The Biden Administration

[Parasaurolophus]

I hope progressives stick to the plan and torpedo the reconciliation package (unless those two shape the fuck up).  If they get what they want, there's not really anything left worth passing.

But yeah, they can just reintroduce the house bill (or whatever it is; late day brain fog) they want whenever. It's just that it real bad policy and quite unpopular, so they actually want it tied to the reconciliation package.

If they were smart, they wouldn't have torpedoed it quite so much, so that progressives would actually have a hard time voting against it.

That would be very stupid, because then they would have nothing. WV will never have another D senator almost certainly, and Manchin's whole brand there is that he's not like other Ds, so there is no leverage to make him do anything he doesn't want to do. If you tell him he can have the progressive version or nothing he will absolutely choose nothing.

This is how the sausage gets made. It isn't pretty, but the alternative is everyone goes hungry. The problem with a lot of progressives is they would rather make a point by going hungry, except it isn't the generally well-off folks taking this stance that actually suffer as a result, it is all the people who would have benefited from the bill, scaled back and imperfect as it is. Actually caring about people rather than politics requires not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, something the far left often has trouble remembering.

That's the reason people like Manchin and Synema always have the leverage, and progressives never do. They're willing to follow through.

But in this case, if they allow M&S to keep gutting it then there's really not much in that couple trillion over ten years that's worth voting for, and the other bill is terrible. Coming home with a means-tested one-year child tax credit is not anything to brag about. Also remember that Manchin and Sinema really want to pass the house bill attached to the reconciliation bill. That's what gives progressives some leverage here.

Remember, 3.5 trillion over ten years was the compromise. It was a really big compromise, a perfect instance of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Past that, it's up to the party to get people in line. It's also worth noting that the reconciliation bill is a huge part of Biden's presidency and his desired legacy. Passing a useless bill that does very little to help anyone is not in his interests, either. The party wants and needs a signature achievement during this presidency--more importantly, they want and need it before the midterm elections. Progressives have no real incentive to vote for a gutted reconciliation package. Even where appeals to conscience are concerned, the gutting would leave nothing on the table that really matters to them. So why wouldn't they exercise their power, show that they're serious and that next time the party needs to get its ducks in a row if it's serious about wanting to pass something. The ability to pass something that will make a real difference down the line is better than passing garbage now and forgoing that power entirely. That is how the sausage gets made.

It would be different if drug pricing were still there after they gutted it, or if paid sick leave was, or childcare, or Medicare eligibility, or Medicare expansion to cover vision, hearing, and dental. Or if serious climate measures were in there. But without any of that, there's no bacon left to bring home. Just the thinnest of barley gruels. When you're negotiating, you shouldn't accept a "deal" that doesn't actually feature anything you want in it, but which features everything your opponent wants. That's not the art of the deal, to coin a phrase.

[Puget]

Para, I think you really do not understand the US federal system-- there is no way in which progressives refusing to compromise gets Manchin to compromise. It doesn't work that way. They each represent their own states and voters, and Machin's voters, a) would mostly never vote for any other Democrat, and b) mostly see it is a plus when he votes against the party. Push him and he'll switch parties, not cave.

As for your arguments that it's not worth having, try out saying that to an actual American that would benefit and see how it sounds,
"Hi, I'm a Canadian who isn't affected by this at all, and I understand that you really need this [hearing aid/home healthcare/child care subsidy/affordable housing subsidy/ falling down bridge fixed], but this bill offends my progressive sensibilities, so I think you shouldn't have that thing because it isn't good enough and might get in the way of the progressive revolution which is somehow magically going to happen despite all evidence to the contrary".

Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.

[marshwiggle]

Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.

Ideologues (from any part of the political spectrum) are the bane of democracy.

[Parasaurolophus]

Para, I think you really do not understand the US federal system-- there is no way in which progressives refusing to compromise gets Manchin to compromise. It doesn't work that way. They each represent their own states and voters, and Machin's voters, a) would mostly never vote for any other Democrat, and b) mostly see it is a plus when he votes against the party. Push him and he'll switch parties, not cave.

