If the disappointment about Obama and FISA is so obvious here, think about what it's like in the blogosphere that was generally pro-CLinton. Better yet, have a look. It's UGLY.

I never had any blinded-by-the-light moments either getting on or off the Obama Express. He has never been more than my preferred candidate. So I don't particularly feel betrayed. But I am very unhappy.

The reason for Obama’s position is clear: It’s an election year and he wants to win.

Lets assume he did what us progressives wanted and stayed pure and true to the cause. Meaning, he tries to strip out immunity, loses, and then votes against the bill based on that. Even with his vote against the bill passes and the president signs it into law

Now let’s look at what’s already going to happen: he will try to strip out immunity, he will lose, and then vote for the bill with his objections notwithstanding. the bill passes and the president signs it into law.

Either way this is going to become law. Obama can’t change that. So he is making this move to inoculate himself against election year attacks. The whole “he’s a secret Muslim” whisper campaign will only be fed with a “see, he voted to weaken our abilities to fight terrorists, I bet everyone in Iran are dancing in the streets!’ And you KNOW that attack would happen. So yes, he is going to vote for it because, at least in my opinion, to inoculate himself from those attacks.

You guys in the ivory blogging tower can afford to remain ideologically pure of heart, and that’s great. But I’d rather not spend the next 4 years bitching about President McCain ebcause my candidate refused to amke plitically smart election year decisions. I want to win. It’s one thing if Obama was the deciding vote. He isn’t. This will pass no matter what, and the leadership needs to be taken to task for caving. But Obama has to worry about the election. SO I for one don’t hold this against him one iota.

Harry Reid isn't fussed about FISA, but golly gee, he thinks senators do need to make full disclosure of their home loans.

Pathetic.

And the Obama justifications begin...

You're right, Eddie--the rage should not be directed against Obama, but against the whole Democratic Party, especially the leadership. Caving in on FISA and the war funding--giving Bush MORE than he requested--shows that the change everyone voted for in 2006 is still a long way off. And I believe that it's thinking like yours--voting for the lesser of two evils, the politics of compromise and moving to the center--that got us to this place.

Thanks, Pat. But...

Re: "...vicious Neo-Con and Corporatist Thugs, and the quivering Thug appeasers that style themselves as the Democratic Leadership."

Here's a question I've been wanting to ask you Dems for a long time: Why is it that DP politicians are believed to be "weak and quivering", while RP politicians are assumed to be "strong and thuggish"?

DP presidents have been just as willing as RP presidents to enter into wars of choice and to attack defenseless nations militarily, economically and politically during my lifetime (I hope I don't have to list the examples for historically challenged BO posters).

Calling Dem non-representatives weak gives them an out: if only we can support the poor dears so they can get some backbone, the story line goes, then they will act on their real values and save us from the ugly, vicious Republicans.

Well, I don't buy it.

When I spoke to Nader last month, he also was talking about "spineless" Dems, and I asked him, "Aren't they not spineless, but rather complicit?"

His answer: "Pick your poison."

It's always interesting to see a secret Republican operative invade Blue Oregon's turf.

Because that's what Pat Ryan appears to be.

Obama Left-wing purity = John McCain as President of the U.S.

The last time that logic was used by Ryan's ilk (2000), we ended up with "Tweedledum" George W. Bush as President instead of "Tweedledee" Al Gore. Great track record there, Pat.

As for the actual issue, I personally think we can have a FISA bill that meets our security and freedom needs without opening up the courts to a lot of tort and civil rights lawyers salivating over contingency fees shimmering in the sky like golden rainbows.

How many people here agreed with every single policy action of Pres. Clinton? (Welfare reform, telecom bill, etc.)

If you disagreed, would you have preferred he lost in 1992 to GHW Bush?

Some people here have not always been impressed with Wyden's voting record. Would a Republican in that seat have been better?

Disagree on issues, but eyes on the prize, folks. Much as I admired certain things done by Gerald Ford of my native Michigan, I'm glad Jimmy Carter was president in the late 1970s. For one thing, that gave many people the opportunity to work in the White House or federal agencies.

Jump on me if you wish and say I should be a purist. But I think one issue is not enough to derail my support for John McCain's opponent.

Our household has put over $2,500 into the Obama campaign so far and we'd planned to match that in the general. I doubt that we will now. There's no question of who we'll vote for but this change on Obama's part is such pure political pandering that it will add to an "I was against it before I was for it" onslaught from the Republicans and it will have merit.

When Senators like Leahy, Biden, Dodd, and Feingold are providing him cover, for Obama to buckle on this is inexcusable- not necessarily unforgivable- but inexcusable.

If Bush were so determined to offer immunity to the telecom giants, he had only to promise them a blanket pardon on his way out the White House door. Obama should have made at least an effort to force that hand.

"Disappointed" is an understatement of what I'm feeling right now.

Re: "I think if he took a prominent role rallying support against abuse of the constitution it would strengthen, not weaken him."

One thing I would never say about Obama is that he is stupid. Isn't it obvious that your statement is true, i.e., that playing a progressive role would strengthen him in the eyes of the public?

So, if he gains nothing politically from it, why do you think he is supporting the Bush doctrine?

Apparently, Even Barack Obama Thinks You're Stupid:

"I'm not sure which frightens me more, the thought that the people leading my nation could be so damn gullible, or the thought that they aren't -- but they're counting on us to be."

As Kershner likes to bring up Ralph Nader, got a question: are you implicitly flogging a Nader cult of personality? Is Nader himself flogging a cult of personality? Because despite all the intelligent things he has had to say over the years, I'll be damned if I've ever seen him to show the least interest in either governance or party building. His runs for president seem to be all about him, quite frankly: he climbs onto the national stage for awhile and then climbs down again, and seems not to care about what happens in between times.

Furthermore, the idea that Obama's position is the slightest bit politically necessary is absurd. There is no popular clamor for FISA, and Republican attempts to use it against Democrats so far have failed miserably

I couldn't agree more. Which speaks to the ugly possibility that we're all sort of dancing around: What if Obama actually doesn't think telecom immunity is so bad? It already seems obvious that he doesn't think warrantless wiretapping is so bad. On telecom immunity, he's giving a head nod to the left while making it clear to everyone else that it's not an issue he's going to fall on his sword for.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Obama is no raging liberal. While many of his supporters seemed drawn to him as the great liberal hope, others were instead drawn to his ability to speak to progressive values while avoiding liberal excesses. It's his lack of experience that allows each of us to paint the picture we want on the blank Obama canvass.

On the general issue of domestic spying, he favors it. So do most Democrats and all Republicans. On the smaller, less important issue of telecom immunity, he's sort of against it, but not enough to spend political capital on it. So let's just admit that, and realize that NOTHING will change until we convince the American people that they shouldn't trade their rights for increased security. But I'm not holding my breath that the citizenry will sign up for that radical notion anytime soon.

I almost didn't read your post because of the title but am glad now that I did. I have e-mailed both Obama and the DNC and warned that if the Senate Democrats don't get this abortion tabled again until after the election, I will stop donating and redirect my money back to the ACLU because they have been more effective in challenging the Bush assaults on the Constitution than the Democrats. I will still vote for Obama and agree with the person who wrote above that this should not all fall on his shoulders. Reid and Pelosi should have kept it from coming up in the first place, and although Obama is the presumed nominee, I don't think he has the power to imprint himself on the party until he is actually nominated. Then he'd better show them who is boss.

This ain't rocket science.

Move to strip the immunity provisions from the bill.

If that fails, vote against it on the floor.

I really don't see a huge political risk in taking a stand against corporate crime.

