’ even as you now claim that we are obtuse about your meaning, and actually agree with. You even point to leadership as party, undercutting the very point you make about it not being ‘all Democrats’, just the bad ones.
I’ve done my self-reflection, Mark. I’m simply suggesting that you undertake your own.
LikeLike
It’s just that as I debate with you, as the debate goes on, you tend to focus away from the point raised and engage in rhetorical obfuscation. I wasn’t unclear about my meaning, and you sized on my use of the phrase “Democrats are the problem” to mean that I’m saying “All Democrats are always a problem”. And you dwell on that. Enough!
LikeLike
Pedal to the metal, Mark.
Feet to the fire.
LikeLike
So, where is the outrage among “progressive” Democrats? What does the average Montanan know about Democrats for single-payer, or carbon tax, or wilderness, or living wage. No, they are “regroved” and offered leadership positions in exchange for silence on issues that should be receiving full-throated debate.
Proof? Democrats refuse to reform campaign laws and ballot-access laws because they despise challenges from the left far more than from neocons and wing-nuts on the right. Lefties expose the fraud for what it is, while Righties provide useful political cover as policies slide steadily to the (corporate) right — perfect triangulation.
LikeLike