So I see a lot of people on Twitter being dumb about this whole thing Jimmy Dore said.
AOC included.
Her responses are cringe as fuck, but that's because the whole premise of both sides of the argument is fucking stupid.
So the issue is:
"Progressives" should withhold their vote for Pelosi unless she brings a floor vote to the house.
Alright, what the ever living hell is that?
Sorry, Jimmy Dore is an idiot.
He could have easily made this a "Stop Pelosi" push, but instead he said they should "support Pelosi if she gets a vote on Medicare for All"?
This has half the people saying "Yes! Do this" and the other half saying "Uhh, that seems dumb?"
Possible fix? Just outright block Pelosi with no conditions.
Take the Medicare for All issue off the table and suddenly the "uhh, that seems dumb?" people warm to the idea.
After all, both positions fail to clearly state that Pelosi under any circumstance is unacceptable in that position.
I'm going to try and contact Cori Bush's staff and talk with them about this idea, I feel like she might bite. If anybody else is a constituent of a "progressive" rep, I suggest you do the same.
yeah a vote for M4A is useless since everyone knows it is going to fail. So you still won't know who will sincerely support it.
Someone suggested pushing Pelosi to replace Richard Neal as Ways and Means Committee Chair. Now that's much more aggressive, and Pelosi supposedly isn't happy with him.
Wait I thought the point of an M4A vote is to skewer the mealy mouthed fucks who say "well health care is a human right" and other specifically cultivated Bernie lines that don't necessarily mean anything. You can just say "well you voted against medicare for all" every 5 minutes at them in any primary debate etc. It's not supposed to pass.
Note though- I'm a bit out of the loop on the rest of this conversation right now
All the cosponsors can vote for it and it others will not. But we still wouldn't know if the cosponsors would actually vote for it if there is a sitation where there's a Senate and President ready to pass it.
You can just say “well you voted against medicare for all” every 5 minutes at them in any primary debate etc
What is that going to do against someone who is openly against M4A?
It won't do as much, it's meant for the first group.
But as the country leans harder and harder on M4A, it will be useful against people who lie later.
sure but that's hardly anything that is useful is the short term.
I don't usually watch Dore videos, so I could be wrong about this, but watching the ones related to this whole issue it seems like his idea is generally being misconstrued. It had two sides to it, primarily that:
-
Jimmy Dore already thinks that AOC and the other progressives are ideologically captured, that the Democratic Party is a pit, and he suggested the idea because he believed that they wouldn't do it and it would expose that they are unwilling to act. So on this level the utility was actually supposed to be disillusioning people with the celebrity of AOC and the progressives in the party.
-
He actually thinks you should push it to win, not to lose. He originally stated that the people who vote against it would be exposing themselves, ie the Democratic Party would let people know it doesn't want to pass a bill guaranteeing healthcare during a pandemic, but that doesn't seem like his focus. It looks like his primary rant is that you need to push it like you can win it, you need to want to win and believe you can win. Even if you know the odds are long, you need to stop believing in the procedural game and simply demand it in the most forceful and loud way that you can until it has to happen. He just had David Sirota on, and the thing he is criticizing his idea for is that he is saying it is the mentality of a technocrat. Basically, we need to get these correct people into the right positions (committees etc.) and then someday M4A will be granted to us. He is saying that that is the completely wrong framing, and it just apologizes for the technocratic proceduralism of electoral politics. He is accusing that entire framing of being an ideological pied piper right back into conceding all power to the party. He is saying people need to have the mentality that they demand things of politicians, no matter who is in power. Politicians as good individuals are not going to save you, rather the movement needs to force the hand of the state, it needs to be so overwhelming that politicians are afraid of turning against it.
I'm honestly not some kind of Dore fanboy, I really don't ever watch Dore, but as far as I can see he is being more radical than all the people accusing him of being an idiot. He is truly suggesting mass politics. He is saying that all the electoral proceduralism is a sham, that THAT is the real performance of politics, but what politics really is is the power that exposes what a sham all of that is. The state doesn't make reality, it conforms to it. The bourgeois state conforms to the needs of capitalism, and even in times of immense crisis it will conform to the needs of capitalism by attempting to tame insurrection, to the degree it is really threatening. It will never abolish itself of course, but he is basically saying that the mentality should be fuck caring about all of this esoteric bullshit no normal person knows or cares about, what you need to do is get people energized and demanding something, and to expect it and not take excuses. If that energy can really grow and be threatening, the state will suddenly contort itself to deliver the goods just to avoid being butchered by an angry mob who are starting to question whether it is useful to keep it around at all.