As for your arguments that it's not worth having, try out saying that to an actual American that would benefit and see how it sounds,
"Hi, I'm a Canadian who isn't affected by this at all, and I understand that you really need this [hearing aid/home healthcare/child care subsidy/affordable housing subsidy/ falling down bridge fixed], but this bill offends my progressive sensibilities, so I think you shouldn't have that thing because it isn't good enough and might get in the way of the progressive revolution which is somehow magically going to happen despite all evidence to the contrary".

Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.

Progressives have compromised. A lot, and in ways thoroughly acceptable to everyone except Manchin and Synema, who represent only their own financial interests. They even compromised with Manchin and Synema's demands! The only people who refuse to compromise are Manchin and Synema. Surely you can't have missed that, if you've been paying attention.

You should also have noticed that gutting the bill to suit Manchin and Synema will actually eliminate almost all of those helpful measures. That's the point.

As for the snippiness: my mother is American (I could have claimed citizenship, but never did). My partner is American. My child is American. More to the point, my partner spent her teenage years homeless in America, and we now support her mother, who without that help would remain homeless. I have actually navigated the "benefits" system in excruciating detail to ensure she has as much help from SSI, Section 8, food stamps, Medicare/MedicAid, etc. as possible (the system makes it very hard  for family to help someone in need without compromising their meagre "benefits"). I don't just know people who might be affected; I'm materially invested in their wellbeing.

Perhaps that helps?

[Parasaurolophus]

Adding: I just saw that Biden has unveiled a new, smaller proposal (175 billion a year for ten years). Dunno what's in it, though.

[Ruralguy]

Going from "all the money anybody can possibly imagine or more" to 3.5 trillion is *not* a compromise, its grounding yourself in reality.

[Puget]

Para, I think you really do not understand the US federal system-- there is no way in which progressives refusing to compromise gets Manchin to compromise. It doesn't work that way. They each represent their own states and voters, and Machin's voters, a) would mostly never vote for any other Democrat, and b) mostly see it is a plus when he votes against the party. Push him and he'll switch parties, not cave.

As for your arguments that it's not worth having, try out saying that to an actual American that would benefit and see how it sounds,
"Hi, I'm a Canadian who isn't affected by this at all, and I understand that you really need this [hearing aid/home healthcare/child care subsidy/affordable housing subsidy/ falling down bridge fixed], but this bill offends my progressive sensibilities, so I think you shouldn't have that thing because it isn't good enough and might get in the way of the progressive revolution which is somehow magically going to happen despite all evidence to the contrary".

Sorry to be snippy, but I'm really tired of the utterly privileged arguments of people who want to deny real people real goods in favor of an abstract agenda that can't be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible.

Progressives have compromised. A lot, and in ways thoroughly acceptable to everyone except Manchin and Synema, who represent only their own financial interests. They even compromised with Manchin and Synema's demands! The only people who refuse to compromise are Manchin and Synema. Surely you can't have missed that, if you've been paying attention.

You should also have noticed that gutting the bill to suit Manchin and Synema will actually eliminate almost all of those helpful measures. That's the point.

As for the snippiness: my mother is American (I could have claimed citizenship, but never did). My partner is American. My child is American. More to the point, my partner spent her teenage years homeless in America, and we now support her mother, who without that help would remain homeless. I have actually navigated the "benefits" system in excruciating detail to ensure she has as much help from SSI, Section 8, food stamps, Medicare/MedicAid, etc. as possible (the system makes it very hard  for family to help someone in need without compromising their meagre "benefits"). I don't just know people who might be affected; I'm materially invested in their wellbeing.

Perhaps that helps?

One more try and then I'll disengage-- it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks is fair in terms of compromise, the reality is a 50-50 Senate that they hold the power and don't have to compromise. I don't like that any more than you do but that's the reality. The choice is not between the bill you want and the bill we have, it is between the bill we have and nothing. I maintain unreservedly that some good things for real people are better than no good things for those people. And yes, there are still plenty of good things left (see some of my examples above). I really don't understand why anyone would disagree with that, but apparently you do. . .

[kaysixteen]

Sadly, the math is the math.   Sinema seems to be a combo of 1) narcissist, and 2) corrupt/ bribed, and coal baron Manchin, for whatever his faults, is right about now more or less the only Democrat who could get elected in West Virginny.  That is stunning, given that Dem economics is vastly better for these yahoo hillbiliies than, well...   but exactly how do the Democrats begin to convince people in places like this that it is better not to remain an iggerant yahoo hillbilly, and give grandma access to a dentist.

