The Kucinich Vote Is Principled
To his credit, Dennis Kucinich will be voting for health care reform. This had led to some grimly predictable concern trolling from conservatives who have discovered their admiration for Kucinich’s integrity just in time to repudiate it.
The argument, at least to the extent that one thinks that politics is about accomplishing something rather than onanistic gestures, is of course wrong. When one is a legislator, principles have to be applied to the evaluation of alternatives that are almost certainly imperfect. With something like health care reform — unless one believes in a “heighten the contradictions” scenario that given the political context would be implausible in the extreme and hence grossly irresponsible — the relevant question is whether, according to one’s principles, the legislation under consideration improves the status quo or not. Believing that it does is perfectly consistent with Kucinich’s principles — and indeed, I have yet to hear anything resembling a decent argument to the contrary. And if that’s case, voting yes is perfectly principled, even if you would make much more radical changes if you had the power.
I’ve always had a fondness for Kucinich as an embarrassingly earnest lefty and I think this vote means that he–and those closer to him than Obama ideologically–is not just tilting at windmills. He has passionately defended his position and when the choice became this bill or nothing he wisely realized that this was better than nothing.
This.
Agreed entirely. His actions on this bill have really made me grow more affectionate toward him.
I’m really disappointed that DK didn’t get something inserted into the bill for his support. Rather he has been browbeat into supporting a crappy bill that has to be passed in order for a party of cowards to not lose so badly to a party of morons in November.
I can’t wait until this HCR business is over with so we can move on to whatever half-baked financial reform that will most likely guarantee the banksters a 10 million dollar a year minimum for robbing us blind.
Pragmatism is a principle.
“Pragmatism is a principle.”
Yes, liberalism presumes that the purpose of dicourse, individual and collective, is to reach a consensus and produce a policy or product. So much so that any withdrawal from the process is considered with the the framework of liberalism to be “heightening the contradictions”, in other words, merely another maneuver.
It does lead to, well, much worse than absurdity in my opinion, that an individual must, if not support or accept, at least not illiberally oppose a court decision or legislation that clearly offends her individual conscience.
When I argue against liberalism as a fetishized process that values itself over outcomes this HCR bill is an example of what I oppose. “Something must be passed”.
That depends on what the “something” is. And by just saying no to a bad outcome of a democratic (like the Iraq invasion) I am not necessarily trying to make for a better invasion or stopping the invasion. I don’t always need a “political” or liberal purpose.
I can simply say no.
Kucinich apparently asked for an ERISA waiver for the states (not clear if it’s to be inserted into the fixup, where it wouldn’t survive reconciliation, or a separate vote). I’m not a fan of his, but if that’s the case he deserves credit for getting a genuine substantive revision at least on the table.
Scott, I agree with you in general and in this specific instance, but it’s not always the case that improving the status quo is the be all and end all of decisionmaking. Three points is better than nothing, but coaches should go for it more, right? The key in this case is that this is a large improvement over the status quo in terms of human suffering, and that there’s no real hope of getting a better bill in he near to medium term.
“…and indeed, I have yet to hear anything resembling a decent argument to the contrary.”
This is only a small and very recent part of the long arguments made at FDL. There are multiple posts today alone. I am convinced the bill is a net longterm negative.
I don’t suppose I can do anything about what you would consider a “decent” argument.
“Decent” or “decent left” apparently needs a stand-alone Wiki entry.
I read through your link, But I don’t actually see much of an argument against the bill in there, given political realities.
While it also notes the popularity of the plan with the corporate elite, It dosen’t actually make the argument that this bill will be worse off than no reform at all. That would be the first argument I’d want to hear in regards to killing the bill.
The article makes it completely clear that the administration has no interest in crafting a more progressive health care bill. If this bill fails, there seems to be no possibility of the democratic party being able to push forward a better option than the current plan. That would be the second argument: A reason why we could expect more progressive bill if this one is killed rather than one even more tailored towards the conservatives?