Yeah, my impression is that Dore is a big of an inconsistent thinker because he still has angry dum dum energy, and it seems like if this was the core of his ideology he would think the whole "people's party" thing is kind of unimportant. He is basically presenting the state as though it is the enemy, and that there is this concept of a movement or of "average people" so to speak (working people) who must demand things of the state, and the state will not want to give them because it is hostile. The state is assumed hostile, because it is filled with careerists and big money and all the rest, so what "politics" really is in this situation is the recognition that the state is hostile, and the recognition that it will try to weasel its way out of giving you what you want. He sees proceduralism as an ideological weapon, a way for the state and its representatives to tell you that the things you want can't happen because of opaque rules and games that you don't understand, but rest assured the professionals are figuring it out for you. Basically weaponizing complexity and bureaucracy to ideologically tame you and make you believe that things can't happen. So he is saying the political shift that he wants is for people to simply not accept any of that. Don't think like a state, think like a person being abused by a state. Demand that the state gives you what you want, demand that it makes it happen. Maintain that mentality, fully inhabit it, so that if the state comes back to you wringing its hands saying "ah, sorry, we couldn't do it because blah blah" the excuse is deeply unacceptable.
I was trying to phrase some of that in Dore-speak but I kind of meandered back into language he wasn't using. But I get what he is fundamentally saying and generally agree with it. He is vague about it, but that is because he is a dum dum guy. He is saying that the people who are currently the supposed mouthpieces (the left media and the politicians like AOC) need to do what Bernie was originally doing successfully and make uncompromising demands of the system, and they need to tell the people that listen to them to have that mindset. This mass politics needs to be deeply ingrained into the ideology of the people currently aligning themselves with what they believe to be "the movement", but instead Jimmy is accusing them of just thinking like states, just giving cover for the system, just ideologically taming people and giving them excuses for why professional technocrats need to be allowed to maneuver for them through mazes of proceduralism that they know nothing about. They're basically saying leave it up to the experts, you may have passion for the revolution but you don't understand how to do it. He is saying NO, you shouldn't accept that. You and all of your friends and everybody who agrees with you need to group up and find ways to make the simple demand, and you need to have the full confidence that it CAN get done, and that you will MAKE IT get done.
EDIT: I say the people's party seems like it would be unimportant to him because he genuinely sounded like an anarchist in that stream. Like, it doesn't really matter whose ass is in the seat, you shouldn't care. He was placing a lot of emphasis on the idea that politicians are all your enemies and they'll probably always be your enemies because power warps them into team players, so you need to make them bend to what you want and never think of a politician as your friend that you are making excuses for. They make excuses for themselves, you tell them (and presumably show them) that the excuses aren't acceptable.
I mean sure you can push it to win, but Democrats have a 4 person majority in the House. If merely 5 Democrats vote no it's not passing. There are way more than 5 Democrats who are convinced that Dems did badly down ballot because of socialism. There were like 5 Dems who voted against marijuana decriminalization a few weeks ago. I'm not optimistic.
I think it's too easy of a concession to ask of Pelosi. The co-sponsors can vote yes to avoid any future primary challenges ( and potentially flip later on) and Pelosi practically speaking gets to have nothing change.
It would be good to have this actually debated on the floor and to get the ideas developed. But, practically speaking, no ones lives will be made better by it in the short term. My thinking is the other way around, if all the they push for is this vote and do nothing to change the power structures of the House then they're being too scared. It's rare for the Chairman of a Committee to be removed, so demanding that people be kicked off seems bolder to me. Perhaps my mind is poisoned.
I the more important thing to engage in mass politics over would be Covid relief anyways
I'll listen to the episode with Dore and Sirota later today
-
Look at this committee chair egg head
No one gives a shit about what you wrote other than a few wonk losers
why should I care about what people give a shit about? I'll care about whatever I think will actually produce a useful change. The Ways and Means Committee deals with taxes, Social Security, unemployment benefits, Medicare, etc. Any legislation regarding this would be going through Richard Neal.
Yes let's build a movement around wonkery. You should really watch the Katie halpern video with Jimmy brie and stoller in it.
Your points are valid but it's not a rallying call for action
Yeah it's not a good rallying cry but pushing for things that are good rallying crys exclusively is not good. I see no problem with an M4A vote, I just see no real benefit either. It would be an easy way for Pelosi to make lefties feel like they got something while actually conceding nothing. It would be an easy way for Congressmembers to publicly commit to M4A and avoid primary challengers while privately telling donors that they're only voting for it since it has no chance of passing.
M4A vote + wonky demands is better I guess.
Why just replace one chair?
They power we are talking about leveraging is withholding Speakership votes from Pelosi. The obvious thing to do with that power is to demand a better Speaker. Instead of "pushing Pelosi" to do something (which would just be a promise she could go back on) they should be doing the thing they have a direct effect on.
Sure, that's a more useful conversation than trying to get Pelosi to agree on an M4A vote
David Sirota had some suggestions about more useful things to demand, maybe in addition to a M4A vote https://www.dailyposter.com/p/heres-what-medicare-for-all-supporters
-
Remove the Medicare for All opponent who chairs the key committee: The current chairman of the Ways and Means Committee — which is one of the key panels overseeing Medicare for All proposals — is Rep. Richard Neal, who has played a singularly destructive role on behalf of his health care industry and Wall Street donors.