And I really can't believe the Democrats can't figure out how to make political hay out of Bush's threat to veto something he claims is critical to national security. This also should be a no-brainer: strip telecom immunity from the FISA bill, send him the rest of it, and if he vetoes it, attack him for playing politics with national security.

That way, if some middle eastern guy shoots up East Podunkia and Republicans start blathering of how we could have stopped if only there was more wiretapping, Democrats can point out the way Bush vetoed the last FISA bill, and how he's not serious about protecting us from terrorism yada yada yada.

I completely understand your sentiments, Mr. Ryan. I've been screaming at my walls for the last couple of days, too.....

What makes this even more depressing is that Obama is, reputedly, a constitutional scholar, so it defies belief that he is ignorant about the underlying issues that are involved.

From the accounts of it I've read (sorry, don't know how to do that link thing), this whole thing was undertaken by underlings on the relevant committees, and completely bypassed the heads of said committees, which in and of itself makes it seem extremely fishy. My impulse is to hold Pelosi and Reid primarily responsible for this to come back up, because they have (or should have) direct power to keep it off the floor. That they have not exercised it suggests that their leadership positions should be challenged when such things come up to their internal votes. They seemingly believe that their job is to pretend to compromise, but to actually capitulate to much of what the opposition wants. We should expect more than that.

Regarding Obama, Douglas K's solution sounds quite attractive to me. Long-term, Obama and the Democrats will probably have the presidency, and hopefully a 60-plus-seat majority in the Senate, to push back on this and all the rest of the last administration's criminality. If they choose to sweep it under the rug, or if they alternatively make clear that they are not interested in taking such action in the campaign before November, it's hard not to conclude that Nader was right when he advised whoever asked him to "pick their poison."

Let's be honest. Obama is NOT the reincarnation of RFK. This became abundantly clear to me when he didn't even bother to show up at the Scalia confirmation hearings. This would have been an ideal opportunity to demonstrate some real leadership, and use his golden oratorical skills for more than just posturing. Still, he is the only chance we have for affecting some real change, and I am hoping for the best. Still, my friend Pat has every reason in the world to be disillusioned.

Take it from a 61 year old----Bobby Kennedy was a lot more complex than the RFK legend. He waited until Eugene McCarthy showed LBJ could be seriously challenged before running for President. The famous speeches where he talked about poverty and when he announced the death of MLK to that crowd in Indianapolis were inspiring because they were brave but also because they were not in tune with his reputation.

He worked for an Internal Security agency in the 1950s which investigated suspected Soviet spies. He once worked for Joe McCarthy, and he appears to have signed off on the wiretapping of MLK because they thought some of his friends were subversive.

So, be disappointed with Obama because he doesn't live up to what you expected. But like Bobby Kennedy, Obama is a "street fighter". Obama is someone who came from Chicago politics. This sounds like someone who chooses his battles--often a successful strategy in the long run.

And no, I don't think this is like Merkley and the 2003 resolution. No matter how many times someone says that, I think Novick would have been wiser to spend the energy he spent on that issue on something more recent--veterans issues, poverty concerns, something like that.

(I also think Novick would have had a better chance of carrying more than 3 counties had he put that excellent poverty video on the front page of his site rather than "flammable pants"---the poverty video sounded like RFK, the "flammable pants" video sounded like a juvenile taunt. If not voting for someone proud of a juvenile taunt makes me too centrist, I'd consider that a compliment.)

Well, Pat is nice to see someone old enough to remember the Mob and the 4th. I admit I read the gnashing of teeth and wonder, "Where have you been?" I'd like someone to point out the difference in rationale between this mess and the 2nd's problems. Maybe also the correlation between the loudest protestors and depredations on the 2nd which lacks weasel words like "unreasonable."

Sure, I'm unhappy, have been for some time. I'll wait to see what Obama and the Senate actually do.

Pat - you're point is right on about a real crisis of character in our Democratic Party that too many who call themselves Democrats share. (On balance, BO is a comprehensive example of that absence of integrity.)

Contrary to UPO's juvenile "purity" rant, Kevin's utter inability to grasp the point, and Maurer's "Blue Dog" hoax launched by the right wing press after the 2006 Republican collapse, what's really happening is even more disturbing:

For 8 years, a segment of incompetent and morally corrupt Democrats have happily played ball with Republicans and participating in attacks on our civil liberties, condoning torture, abetting predation on working people and our economy by business interests, and just generally accepting the utter criminality of the administration. Roberts and Scalia are on SCOTUS because Democrats like Wyden voted to put one or both of them there rather than filibuster like Republicans have done since 2008, not because they were nominated.

The real difference between Republicans and the kind of hypocritical Democrats that Merkley enthusiastically embraces as the kind of Democrat he has always been in Oregon and wants to be in DC, is that Merkley's kind of Democrats got elected by telling the big lie about how they stand against what Republicans have done to the country.

This has nothing to do with partisanism. This is simply about good old-fashioned lying by American politicians. The outrage is that it is politicians who opportunistically put a "D" after their name lying that they stand for genuine Democratic values to get elected because that is what the electorate wanted in 2006 and wants even more in 2008.

Clarification:

because that (genuine Democratic values) is what the electorate wanted in 2006 and wants even more in 2008.

Oh, give the poor guy - strike poor guy - Obama a break. He is just trying to buy the Presidency like some hard core political lefties say big tobacco bought the election opposing a tax increase on cigarettes right here in Oregon. Blumenauer supports the guy because he sees dollar signs with more money extorted from taxpayers to subsidize his special legislative interests such as for the leechlike bicycling community and those creepy crawler money sucking juice mobiles on flanged wheels called streetcars. However, if Obama is elected and pledging to eliminate earmarks from congress, Blumenauer will have to do his share of sucking up too.

It's about the substance of Merkley's and Obama's decisionmaking.

Yes, because the substance and decision making (that's really supposed to be 2 words)of John McCain and Gordon Smith is so much better. Please continue to trash our candidates for President and Senate. Me and my future really appreciate it.

I am constantly amazed at some people's continued inability to see political reality. They think compromise can't ever happen and putting something to bed that has no chance of happening is the end all and be all of a politician. Reality is we live in a Democratic leaning 51%-49% America. I may be convinced something is different after the next election but until the gerrymandering that was committed under the Republican Congress I'm still thinking Dems have to win in overwhelming majorities to get around the built in home court advantage the Republicans have.

Go write a blog about something that matters...like a scumbag Republican and do something helpful rather than just tear down the best candidate we've had for President in my lifetime.

Did I miss the post about Obama selling out to to AIPAC? The post-primary move to the center[sic] is accelerating. It will not be long before "hope" is but a glimmer and "change" is nothing but a less steep descent into hell.

Such is US politics, where every good idea gives way to triangulation; where no authoritarian bully, fearful xenophobe, warmongering pseudo-patriot, or classist bigot is denied reason to vote Democratic. The real meaning of "coming together" is revealed: kowtow to the fearful, the venal, the ignorant; excuse the crimes of the powerful while criminalizing the exercise of basic rights.

Listen to the sheep, whatever the outrage, "the other guy's worse, the other guy's worse, bah, bah!"

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson

I'm going to wait to see what Barack Obama does when this bill comes up again in the Senate. Not expecting miracles, but I can fantasize about filibusters.

"Words fail me, Stephanie."

Words aren't the only thing that have failed you, Steven. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

"As you know, I always thought R.2 was a weak issue for Steve."

Well, you can expect HR2 to re-emerge as Smith uses it to blunt Merkley's arttacks on his war positions. He'll also use it to paint Merkley as a flip-flopper ala John kerry

(ie) Merkley voted for the war before he came out against it.

To remind all. I've consistently opposed impeachment as a useless and thoroughly debased tool, much to the chagrin of my allies on the left. This is a whole different tool in my mind.

