What’s your stance on the public option,** DSeid**?
Being heavily involved in the Democratic Party side of this (organizing 27 Precinct Caucuses next month), I have been dealing with strongly-committed folks from both groups (65 emails about it this morning alone), I don’t think they’re that far apart.
Despite what the news media says, there seem to be very, very few so committed that they would refuse to vote for the other one if they are the Democratic candidate. Almost none.
I think that is attributable to the clown car on the Republican side. Even the most strident Bernie Sanders supporter, when asked, “So you really think President Cruz is preferable to Hillary?”, seems to pause and think a bit.
I think it’s funny that someone who advocates for a general increase in the welfare state is an idealistic kook whose methods are akin to jumping into a river and cracking your skull (and that’s from a liberal poster). Says something about the dismal state of American politics.
I wonder what would happen if a Syndicalist got on stage and started talking about worker self management and the tyranny of hierarchical institutions. It’d be worth it to see all the heads at CNN explode.
That it didn’t pass though even with with a Democratic majority in Congress. Probably at some point worth raising again.
Are your ‘Realists’ still ‘Progressives’?
The two are overlapping sets.
“Realists” give us things like the ACA, which does some people some good in the short term, and then allows people to put their head in the sand over the issue while the underlying cause of the problem goes unchecked.
I reject the idea that the current shell games that government is selling count as “bridges.” The problem with the realists is that they’re willing to drop the issues that matter as long as they get some crumbs in the moment.
When I hear “it won’t happen, so why bother” I wonder why a person would support leadership (wealthy, powerful leadership) who uses that as a rallying cry. “We can’t get change now, because of all those meanies over in the GOP . . . so stick with me, while I make real things happen . . . real things that all the powerful and wealthy folks, left and right, will support. Then, eventually, long after I’m dead, maybe you people can get the unicorn you wish for.”
Yeah, as opposed to “I want my unicorn and I want it now!”
The “Idealists” prefer to accomplish nothing but feel good about themselves for their bravery in trying to stick it to The Man.
Yes, realists give us the ACA, which speaking from within the healthcare industry can only be described as “crumbs” by those who are horribly ignorant of what it is accomplishing.
Let’s stick on healthcare as an example of the “idealist” v “realist” spectrum and turn back the clock some … to Nixon. In 1969 he was elected on the heels of the passage of Medicare and made achieving universal coverage his goal.
The time was right that he could get it through on his side. Ted Kennedy was pushing for single payer. He was however enough of a realist that he negotiated … but, being a realist, compared to idealism?
Did holding out for the perfect move the Overton Window, keep the subject as something that would be done next term? Um, no. I take that back, it did move the Overton Window. It moved the subject out of the window and, mixing metaphors, made it a third rail. It took twenty years until an administration was willing to risk political capital on it again. Bill Clinton with Hillary as point person leading another losing attempt.
*Another 20 years later *until anyone is willing to touch it and we get Obama’s successful attempt. Shame on him for being a realist actually accomplishing something that should have been accomplished 40 freaking years earlier, that actually gets quality healthcare to many millions who did not have it, and not failing holding out for the unicorn now. Because y’know, holding out for the unicorn worked so well in the early '70s.
Oh wait … no … thank you, Barack, for making a very good if imperfect deal that could be made even if you are leaving it to those who follow you to make it more perfect.
Not until they figure out what to do about the huge spike in unemployment if an industry that is a huge portion of our labor sector disappears.
Health insurance as it is is inefficient and expensive. But it provides a LOT of jobs. About half a million of them. An incremental approach to reform would move those jobs with less negative impact.
More reason why the far-left is completely useless.
"Feh! The radicals hack out the trail, the progressives clear the campsite and build the cabins, liberals show up when the hot showers are installed."
Joshua Fattal, author of the piece, writes:
I’m having a hard time seeing ‘realism’ as anything but concession. Now that’s fine if you like it, but I’d think a pragmatic progressive would talk about what we need to do to achieve progress rather than simply say “We can’t do it”. It’s political talk, I don’t believe these things really embody the intent of the politicians, but the appeal of ‘straight talk’, i.e. realistic sounding bullshit, is driving this election cycle right now. I’d be more accepting of the realist line if it didn’t sound like an excuse to avoid the hard work down the road.
And on Salon, the debate continues:
Amanda Marcotte: Why I’m supporting Clinton over Sanders: Liberals don’t need a “savior,” but someone who can actually get things done in Washington. “Liberals need to get over savior figures who promise the impossible, and learn the nitty-gritty of politics.”
Andrew O’Hehir: Why I’m supporting Sanders over Clinton: This could be the moment to reclaim the Democratic Party and reshape history. “The Bernie moment offers huge promise and huge danger – but it’s not really about electing Bernie Sanders.”
Walker Bragman: The big “Hillary realism” lie: Clinton supporters present a false choice — and misread our political moment “‘Realist’ vs ‘idealist’ talk misses the point: This is a time when change is not a dream, but what people demand.”
Daniel Denvir: The “electability” argument is bogus: Why Bernie Sanders isn’t the second coming of George McGovern. “Establishment dems have for months warned that a Bernie nomination would be disaster. Here’s why they’re wrong.”
Yes, this. I also cosign **DSeid’s **more voluble thoughts on the topic.
In the spirit of the OP, here are excerpts of my three favorite recent media columns on Hillary/Bernie (all emphases mine).
Tamara Keith, NPR’s All Things Considered:
Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine:
And then just for fun, I enjoyed this Onion story tremendously:
Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers
Voluable? Heck I’ll go for loquacious! 
So the delay of achieving meaningful healthcare reform for over 40 years as the result of idealism winning over realism established let’s move on to the most generous take on Sanders and immigration reform.
In 2007 there was a bipartisan immigration reform bill co-sponsored by Kennedy and McCain. It would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship. The hard Right worked to kill it and they had an ally in Bernie. Skeptics believe that it was because unions did not like it and indeed then he spoke of the possible impact on wages as the reason, but let’s take his current explanation at face value: he helped kill it when it was close because he objected to a guest worker provision.
Nine years later and still no immigration reform; none on the horizon. If anything the Right’s Overton Window has shifted such that compromise on it, then within grasp, has become impossible. There was a chance to get a very good bill across the line, and if his current version is to be believed, he preferred nothing to the less than ideal. This is what hard-line idealism untempered by realism results in. Still no unicorn and that not-beauty-contest-winning but solid workhorse? Sent to the glue factory instead of taking us all to town.
Yes TP I’ll live within “the art of the possible”; I’ll admire those whose aim is to “accept the things we cannot change; for courage to change the things we can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” And disrespect those who use “idealism” as their excuse for accomplishing zip.
And, I should hope the same is true of everyone posting in this thread, including those siding with Clinton for “pragmatic” reasons.