I also see no evidence of the american people suddenly voting out Obama in favor of a more progressive candidate if this fails. Rather, I think it’s more likely that Democratic failure will lead to poor turnout and Republican victories, leaving a frothing teabagger-dominated GOP to reclaim leadership of the country, which can’t possibly end well.
A decent argument in my mind would cover those points: That the bill would be worse off than what exists now, that killing it would result in a better bill, or at least not defeat to the Republican radicals in the next elections.
Right, the only this works (given they don’t even try to argue that this bill is worse than the status quo) is if you either 1)think a COngress in the foreseeable future could get universal health care without buying off insurance interests, or 2)you think Obama is likely to be replaced by a substantially more progressive Democrat while the 60th vote in the Senate also becomes much more liberal. And, sorry, but neither of these is remotely plausible.
“(given they don’t even try to argue that this bill is worse than the status quo)”
They have done so every day for almost a year. Jane Hamsher did so in the article I linked above, and here is another. Why do you say such things?
Does More Harm Than Good yesterday
Again, I read through your link. That’s not “Worse” It’s “More of the same bad”.
The Stupak amendment is absent from the current bill, so it’s not eroding abortion rights as stated. The issues with corporate control and expensive medication are current issues that are not made better by the bill, not issues that don’t exist now, and are ADDED by the bill.
That’s “Not Good enough” not “Worse than what we have” with the Stupak amendment gone.
The Nelson language is a step backward, no matter that it isn’t Stupak.
The corporate control is enhanced and enlarged by the current bill, that is, yes, made worse than the status quo. This is clearly stated by Jon Walker. It will be much harder to move away from for-profit healthcare because of this bill.
But there have been millions of words exchanged on this bill over the last year, and I am no longer interested in arguing each point in excruciating detail.
I have lost.
To say one more thing, this is the problem. There might be an argument against the bill — if there was any chance in the foreseeable future that the 60th — hell, even the 50th — most liberal vote in the Senate would ever consider voting for a system that would eliminate private insurance. Since there isn’t, the argument that the bill doesn’t improve the status quo pretty much crumbles.
The brutal truth is that given American political institutions, expanding coverage requires buying off private interests.
“Decent Left” has a very specific meaning, and Kuchinich isn’t it.
I actually meant Lemieux.
The DiSH cuts alone make this bill a serious problem and give it a non-zero likelihood of making the situation worse for as many people as are helped. The undocumented and the homeless in particular will suffer greatly from the cuts–but the deficit hawks wanted to see blood on the floor, and blood they will get.
Kucinich might prove to have been quite right all along. I’m in favor of passing the bill and then immediately working to reverse the worst parts of it (like the DiSH cuts) but let’s not fool ourselves: this bill is not just an imperfect we-tried-our-best piece of legislation, it is a foul pile of shit that may yet contain a few useful provisions.
Glennzilla:
“There’s a difference — a fundamental one — between (a) being pragmatic in trying to implement one’s principles and (b) having no principles at all and and glorifying that unanchored emptiness as “pragmatism.”"
I think Kucinich practiced (a) above, and I admire him for it.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by lefarkins: The Kucinich vote was principled: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/03/the-kucinich-vote-is-principled...
In all fairness, I think “heighten the contradictions” hasn’t played a significant role in progressive discomfort with the health care bill; more like “locking in the worst features of the most expensive, inefficient health care delivery system in the world, making it more complex than ever, and rewarding the bad actors.” Paying off the protection racket gang, as Jon Chait put it, rather than ridding ourselves of them. Not saying this means we shouldn’t pass the bill.
Teddy Roosevelt was the first to push for universal health care. This is a first step towards that goal. To suggest we should wait another 100 years before taking this step is absurd.
32 million will benefit from this reform bill. Principle means recognizing when compromise is the right thing to do.
Hats off to Dennis K.