Don't get me started, Pat.

darrelplant said, "Except even the center doesn't support telecom immunity."

Darrel, most of the posters to BO believe the "center" refers to the midpoint between DP right-wingers and RP right-wingers, and not, as we do, to the majority of the public.

Your response to Joel's Rovian talking points about Nader was dead on. Unlike most Obama supporters, I don't support Nader for his personality, but rather for his stands on issues (Issues that Matter for 2008). If you right-wing Democrats don't like Nader's personality or what you see as his focus on his own personality (a red herring), then find some other progressive to support, but don't pretend that Obama is a progressive.

I support naschkatze's choice to redirect her support to the ACLU.

Douglas K.'s admonition, "...I really can't believe the Democrats can't figure out how to make political hay out of Bush's threat to veto something he claims is critical to national security" is also dead on. And aren't there only two possible reasons for their intransigence: (1.) they are VERY stupid (which I don't believe); or (2.) they are complicit?

wikiwiki said, "If they choose to sweep it under the rug, or if they alternatively make clear that they are not interested in taking such action in the campaign before November, it's hard not to conclude that Nader was right when he advised whoever asked him to 'pick their poison.'"

Dead on again. And one further point about Nader: he is the James Brown of politics, the hardest working politician you or I will ever know, and this recurrent meme that "he comes out of the woodwork every four years" like Dracula from a coffin is as stupid as the belief that the DP establishment is going to save us all.

I know it's a waste trying to talk any sense into you, but if Ralph Nader was as popular with the "majority of the public" as you pretend to yourself he is, don't you think he'd be a little bit more... popular?

I mean, can't you see the absurdity of calling just about everyone in the country "right wing"? I mean, man, those are some Bush-bubble-level perception filters you've got on there.

Folks, take a deep breath and think. Of course the public is against telcom immunity. People like law and order and they dislike special treatment for elites, especially elites that charge outrageous amounts for phone service.

It's not Blue Dogs standing in their way, it's lap dogs, that kind that take big campaign contributions from telcom corporations. Democrats yip just as loud as Republicans when after these bones, er, checks.

The American public has progressive values. Campaign contributors do not. Therein lies the rub.

When one finds oneself among people who consider it unrealistic purity to oppose granting immunity to businesses who routinely violate well-established constitutional rights, one might conclude that one is not among friends of civil liberties.

Steven Maurer's vivid imagination might best be put to writing scripts for bad television productions. It reminds me of facile inventions of right wingers about welfare moms in pink Cadillacs, labor leaders with fat cigars in one hand and blackjacks in the other, gay cartoon characters, and man-hating, baby-killing, lesbian, feminist witches.

Steven Maurer asked, "I mean, can't you see the absurdity of calling just about everyone in the country 'right wing'?"

It would have been absurd if I had said it. Your paranoid delusions can't be healthy for you. There is plenty for you to disagree with in what I actually say, because we disagree about almost everything.

What I have said consistently is similar to what darrelplant has said consistently, i.e., that most of the country is far to the left of both major parties, something with which many distinguished analysts agree (see Chomsky). This is the opposite of what you contend I said.

Mr. Kershner--I guess it's some sort of weird badge of honor to have you refer to my questions about Nader as "Rovian talking points." I'll be damned....

Per Nader, I actually voted for him in...well, I'd better not say when...twice actually, because I liked what he had to say and liked his speaking the truth to spineless Democrats (sound familiar?). But later I actually, sincerely came around to the opinion that, yes indeed, old Ralph was operating a sort of screwball cult of personality, and lots of Nader supporters are buying into it. Why? Because Ralph Nader doesn't give a rip about actual party building. He couldn't care less about actually winning elections. He couldn't care less about governance. He is the ultimate purity troll, to use the language of the blogosphere. He blips onto the national radar screen every 4 years, grouches around for the course of his "campaign" (an absurd description of what he actually does), and then goes back to doing his low-key good works. And they are good works. But there are lots of curmudgeons who do good works; Ralph Nader is just one more.

As for the original thread, I remain extremely disappointed about Obama's statement on FISA last Friday.

It turns out that Barack Obama and Ralph Nader both put their pants on one leg at a time.

darrelplant: I can't tell from this whether the ACLU's polling firm is doing a "selective reading", are ignoring "actual political behavior", or have a "fantastical picture of inexistent dynamics". But they definitely think that the public -- across the political spectrum -- is against telecom immunity.

A cogent and fact filled argument from you, darrel. Especially as I am a card carrying member of the ALCU, I think it's right for me to address it.

I think the ACLU's polling firm is making a mistake, but none of what you suggested. Rather, it's assuming that voters actually will stick to this view, or even have one at all.

One of the major problems with polling is that as soon as you ask someone's opinion, they feel compelled to actually have one. Americans trust their courts, largely, to deal with obscure domestic legal issues. They don't like political meddling. So if you ask "There's a court issue, should it be resolved in the courts or by Congress?", by default you'll get the right answer - even if the public doesn't really feel strongly about it one way or the other.

But what the ACLU did not poll for, which I suspect some other firm did, was whether this support would be the same in light of a terrorist attack, or even some 3-AM style attack ad that makes it seem like this law actually provides public safety. Again, I'm nearly certain this is what Democratic moderates are worried about, and given the publics' willingness to trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety, it is not an unreasonable fear.

What is it that we want Barack Obama to do at the Senate debate on FISA? Probably a lot of different answers out there, but here's what I would tell him:

Senator, stand up on the floor of the Senate and remind the American people of those words from Benjamin Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

and these words from Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

and

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."

Senator, you've spoken about the need to form a more perfect Union. That's what you need to talk about on the floor of the Senate, not just on the stump.

Steve Maurer wrote:

...most of our European allies have more progressive governments because their people are more progressive.

No, Steve, most of our European allies have more progressive governments because they do not allow purchase of candidates by well-funded interests. That, indeed, is not rocket science.

I am still totally perplexed why people care so much about telecom immunity, but not so much about the underlying bill that allows a secret court to authorize the wiretapping of American citizens. Here's what Obama said about the meat of the bill:

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.

Given Obama's view on this "important tool", who gives a rip about his view on telecom immunity? The parallel here would be if someone votes to support the war in Iraq, but they work really hard to make sure we can sue Halliburton.

Steven Maurer asked, "If most of the country is far to the left of both major parties, why are they... major parties?"

A fine question, Steven (I'm pretending that I think you meant it as a question instead of as a sarcastic remark).

The parties are appendages of institutional structures, including powerful business interests, the state power apparatus, and the public relations industry. There has been a lot written about this. Let the father of the "realists" answer your question:

"It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true." Henry Kissinger

darrelplant said, "Whoa, speak for youself, Harry. I don't think I've ever said that [that most of the country is to the left of the major parties]. I know my own politics are far to the left of virtually anyone I've ever met."

Sorry if I misrepresented your position, Darrel. I don't understand why you disagree, however. The people have always been more progressive than the party leadership.

Really? I am shocked at the naivete.

Barack Obama is a politician. He is a great politician, and he is the right person to lead our country out of the darkness of the Bush administration.

But he's a politician. He will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. Why does this disappoint you? If Senator McCain becomes the next president, we will have another four years of disastrous leadership. It could literally destroy this country.

If politics as usual will win this election, then Barack Obama had damn well better practice politics as usual. NOTHING matters more than winning. The stakes are too high.

The secret court has existed in one form or another since the late 1970s. That's what the FISA court is and has been for 30 years.

I know. And before this whole debate started, there were many of us who were troubled by the existence of a US secret court that issued secret warrants based only on evidence provided by the government, and whose decisions were unreviewable and unappealable.