-
Schedule a vote on existing legislation to let states create single-payer health care systems: Rep. Ro Khanna has authored legislation empowering the Health and Human Services Secretary to approve waivers to states that want to create their own Medicare for All programs.
-
Schedule a vote on a resolution demanding Biden use executive authority to expand Medicare: The American Prospect has reported that thanks to provisions in the Affordable Care Act, President Joe Biden will have the unilateral executive authority to expand Medicare coverage during the pandemic. The House can pass a resolution demanding that he immediately take this action. A resolution like this should be a no-brainer.
-
Include provisions in year-end spending bills that create a presidential commission charged with crafting a Medicare for All program: President Obama created a commission to cut Social Security. Progressives can flip the script and create a commission charged with evaluating other countries’ universal health care systems, and coming up with proposals to guarantee health care to all Americans. Granted, this is what Congress exists to do — but forcing a Democratic administration to come up with proposals could also advance the cause by forcing the executive branch to take the concept seriously.
I like the idea of letting states using Medicare and whatever federal money to try to start their own single payer systems. California, New York, Vermont, etc could try it out. Successes at the state level would absolutely shift the conversation nationally.
States can't do Medicare for All. This has been a well discussed problem. Tim Faust talked about it when he was on Chapo, and I believe Matt Bruenig did, too. Single payor healthcare systems require having the ability to deficit spend, which, unlike the federal government, most states can't do. Vermont failed at their single payor system in part because of this issue. It has to happen at the federal level. Doing this piecemeal at the state level is essentially guaranteed to fail and completely tank the support for M4A in this country.
Which is why Ro Khanna's legislation has a mix of state and federal funds. Single payer in Canada started out at the provincial level before spreading nationwide
Single payor healthcare systems require having the ability to deficit spend, which, unlike the federal government, most states can’t do. Vermont failed at their single payor system in part because of this issue.
This is a great point that most aren't talking about. A lot of southern states can't do it either cause they are broke and lack the ability to deficit spend. That's always what they tell us when they start cutting back on medicaid and other entitlements. With the pandemic and everything unfolding, we're going to hear more pushes for austerity since all I hear locally is how my state is broke and the states around us.
States coulds just raise payroll taxes to pay for a large part of it though. It would still be cheaper than premiums and deductibles for the vast majority, so that shouldn't be controversial.
California has more people than Canada, so it's not like they don't have negotiating power at the state level in terms of health care and drug prices. Vermont would be in trouble, but most of the bigger population states have plenty of negotiating power.
yeah in Vermont you might see companies close up shop and head to the next state. New York and California probably have more leverage
-
I don't follow?
My understanding is, Pelosi needs votes to stay leader of the House.
There are fewer Dem votes now with the losses from the 2020 election.
The "Squad" and other House Dems of that genre now find that their votes are more valuable than they were previously.
With Pelosi being a part of the performative demcratic caucus, maybe the "Squad" types like AOC could band together and withhold their votes unless ... [insert demand here].
So this would be an exercise in political power, even if the [insert demand here] isn't passed as a bill or whatever.
With Pelosi being a part of the performative demcratic caucus, maybe the “Squad” types like AOC could band together and withhold their votes unless … [insert demand here].
The thing is the most they could get (and what Dore is saying they should get) is a floor vote on Medicare for All. A vote which most likely would fail, and even if it didn't, it wouldn't be passed in the Senate.
Instead they should be using this power to get rid of Pelosi. Them not voting Pelosi = Pelosi isn't Speaker. They can deadlock the Speakership vote until someone at least a little better is offered up. That would be a lasting change unlike a one time vote that's doomed to fail anyway. And it's something that can't be reneged after they've cast their votes.
Ah... much clearer.
So, one way is better politically (remove Pelosi) but the other way is better publicly (M4A symbolic floor vote).
Thanks!
Theres not even any serious mass organizational push alongside this supposed vote (which everyone knows will fail) whose purpose is apparently to publicly shame the representatives who dont support it (who are already public about not supporting m4a). Without healthcare workers, unions, essential workers, etc. organizing around this to publicize and support it it just becomes meaningless spectacle and it wont happen because of that. It can so easily be voted down as being "not the right bill" or something too. This whole struggle session around the actions of individual politicians is just a form of liberalism.
Sirota was the one with the actually correct take which was to 1st off get rid of Richard Neal who is the biggest bottleneck towards actually getting medicare for all as based on standard house procedure. That process would setoff a world where committee chairmanships no longer are based on seniority and instead on ideological lean of the caucus at large, exposing the democrats for who they actually are more than any other single thing out there.
Getting rid of Pelosi isn't actually that important for the time being, as should she be replaced with literally anyone, her foot soldiers would still be running things so none of this would actually matter.
Lastly an m4a floor vote doesn't mean anything since it won't actually pass, people can still posture as if they'd vote for it at the time needed for it to pass.
Good think democrats didn't trip over themselves to attack Alex Morse with homophobic smears.