[mahagonny]

Sadly, the math is the math.   Sinema seems to be a combo of 1) narcissist, and 2) corrupt/ bribed, and coal baron Manchin, for whatever his faults, is right about now more or less the only Democrat who could get elected in West Virginny.  That is stunning, given that Dem economics is vastly better for these yahoo hillbiliies than, well...   but exactly how do the Democrats begin to convince people in places like this that it is better not to remain an iggerant yahoo hillbilly, and give grandma access to a dentist.

Go back to 2016 when Hillary called half of Americans a ''basket of deplorables" and before that Obama talking dejectedly about how ignorant people in the hills of PA "retreat into religion and guns" and you see how the problem democrats have with less educated whites and others has been self-constructed. That's not smart campaigning. One callous remark like these reverberates more than 50 Trump tweets. If that's what they say about you into the microphone...

[kaysixteen]

You are not wrong.   I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well.   Biden never said anything like this, and yet Trump continued to clean his clock with folks like that in places like this, and Manchin, coal barony notwithstanding, knows he is the only Dem now electable statewide in WV.   What the Dems need, IOW, is some approach to get through to these folks, let them really know that these bills would help them.  Sadly, several things work against the party in any such efforts, esp 1) tribal identity politics ('we are Republicans, and the Demoncrats are bad'), 2) pride ('who cares whether a serious eval of this bill, etc., would say it is in our interests to pass it, it would be embarassing to us to fess up to that, so we'll double down nonetheless') 3) ongoing effects of propaganda, and, yes, like it or not, 4) associating with the Dems because of their economic agenda means taking  the Dem base's social agenda, which is hostile to the basic values of many of the WV crowd, and which seems to them to be, ultimately, the most important aspect of the Dem playbook, for most Dems (think on this, however much she reneges on promises to allow Medicare drug price negotiations, what would be the chances that Sinema would vote against a law to nationalize Roe v Wade?)

[marshwiggle]

You are not wrong.   I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well. 

This depends on what their priorities are. Economically,  the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.

[dismalist]

You are not wrong.   I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well. 

This depends on what their priorities are. Economically,  the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.

Hillary frustrated? Nay, some voters frustrated with her, for she did not, and the Dems do not, understand the interests of those voters! Were the argument that voters do not understand their own interests true, no on should have the right to vote. Or, perhaps, speaking with Bert Brecht, the politicians could elect a new people.

[mahagonny]

You are not wrong.   I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well. 

This depends on what their priorities are. Economically,  the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.

Hillary frustrated? Nay, some voters frustrated with her, for she did not, and the Dems do not, understand the interests of those voters! Were the argument that voters do not understand their own interests true, no on should have the right to vote. Or, perhaps, speaking with Bert Brecht, the politicians could elect a new people.

I like him!

The democrats are still doing this 'we know better than you what you need for yourselves' and are still paying for it by losing votes. Witness Glenn Youngkin is now even with Terry McAuliffe in polling.
ETA: or 'if you haven't figured out whether you're for me or for Trump, you ain't black.' Which is corny, BTW, unless he always substitutes 'ain't' for 'isn't.' Then there's Randi Weingarten and the politically partisan teacher's union. What the voters are hearing: 'Kids, don't be a deplorable like your dad.'

[dismalist]

You are not wrong.   I can see how Hillary got frustrated, because she well knew that her program was indeed much much better for folks like that than the GOP's, and that Trump was lying to them, but saw them buying into those lies, as well. 

This depends on what their priorities are. Economically,  the Democrats may be "better" for poor rural folks, but if their social agenda is out of step with those folks, then it will be "worse" if that is more important to them.

Hillary frustrated? Nay, some voters frustrated with her, for she did not, and the Dems do not, understand the interests of those voters! Were the argument that voters do not understand their own interests true, no on should have the right to vote. Or, perhaps, speaking with Bert Brecht, the politicians could elect a new people.

For the voters suffer from false consciousness.

[mamselle]

I like him!

Eponymously, you'd have to....

M.