When the public and press began focusing on FISA, I hoped it was an opportunity for Democrats to expose this flawed system and restore some checks and balances. Instead, Democrats immediately lined up in support of the secret court. From a political perspective, the Bush Administration's circumvention of the court was brilliant because it resulted in Democrats arguing IN FAVOR of the secret court. "Oh, if only the the Administration would use the secret, unaccountable FISA court, all would be well with the Constitution."

So I can't understand the current outrage over Obama weakening his already incredibly weak stance. The guy signed off on 90% of the problem, and now he's completing the capitulation.

What Tom C. says about the immunity creating some possibility of trials exposing more about the scale and details of the violations matters in part because that information could become crucial in campaigning to change the FISA law to restore the Fourth Amendment.

In the abstract you're right that we should fight against telecom immunity. But as a practical matter, we've already lost the major battle. The above seems to me like an ex post facto justification for why we're making such a big deal over the scraps. Even without immunity, the best we can hope for is that the telecoms end up paying a large class action settlement. There won't be criminal trials of telecom execs, and there is zero chance of criminal trials over the Administration's use of warrantless wiretaps.

Steve Maurer wrote:

Further, even if we were all controlled operatives, you've yet to explain how any of this forces people to vote for parties far more conservative than what they want. Same thing goes for the media, which for some reason, the vast majority of the public thinks is "liberal".

Many large issues require a great deal of exposition and discussion to present a cogent argument. It's not something that can be done in a blog comment, so we get this back and forth chatter that goes nowhere. If someone wants to understand how US politics creates government that is not nearly as democratic as our system suggests, he can read Herman and Chomsky on the manipulation of public opinion; McChesney and Bagdikian on the failure of the media; Parenti and Palast on campaign finance; and Zinn and Vidal on US history.

Lowe's comments about parliamentary systems seem accurate to me; I was living in the UK during one of their election campaigns and it was primarily about party "manifestoes", to use their term, not about party leaders. And yes, as someone already noted, parliamentary systems have their own issues with corrupt campaign financing practices. "Clean money" exists only in the imagination, especially in the Portland imagination.

Kershner's comments about large American political parties being tied to large institutions, economic and otherwise, seems fine, but his reasoning tends to drift from there. What especially bothers me about the Kershnerite/Naderite approach, however, is that it denounces American politics as hopelessly venal and corrupt, and then...well, not much. Nader "campaigns" by refusing to campaign. It's not politics, it's the rejection of politics. I used to admire that approach, but no longer.

And our other small parties? I used to think the Libertarians were ideologically coherent, but in recent election cycles, they've nominated outsiders who managed to temporarily capture the party machinery. Similarly for the Greens.

Miles' comment deserves special praise. The "debate" about FISA starts, like most other debates in the U.S. political arena, from right-wing talking points, in this case from the assumption of the original legitimacy of the FISA court. So Obama's and the DP establishment's failed attempt to triangulate is especially egregious.

Tom C. is also right on the money (a Marxist slip?) in his response to Steven. Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent should be required reading for anyone who fails to understand how the major political parties manage to survive even though they fail to represent the majority.

Robert said, "He will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. Why does this disappoint you? ...NOTHING matters more than winning."

Either you're correct about the "naivete" of those of us coming from the progressive center, or you're just another cynic.

Chris: Thanks for the explanation.

re Joel's "What especially bothers me about the Kershnerite/Naderite approach, however, is that it denounces American politics as hopelessly venal and corrupt, and then...well, not much. Nader "campaigns" by refusing to campaign. It's not politics, it's the rejection of politics."

If Nader or I believed that American politics was "hopeless", we wouldn't participate. I know lots of people who are far to the left of me who completely reject electoral politics.

I am a centrist, and the issues I've debated here are centrist issues, so you need to ask yourself where that places you. Furthermore, you would understand that Nader has been campaigning if there weren't a virtual media blackout of it. You may have admired in the past the approach of "refusing to campaign", but Nader never has.

Steven Maurer wrote:

if conservatives manage to persuade a majority of voters to support their position or candidates, you believe this is not a "democratic" result.

Again, Steven, you like to imagine what others believe, how they think, and what "kind of people" they are; and, as usual, your fantasies are far from reality. I believe results are not democratic when democratic process is not operating effectively. I do not know if you failed to study democracy, or if you have forgotten what you studied, but real democracy requires much more than elections. If you read Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin on the subject, you will learn that democracy requires an educated electorate, one that has information, knows how to gain more information, and can process information in a reasonable fashion. You will learn that democracy requires a free and active news distribution system - the Fourth Estate. You will find democracy requires that private interests must be prevented from gaining undue influence over government, education, or public discussion.

If you spent some time studying the writers I list in the message above, you would find that modern America lacks the requirements of a properly functioning democracy. Perhaps you would realize you have been successfully propagandized into believing that those with more knowledge and insight than yourself are "unhinged cranks."

Chalupas!

Unlike most threads that die, this discussion has gotten really interesting. For once, though, I'm siding with Steven. The fact that America lacks some of the "requirements" of a properly functioning democracy (requirements that are certainly subject to significant debate) doesn't mean that the results it produces are necessarily undemocratic. They may be more likely to be so, but it's not a certainty. Indeed, I can envision certain policy examples where America would become more conservative if we adhered to every one of the requirements you list above. Having recently spent some time outside of Oregon, I'm reminded of just how unlike the rest of America we are.

Personally, I'm tired of the constant excuses from the left when we don't win. Sure, one possibility is that the media is conspiring with the corporatists and the military-industrial complex to smother the progressive masses through a sophisticated marketing barrage.

Another possibility is that our ideas just weren't as persuasive as our opponents. Hard to hear, but probably closer to the truth.

Miles does not believe the results of our elections are "necessarily undemocratic." If this means he does not think it is impossible for an election to reflect the will of the people, then I agree. If I believed US elections were totally without democracy, I would not be a Democratic activist, would not give money to candidates, would not have run for the legislature twice or been active in several ballot measure campaigns. Indeed, if there obviously were no democracy in election results, the natives, who are well-propagandized but not stupid, would rebel. Part of what makes the US political system work is that most citizens believe it is democratic.

Steven wants to know:

if "results are not democratic when democratic process is not operating effectively", what measure do you use to determine that, other than what you feel the natural result should be?

Well, Steven, the functioning of the system is gauged by understanding the principles of a properly functioning system, not by predetermining what the results should be. I talked about some of the those earlier - effective education, diverse and active press, no private concentrations of power that can direct public discourse. Add to these equal access to the ballot, election mechanics that guarantee one-person:one-vote, and equal opportunity to put ideas before the voters. I'll leave it up to readers to study the ways our system is lacking in these requirements of democracy.

Judgment can be based on how far from proper functioning the system is, what interest groups are able to capitalize on its imbalances, and how the results coincide with the interests of those groups.

Like baseball, we know how the game should be played. If the umpires do not apply the rules equally to both teams, the game is distorted. If the league allows some teams to carry 30 players on their roster and other teams only 15, the game is distorted. We don't need to know the final score in order to determine this, but if the team whose manager hands the plate umpire an envelope stuffed with money before the first pitch wins almost every time, we can make an informed guess about what is going on.

Regular person Steven would consider a purity troll:

Ethel Doris Rollins

Judgment can be based on how far from proper functioning the system is, what interest groups are able to capitalize on its imbalances, and how the results coincide with the interests of those groups.

Except, Tom, you're still assuming causality based only on correlation. Even if you can show that the system isn't functioning properly, how can you know what the "true" outcome would have otherwise been? Just because the outcome coincides with some of the interest groups that you loathe doesn't mean that's not where public opinion really is.

I think the system reflects the views of the majority over the long run. While it may be susceptible to short-term incongruities, the system becomes unstable if the decisions at the top are radically out of line with the views of the masses. And while you decry the influence of certain interest groups, you're also ignoring the counterbalancing impact that left-leaning special interets have.

