Welcome to the Village


Mark of New Jersey

Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

6 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    There are two issues.

    1) Health Care Reform As Contained In The Senate Bill
    2) The Idea Of Health Care Reform

    Most “progressives” argue in favor of #2. I’m pretty sure that a majority of people (or voters, or however you want to shake it) are in favor of #2. I’m pretty sure that everybody who comments on this board (with, perhaps, the exception of a paleo or two and a well-intentioned crank or two, of course) would agree with #2.

    The problem comes when you then sit down and start dealing with #1.

    When I say we need more X or we need less Y, I’ll get any number of people to explain to me, slowly, that, no, we need *LESS* X and *MORE* Y. If I’m lucky, maybe one or two of them will shake the corpse of a child at me while they explain these things. Even this is fine, but when we get a bill between the House and Senate, X and Y are taken off the table and now the bill deals with P and Q.

    If one starts arguing about how P or Q are incidental to health care (let alone P *AND* Q), the responses come fast and furious about how I must not really be a supporter of #2 because I do not support the “Health Care Bill”. The Health Care Bill doesn’t address X! It doesn’t address Y! One wishes to shout “WE HAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT X AND Y!!! THE BILL DOESN’T DEAL WITH THEM!!!” but one knows that this will fall upon deaf ears because the people defending #1 argue as if they are defending #2 and thus people who oppose #1 are people who oppose #2.

    And we see this dynamic, this exact dynamic, here.

    The hard-core progressives were screaming about the corporate giveaways and whatnot while the more moderate progressives were explaining, slowly, about the need for #2.

    Maybe the moderates should shake the corpses harder.Report

  2. Avatar greginak says:

    Yes and everybody just complains and points out faults and criticizes to the point where everybody is upset and gives up. Which sounds like a great tactic to destroy something, pick and pick and pick until nothing is acceptable. Then say “oh well I guess the status quo is just fine (well its just fine for me)”. Then never offer a road to make things better, because, lord knows, somebody might complain and pick and complain and criticize without any realistic attempt to be constructive.

    Rinse and repeat.Report

  3. I read a little-consumed blog about US Food Policy. Today they had a great analyis:

    “Briefly, it is true the Massachusetts is about 80% liberal by national standards, and only about 20% conservative. That makes Massachusetts much more liberal than most states. But the liberals are deeply divided. One half has working class and pro-union roots in manufacturing, construction, and government service industries, which are all suffering painful economic stresses. The other half is connected to the large higher education, financial service, biomedical, and software industries.

    The Democratic candidate, Attorney General Martha Coakley, is a highly educated lawyer who failed to reach out well to liberals with working class roots, who are genuinely fearful about economic conditions.

    Republican candidate Scott Brown compiled a coalition of conservatives (perhaps 30% of all voters yesterday) and some portion under half of the liberals with working class roots (gaining Brown 15% of all voters yesterday). His last 6% of all voters liked his good looks and pickup truck.”