For example, do you really think the majority of Americans would prioritize their rights over their personal safety? Absolutely not. This is an area where if our democracy was truly functioning as you suggest it should, the people would give away those rights in an instant in order to feel safe. It's precisely because our system is undemocratic -- it allows for a small minority of us ACLU types to use institutional tools to slow down the erosion of those rights -- that we still have the rights that we do.

So be careful what you wish for. You might find in your perfectly functioning democracy that most of the things you hold dear don't look anything like the things that your fellow Americans hold dear.

Miles wrote:

I think the system reflects the views of the majority over the long run.

Stalin could have made the same claim, Miles.

The reality is that there are many people working very hard and spending a lot of money to make sure the system is rigged.

If public schools were organized to be producers of good citizens as much as good workers, if media ownership rules did not allow a few corporations to control much of the public discussion much of the public is exposed to, if candidates who do not remain within the corporate consensus were not ignored and ridiculed, then public opinion would likely be a lot more progressive.

Your argument sounds a lot like that of global warming deniers who suggest nothing should be done because we cannot be completely sure that the results we see are caused by the problems under discussion. I believe the climate of the planet is important enough to act without mathematic-level proof of human-caused warming, and I believe democratic governance is important enough to act without mathematic-level proof that election results are effected by deliberate subversion of democratic institutions.

Again, explaining the totality of the system's distortion and why they promote the interests of warmongers, polluters, authoritarians, exploiters of workers, and other unsavory characters is not something I can do here. Read Herman, Chomsky, Zinn, Bagdikian, Vidal, Parenti, Palast etc. If you want a reading list, I'd be happy to put a short one together.

If you don't read and your republic be lost, Ain't nobody's fault but yours.

I have read many of the authors you cite. I just don't happen to agree with all of them. My biggest criticism is that many of their theories involve vast conspiracies -- conspiracies that make Oliver Stone's JFK assassination ideas look downright pedestrian. Truth is, conspiracies like that just don't happen very often, and when they do they never hold together for very long. There are far more parsimonious explanations for most of what is happening, but those explanations require some self-criticism that most on the left aren't willing to engage in.

Keep in mind, Tom, that I haven't ever suggested we shouldn't take action to improve our system. I suspect you and I would agree on many improvements. However, I'm suggesting that you might be surprised at the results of those improvements. I think you have a very optimistic view of the American people. I applaud that, but I don't share it. I think there are tens of millions of ignorant rubes out there who vote religiously (or even worse, vote their religion), and your call for purification of our democracy means that we reduce the influence of right-wing monied interests along with the influence of left-wing monied interests. On some issues the country would move a bit left, and on some issues the country would move a bit right. I certainly don't think we'd have the progressive revolution that you envision.

Miles,

I do not think we can predict how politics would change if the founding father's vision of a democratic society were actualized. We can document the expensive efforts of many interests to prevent that society. My guess is that money is not spent on whim, that it is meant a profit generating investment. We can document the huge concentrations of private power the founding fathers considered anathema.

Conspiracies, eh? That word that closed a million minds. Parenti does talk about them. This is some of what he says:

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

Chomsky, on the other hand, refuses to discuss anything that cannot be documented in the public record, likely because of the sort of dismissal you just made. You can read his work with no risk of being sullied by any conspiracy theorizing.

Many of you need to stop copping this elitist, self-congratulatory attitude toward "ordinary people". Most of the time it is the well-educated (by U.S. standards) social managers, e.g., many who post to BO, who are profoundly endoctrinated and confused about the true aims of our nation.

Most of my friends are working class people who know that the system is fixed in favor of rich business elites, and because of that, they don't even vote, which is an issue that hasn't been addressed by those of you who assume that your class makes better decisions than "today's American Citizen". It is you and the other 50% like you who make electoral decisions, including the choice of right-of-center candidates who don't represent the rest of us.

The 50% who don't vote at all in U.S. federal elections are demographically similar to European, left-of-center voters who belong to parties that more represent their interests. The people I know who don't vote want less militarism and more social programs, and well designed polls consistently show this. (Chris, you continue to mislead on the value of polling. Of course the way we phrase our questions can bias the outcomes, but we must try to make sense of them anyway. Social science is the tool that we have, so we must use it.)

Furthermore, the fear of democracy expressed by those of you who seem horrified at the prospect of ordinary people taking the reins of power ignores the reality of the multiple catastrophes that have been brought about by those elites who presently make policy.

As for Chomsky: he is in favor of democracy, a concept with which many who post to BO would do well to familiarize themselves, and he doesn't believe that he should tell anyone what she should do, but that doesn't mean that he has nothing to say about it. You folks who think he is "pessimistic" or "part of the problem" need to read some more.

"...there are very serious illusions that there are major efforts to instill. And I don't think they are very hard to dismantle. ...But for elites, they have to believe. They are the ones who are the managers and the directors, whether it's political or economic, or doctrinal managers in universities and media and so on. They got to believe. Otherwise they can't do the job. So they have to be profoundly indoctrinated. Furthermore, it is in their interest to be indoctrinated, they are the ones who gain from these activities." (On War and Activism)

Yes, Steven, I think that if you knew more about Granny D, you would certainly consider her a purity troll, as least as much as you do Harry Kershner or me.

Granny D on democracy

Our Constitution gives us our democratic republic, which has as its intention the fragmentation of power, keeping the exercise of force as close as possible to the human scale, and letting its power accumulate only where absolutely necessary for the common good of the people. The parchment document of the Constitution is not enough --we also require supportive institutions and sacred processes; we need these five things:

In many of these five areas, we are now in trouble. The stakes are very high, for the monster of force is never far from the door. It comes in quickly. If I told you that an unrepentant U.S. Navy seriously roughed up a Member of Congress because he was peacefully protesting, or that a building full of people who were making political puppets were summarily arrested and taken away, or that people walking calmly down the street near a political convention were arrested and brutalized for two weeks, what country would you think you were in? If I told you that I was arrested for calmly reciting the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Capitol building, and that I cried when the police tried to pull from my finger a wedding ring that had not been removed in sixty years, where would you think you were? All these things --and many more-- have happened under the American flag within the last twelve months.

The point being that you can trace historical and institutional developments that in some cases overtly and deliberately sought to restrict democracy and participation. . .

Chris, I have to admit to some confusion. Many of the developments that you cite -- such as the writings of the Project for a New American Century and Huntington, the creation of a network of conservative think tanks, and the pushback in the 1970s on the dominant liberal culture -- are legitimate activities in any democracy. There's nothing subversive about organizing around a political viewpoint and working to further it. The fact that the right is far more effective in doing this than the left is a testament to their strength, not a legitimate criticism.

There have been real historical attempts to subvert democracy, such as Hoover's FBI, COINTELPRO, and more recent attempts by the Bush Administration to bring politically motivated criminal charges against certain Democrats, but it's worth noting that each of these cases is really the result of a handful of government officials who, once in power, abused their authority. That's been going on since civilization formed, and I think it's of a different nature than the dark, sophisticated cabals that Tom seems to be positing.

The other argument against your view is more conditional. It's the kind of polling data that Harry Kershner often cites

But as you've pointed out, the day after you show me a poll that says 60% support single-payer health care, I can show you a poll that shows 65% oppose a government-run health system. I would also suggest that if you did a poll asking people to define single-payer health care, less than 30% of Americans could actually do it. So I don't put much faith in any of these numbers.

As to the larger issue, though, of whether the public debate is somehow tainted, it is. Specifically on health care, there is a general belief that single-payer is unworkable. But that belief didn't arise out of nothing. It wasn't created by shady characters in a boardroom, or by lazy editors in the newsroom. It is the result of years of analysis by health care experts on the right and the left. Since I think you have a background in health policy, you must know that the complexities of switching the US to such a system would tax the greatest minds of our generation. Single-payer is a perfect example of an idea that makes total sense in theory and yet cannot be accomplished in practice without incredible cost (both economic and social) to the country. It is politically unrealistic NOT because some media elites said it is, but because politically no one is willing to layoff hundreds of thousands of people in the insurance industry (mostly low-wage accountants, claims techs and reviewers), impose the taxes necessary to fund the system, and dramatically restrict the medical choices that the 82% of Americans with insurance currently have.

But there are also known (some open, some less so) organizations and institutions in which people with similar interests "conspire" (breathe together) -- organize, plan, coordinate, act. And a lot of them are stacked against democratic participation and full, open debate.

It seems as though both you and Tom are defining down "conspiracy" so that it basically includes any group of citizens who get together to talk about taking political action. That may be technically correct, but it makes the word pretty much worthless. Under that definition, most of us are guilty. The ACLU, which meets in secret to plot its legal strategy, is clearly guilty of conspiring to overturn the decisions of legitimately elected public officials. But christ, that's exactly why I give them money!

What Parenti is asserting is that there is a widespread, planned effort to subvert democracy in corporate boardrooms across America and at the highest levels of government. And that idea is patently absurd. The left uses such theories to explain away inconvenient truths that would otherwise force them to challenge their assumptions. For instance, how in the world could we have lost the 2004 election, given that the vast majority of Americans agree with our progressive viewpoint? It must be the result of the powerful subverting our democracy, because it couldn't possibly be that the vast progressive majority doesn't exist.

The damage this does to the progressive movement cannot be understated. We refuse to learn from our mistakes. We do not rethink and reframe our issues so that they are more palatable to the masses. We do not question our assumptions. And that is the main reason we keep losing.

Miles wrote:

What Parenti is asserting is that there is a widespread, planned effort to subvert democracy in corporate boardrooms across America and at the highest levels of government. And that idea is patently absurd.

Absurd? Miles, you either are not paying attention or wear an effective set of blinders. They do not need to issue memoranda on "Ending Democracy in America" to work to that end in the normal course of maximizing profits. Remember these fellows?:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country . . .Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices ofpeople until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
--Abraham Lincoln, 1864

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. -- Theodore Roosevelt, 19-Apr-06

Perhaps they were all nutty conspiracy theorists, eh?

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a huge arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, and even spiritual—is felt in every city, every state house, and every office of the federal government. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought orunsought, by the military-industrial complex. -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. --Former CIA Director William Colby

I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short,I was a racketeer for capitalism. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. --U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, in CommonSense, November 1935

Miles: Chris and you make a similar argument: Because polls that ask questions in different ways produce different outcomes, that must mean that polls are meaningless. That's not how social scientists look at it.

When analyzing poll data, the way questions are asked is an important determinant of how meaning is attributed to them. If we ask, for example, if people want "socialized medicine", we are obviously asking a question that the propaganda machine has prejudiced. So, if we want to know what kind of system people really want, we have to ask the question in a way that will allow them to give unprejudiced answers. How else will we know what people think if we don't seek some systematic way of measuring it?

The "general belief that single-payer is unworkable" is not the general belief of the rest of the industrialized world. And any single payer plan that's worth its salt has a mechanism to deal with the loss of jobs by those already in the industry. I'm not a policy wonk, so I don't have the details for you, but there is plenty written on the subject, including the valuable resources at PHNP.

59% of U.S. physicians disagree with you; the problem is political will, not the lack of a reasonable plan.

Steven: You need some reading lessons. I have disagreements with people like Miles or Chris, but they understand what I'm saying. You don't.

Tom C: I admire the historical breadth of your argument.

Not all conspiracy theories are looney. In fact, by the definition of paranoid delusion that I learned, the belief that there are no conspiracies is paranoid.

And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that there's no one out to get you.

What concerns me most is the effectiveness of the US corporate propaganda system at convincing us to ignore it. Miles is obviously an intelligent person who pays attention to current events, but he believes it is "absurd" to suggest that corporate officers and employees conspire to subvert democracy, even though several presidents - more than I quoted - have warned of that, many books have been written documenting such action and corporations behave in ways that suggest that such planning has gone on. And Miles is not atypical. As Harry mentioned, it is professional and managerial people who are most likely to accept corporate propaganda as truth, because to reject it makes doing their jobs problematic. Orwell understood this when he wrote 1984. The proles paid little attention to Big Brother, unlike party members who were expected to talk and act in accordance with the day's orthodoxy.

Those who take part in electoral politics are also more likely to buy in, simply because it is more difficult to motivate oneself to take part in a process one realizes is compromised - that the game is not played on a level field.

but he believes it is "absurd" to suggest that corporate officers and employees conspire to subvert democracy, even though several presidents - more than I quoted - have warned of that, many books have been written documenting such action and corporations behave in ways that suggest that such planning has gone on.

Maybe we need to better define "conspiracy to subvert democracy". What exactly are you referring to? The claims always seem to be amorphous. For instance, if you're referring to actions that a corporation takes to protect its interests, which may be different than the public interest, of course that happens. And I would argue that a corporate board of directors has the same right to petition the government as you or I do. Of course there are issues of access and it's appropriate to have safeguards in place that ensure a reasonably level playing field, and transparency in government is essential to ensure that we know who is petitioning the government and why. But there's nothing nefarious about such action by a corporation.

Instead, if you're referring to a Diebold-type conspiracy, where some on the left are convinced that a private corporation is colluding with Republican officials at the highest levels to purposefully design and implement a corrupt voting system that will ensure Republican dominance for a generation, then I have to say you're off your rocker. That's the stuff of fiction and movies, not reality.

I found the quotes you cited interesting, but also see them for what they are: populist calls for support from presidents with a political agenda. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but American presidents have been creating strawmen enemies designed to rally the public since, well, the late 1700s.

If such conspiracies to subvert democracy actually existed, they would involve thousands of people over the last 200 years. So how is it that in all that time, with all those people, no one has ever turned snitch? No one has ever had second thoughts, or infiltrated the conspiracy in order to expose it, or accidentally written down the famed "Memo to Subvert Democracy." Isn't it just a tad unrealistic to believe that the conspirators are flawless in their execution?

I think what you are actually referring to are the occasional bad actions of bad people. These happen, and we must remain vigilant against them. But you don't do progressives any favors by hyperbolizing those actions into something much larger than they really are.

In the legal sense, conspiracy is people planning together to break the law. Business and it's allies do that. They also plan and execute plans to undermine democracy and the Constitution in ways that are not illegal. This is often the case because these folks have such influence over the machinery of government that it is difficult to outlaw want they want to do.

I am concerned about the kinds of things that concerned Lincoln, the Roosevelt cousins and Eisenhower. I am concerned about the activities that CIA director Colby and General Butler admitted. Compared to the time of the founding of the republic, there are tremendous concentrations of private economic power and few mechanisms to prevent this power from being used to subvert democratic governance. This influence is so huge and so pervasive that it is difficult to perceive, especially when the "mainstream" media guard against such perception and ignore or deride anyone with the temerity to discuss the unmentionable.

As to single payer healthcare, you are claiming that the system itself is "unworkable." Clearly that is wrong.

With regard to this interesting tangent, I should have been more clear that I mean it's unworkable in America, for reasons of transition, cost, and culture.

Regarding transition, no country that I am aware of has implemented a single-payer type system after decades of an employer-based system. Those countries that have them generally started decades ago, when medical care was radically different than it is today. The US could have implemented single payer in the 1960s or maybe even the 1970s with some moderate but tolerable disruption. Today the disruption is too large. Which is not to say that we can't eventually get there. Health reform plans such as Wyden's and even Obama's build on the strengths of the existing system while moving us closer to single payer. If Wyden succeeds, I can see a time -- probably 30-50 years down the road -- where we could take the next and probably final step towards national health care. But not without a decades-long transition.

As for cost, one of the most compelling arguments for single-payer is that it will save hundreds of billions in administrative costs. What I think you're arguing above, however, is that in order to ease the transition we might look at whether we can shift the administrative costs from non-productive activity (claims review, coordination of benefits) to productive activity (disease management, prevention, health maintenance). While I applaud your creativity, you've also knocked one of the support pillars out from beneath single-payer. It will be very hard to radically reform the system if in the end it will cost even more.

But the most important barrier in my mind is culture. A dominant value in American culture (for better and worse) is individual freedom. You disagree that the current system gives individuals a great deal of choice, but don't explain why. I think the current system does give the insured more choice than their peers have in other industrialized countries. And that choice is a major driver of our health care costs. But it's also so deeply ingrained that I don't think most Americans will support a system that curtails it.

I'll make it personal because I think that's how people are going to judge health reform. My daughter has a rare genetic disorder. It's not serious now, and may never be, but has the potential to develop into something serious. It requires routine screening during childhood. In the US, the AAP recommends screening no less than every three months until age 8. Advocates suggest every 6 to 12 weeks. Our pediatrician has issued a standing order for the screening at our local hospital. We had one slightly abnormal test and she sent us back for an additional screening 4 weeks later. Our insurance covers all the tests.

In the UK, they pay for screenings for the same condition every 4 months until age 5. It's not clear if you can pay privately for more frequent screenings, but if so you definitely pay for them out of pocket, and there is the possibility that by doing so you'll have to pay for ALL future screenings yourself.

Clinically, the NHS isn't out of line. Evidence as to the efficacy of screening more often than every four months and after age 5 is mixed. The NHS decision weighs the societal cost of the additional screening against the societal benefit. But as a parent, I don't give a damn about any of that. I want to craft a screening plan for my daughter based on the advice of her doctors. And I want her screened until age 8, because I'm not willing to risk her life based on mixed data.

Under single payer, that freedom is greatly reduced and in some cases taken away. Why do Europeans and Canadians put up with it? Because it's part of their culture. Are they better off as a result? Probably on a societal level, yes. But we are culturally different, for better or for worse, and that can't be ignored when looking at health reform.

In the legal sense, conspiracy is people planning together to break the law. Business and it's allies do that. They also plan and execute plans to undermine democracy and the Constitution in ways that are not illegal.

I don't disagree with either of these comments. But I also don't see these types of conspiracies as being able to fundamentally change the direction of the country, which is (I think) how we orginally started. These are bad acts, and they have an impact. But in order to take the country in a direction that the majority does not approve of, such conspiracies would have to be 1,000 times larger and more complex. In the aggregate and over time, I think we get leadership that is roughly in line with public thinking, regardless of the countervailing forces at work.

An analysis by the far left USA Today (Web of board members ties together Corporate America) found a high degree of interlocking relationships among corporations. Major banks are at the center of many of the overlapping ties.

Highly interlocked corporations enforce ideological discipline in the corporate community. Also important are "campaign contributions", i.e., legalized bribery, and corporate trade associations and organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and the Business Roundtable, which constitute a policy-formation network at the national level.

To understand the system of anti-democratic control exercised by corporations and their political lackies requires the kind of normal skepticism and analytical skills that almost all people have.

The John Birch Society was an almost inevitable outgrowth of the mainstream [that is, government and big business] sponsored anti-communist paranoia following WWII. Propaganda does not affect everyone in the same way.

Not all right-wing fears are paranoid. Longstanding concerns with the power of the Federal Reserve are, from what I have gathered, quite well founded. The Federal Reserve is an extra-democratic government institution that has tremendous power over the direction of the US economy. It is, almost by definition, a tool of the ultra-wealthy elite. It is the creation of conspiracy, though much of it of the legal variety.

I should have written:

The Federal Reserve is an extra-democratic government-created and sanctioned institution....

Ooh, Tom, you make the Fed sound so nefarious! Yet it would come as a shock to my friend who took classes from Ben Bernanke at Princeton that her revered mentor, who encouraged her to pursue economics, is really a pawn of the ultra-wealthy elite in their plot to overthrow American democracy.

Miles: Taiwan's Single Payer System: A Phenomenal Success!

Competition in a publicly funded healthcare system

Comparing Health Care in the U.S. vs. Canada

A single-payer system can be formulated in a variety of ways. Your fear that your daughter's condition will not be adequately treated under such a system is understandable, but it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. Once we decide to embark on such an undertaking, we can tweak it to satisfy reasonable expectations.

Miles,

I doubt Bernanke could accurately be called a pawn. He's a rook, at the least. Here's something for your supposedly naive friend:

SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country

DIRTY SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE

Way back on 6/24, Tom C asked, "Did I miss the post about Obama selling out to to AIPAC? The post-primary move to the center[sic] is accelerating. It will not be long before "hope" is but a glimmer and "change" is nothing but a less steep descent into hell."

Phyllis Bennis (ON PALESTINE: CHANGING THE DISCOURSE) shows that the Obama sellout is far to the right of a newly forming international consensus:

"Certainly the usual triumphalism of the AIPAC conference, with its annual parade of politicians making obeisance to Israeli occupation and apartheid policies did not change. But the... media coverage...actually acknowledged and gave voice to the nakba as a legitimate component of the narrative...The shift in discourse is huge, reflecting the massive change in public discussion of this issue that has been underway for the past year or more...", a "change", unfortunately, which has been obstructed by Obama's right-wing campaign.

Palestine is one issues Democrats do want get into. Most progressive Democrats hold opinions in line with the international consensus - that Israel has legitimate security concerns, but that treating the Palestinians like animals while following a disingenuous line on negotiations is not an acceptable way to address those security concerns. US politics, on the other hand, is captive to a Likud orthodoxy that leads no where but diplomatic stalemate and inhumane occupation of Palestine.

The treatment of Jimmy Carter when when Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid was released and again when he met with Hamas shows just how out of balance US discussion of the issue is. Obama is playing it safe, moving from a position closer to the international consensus to one as hardline as Shrub and H. Clinton. Would Obama return to a more balanced view if elected, I cannot say. I certainly hope so. The living conditions of Palestinians are deplorable, and current US behavior is a necessary enabler of the Israeli policies creating those conditions.

The current focus of the single payer movement, HR 676, is premised on using the insurance plan offered to federal government employees as its basis.

Having been in FEHBP, it's a good insurance plan. Employees are subsidized and have a huge menu of choices, which contributes to the high satisfaction rate. The difficulties of opening FEHBP are: 1) negatively impacting the existing risk pool, raising overall premiums, and 2) figuring our where the subsidies are going to come from, since it's an unaffordable plan to pay for on your own. I'm sure HR 676 deals with all of this, but they're not small hurdles.

Such a plan also doesn't get you the administrative savings which are so essential to making single-payer financially viable. I just don't think you can keep the existing inefficiencies (which FEHBP has just like other insurance plans), add 47 million people, and call it good.

A universal, non-fragmented system that focused on prevention and early intervention would involve less use of expensive technologies that are among the great drivers of rising health-care costs.

All good things, but they're not going to result in lower costs. Popular rhetoric notwithstanding, preventive measures on a societal level improve life but usually increase costs. It's easy to point to the person in the late stages of a horrible disease and say "See, for $100 we could have tested him 5 years ago and prevented this." But for every disease you catch, you test thousands that turn up nothing. As this NEJM article points out: Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical.

With universal coverage, many more people will be getting the preventive tests and screenings that the rest of us take for granted. That will improve (and maybe save) their lives, but it will be more expensive, not less.

If we were to compare what would be covered regarding your daughter across a number of employer plans in Portland, there likely would be considerable variation

Absolutely. My point wasn't so much to talk about my own insurance coverage and compare it to single payer. It was to point out that even if I had bad coverage, I have the freedom to get my daughter the kind of treatment that I want her to have (although I might have to pay for it). In most government-run systems, you don't have that freedom, and for good reason. You cannot have a universal system where the wealthy can opt in and out whenever they want because it violates the core values of fairness and equity. Instead, they generally have rules that say if you opt out, you pay for all your treatment yourself. That kind of control is NECESSARY to make these systems work. I'm suggesting that Americans are culturally far less willing to accept such restrictions than Canadians, Brits, or Germans. Absent such restrictions, you won't end up with single-payer, you'll end up with a two or three-tiered system where the poorest and sickest are on the public system, and the healthier and wealthier are in their own risk pools.

Tom C said, "Obama is playing it safe, moving from a position closer to the international consensus [on Palestine] to one as hardline as Shrub and H. Clinton."

Like the debates on impeachment, FISA, Iraq occupation, health care, corporate welfare, etc., this presumes that the "safe" move is to the right of the majority. This makes no sense to me, so I don't buy it. The would-be-emperor is really wearing no clothes.

The American people want even-handedness, so what is required is for Obama to make a clear argument that supports the majority opinion. He should also argue that our current position endangers us all, since our enemies in the Middle East are using it to recruit terrorists. This is so obvious that it's hardly worth repeating.

I hope that you folks are following the Seymour Hersh revelations about DP complicity in war on Iran (Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran). It's getting more and more difficult for progressive Democrats to argue that there is a difference on foreign policy between the two hegemonist parties.

Harry,

If our electoral system were sane, I would agree with you. Americans support evenhandedness, if they are given good enough information to recognize it. On Palestine/Israel, they are not. What Americans hear from the corporate media and their elected officials is extremely distorted and framed in a way that defines Palestinians as terrorists and Israelis as victims, no matter how many of the former are killed by the latter. Then there is our wonderful campaign finance system, which allows well funded minorities with strong opinions to bribe candidates. And, do not forget the electoral college, which can make minority groups in swing states [like Florida] into king-makers.

That liberal paper of record, the New York Times, would crucify any presidential candidate with an evenhanded view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Tom - What you seem to be saying is that Obama can't possibly do the right thing, even though it is in our own security interests, because "a well-funded minority" (which controls the NYT and dominates elections in Florida) is bribing him.

Got any spare "change"?

Harry,

My desire would be for Obama to defy AIPAC and its toadies. Dennis Kucinich would have done so as nominee. Although I have never expected that kind of principled stand from Obama [or Clinton], Obama did make statements earlier in the campaign that hinted at a balanced view. It looks as though that was the primary campaign position, one taken to please the progressive base.

Of course, AIPAC's minions in the corporate media extend way beyond the NYT. Is there a daily editorial board, a news magazine beyond the lefty Nation, Z Mag, Progressive, In These Times, etc., or a TV network news department that strays from the US orthodoxy on Palestine?

That bulwark of propaganda leads me to understand Obama's reversal of direction on the Palestinian question, but I hardly approve of it.

Tom - "AIPAC's minions" are not the reason for U.S. imperialism, nor for the ideological discipline of the corporate media. You should re-read Manufacturing Consent.

Perhaps the greatest irony of Obama's pandering at the AIPAC convention is that it has lent credence to claims of Jewish domination, including among those I know on the Portland "left". (Last week, a woman who I had thought was an ally told me that Novick lost because of "Jewish money" - this is the kind of "analysis" you get when Democrats acquiesce to the Reich.)

People in your situation who didn't have the means wouldn't be able to pay for a child's treatment, something which in fact happens all the time in the U.S. system.

Of course. I'll be the first to argue the inequity of our current system. But recognizing the inequity is one thing, giving up your right to purchase the best health care for your child is another. Single-payer proposes that people like me give up certain benefits for the greater good. When you're talking about increasing my taxes, I'm on board. When you're talking about taking away my right to buy a gas-guzzler, I'm on board. When you're talking about taking away my right to dump waste in the rivers or chop down trees, I'm on board. But when you talk about decreasing the level of health care that my daughter receives, you've lost my support. And since I figure I'm to the left of about 75% of Americans, I'm suggesting that such a proposal is dead on arrival.

Perhaps we can craft a single-payer system that doesn't have such controls, but I'm skeptical. This is why I support "hybrid" plans that move us towards a more nationalized system while retaining many of the current features -- inefficient as they may be.

It's not always simple obstructionism to say something is politically unrealistic. It is often advice that is intended to avoid a prolonged battle that will almost certainly be lost. If you're crafting a reform proposal, you can either spend your limited time crafting the theoretically perfect plan that has little political support, or you can craft the 2nd or 3rd best option that has enough support to pass. Yes, it would be nice if the political landscape changed, but we've been waiting for that for a long time. Here we are, 15 years after Clinton's plan failed with little progress made. I prefer the less risky (and less effective) middle-of-the-road approach than spending another 15 years with nothing.

Merely asserting that "something is politically unrealistic" doesn't make it so. It would appear that there is a deep democracy deficit between what the people want and what the political managers are willing to give them.

from: Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do:

"In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that 'government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes.' And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should 'guarantee health insurance for all,' and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed 'fundamental changes' to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to 'completely rebuild' the system."

from: Herman; The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective:

"In the health insurance controversy of 1992-1993, the media's refusal to take the single-payer option seriously, despite apparent widespread public support and the effectiveness of the system in Canada, served well the interests of the insurance and medical service complex (Canham-Clyne 1994). The uncritical media reporting and commentary on the alleged urgency of fiscal restraint and a balanced budget in the years 1992-1996 fit well the business community's desire to reduce the social budget and weaken regulation. The applicability of the propaganda model in these and other cases, including the 'drug wars,' seems clear."

Harry's analysis of the healthcare debate is right on, I think. Intense propaganda is the reason for the dissonance in Americans' answers to polling on healthcare. Americans like single-payer, but not if it's socialized medicine.

Our "objective" mainstream media has no problem covering healthcare without noticing this inconsistency. This should not be surprising. They still talk about Saddam Hussein's ejection of UN weapon inspectors as pretext to the US invasion. The ejection, of course, was imaginary.

Miles wrote:

What Parenti is asserting is that there is a widespread, planned effort to subvert democracy in corporate boardrooms across America and at the highest levels of government. And that idea is patently absurd.

The late, great George Carlin disagreed.

Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

Obama's Rightward Lurch

"Progressives were all too eager to overlook the warning signs in Obama's brief career, his support for the Patriot Act, for nuclear power, his vote against limiting credit card interest to 30%, his calls for increased defense spending, and his equivocation on full withdrawal from Iraq. These decisions were mere matters of political expediency, we were assured, not to be taken seriously.

Yet how can political expediency explain Obama's retreat on NAFTA? Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are all in play - how many of those voters have been broken on the wheel of NAFTA? Those who contend that the real Obama will suddenly emerge after the election to overturn an imperial foreign policy and to bring justice to the home front, might be advised not to hold their breath."

An Opportunity to Open Presidential Debates

"The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates -- which was set up by former chairs of the major parties and their big-media allies to limit access to the most important forums for presidential nominees -- has made mockery of the democratic process. And some, admittedly very foolish people, have actually convinced themselves that one-on-one "debates" organized by party insiders to fit the schedules of friendly television networks are meaningful."