Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
July 14, 2007 8:14 AM
Since When Did D.C. Progressives Decide to Start Attacking State Progressives?
Following the debate this week where Washington-based progressive activists attacked progressive efforts to expand health care at the state level (see here, here and here), Nathan Newman offers us this post that asks a few simple questions: Why do D.C. folks feel so threatened by states taking action on the agenda they say they care so much about, to the point they are now calling all efforts by states to lead on expanding health care "disastrous?" And how has it somehow become controversial in progressive political circles to say that we need to push for universal health care at BOTH the state and federal level? Since when did that become such a taboo position? Did I not get the memo or the listserve email that the D.C.-based progressive sphere has decided to go to Defcon 1 in an all out assault on the very concept of passing progressive legislation at the state level? And aren't all of these attacks on state progressives a little strangely timed, considering a fairly sizable state legislative body just passed one of the most progressive universal health care initiatives in contemporary history?
Clearly, there are political and structural advantages on health care at both the federal and state level - as Nathan shows, states can more easily pass structural reforms, and the feds can most easily cut checks. There are also disadvantages to both arenas - again, as Nathan shows, states cannot deficit spend and thus need financial support, and the federal government faces a filibuster on structural reforms that it does not face on simply cutting checks. Since when did trying to maximize the advantages of both in pursuit of getting more folks health care coverage become such a horrific idea?
My guess is since D.C. folks started having delusions that state-based action somehow makes them feel less Relevant and Important. But nothing could be further from the truth. Sure, the Washington political class can often be disconnected from the day-to-day reality that ordinary folks face. That's not a cliche - it's reality, to the point where some D.C. progressives now attack with straight faces state-based programs that are responsible for providing health care to 20 million more Americans. But D.C. clearly is critical in the health care fight simply because the federal government controls the biggest pot of public money. No one working on state policy has ever argued differently - not me, not Nathan, not the Progressive States Network, not anyone. It is the D.C. chattering class that is trying to make this an either/or choice.
As Nathan says, like the conservative movement's most effective campaigns, we progressives need to be fighting at every level. Again, this is not an either/or choice, and to try to make it one is not only an insult to the thousands of state legislators, organizations and activists who have actually expanded coverage where Washington elites have to date failed, but is counterproductive to the progressive movement's larger goals of providing universal health care to all Americans. We need action at all levels - and saying that shouldn't be considered controversial.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Ghettoization & The Difference Between Politics & Policy
- Confused About Tax Promises
- Rangel: Obama Confidantes Sending Pro-NAFTA Expansion Signals
- Study Shows "Center-Right Nation" Narrative Spiked Immediately After Election Day
- Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone on Health Care
- Wash Post Re-Floats Possibility of Lame-Duck NAFTA Expansion
- HHS Chief Daschle Says States Will Play Major Role In Health Care Reform
- Newsweek & The Media's Own Innocent Bystander Fable
- Evidence, Anyone?
- "Team of Rivals" Or Rival Team?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
November 17, 2008 -
November 12, 2008 -
November 6, 2008 -
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
This is why we need national referendums. We need to take Congress out of the picture and those insane special interest groups that have lost touch with those who live outside of D.C.
That said, maybe its because those D.C. types aren't progressive or care about the people in this country at all. If they did care they'd work with the state based initiatives and not against them.
Whatever the reason, it does cast a very bad light on those in D.C. Either they're corrupt or suffer from the same sort of egomania and dementia that seems to grip everyone who moves to foggy bottom.
Not all state Democrats are the same. The VA Democrats closely resemble the National Democrats. Of course, most that do such as Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, etc ... are generally the DLC hacks who are ready to roll the carpet out for the enemy all the while pulling the rug out from under when it comes to real Democrats such as James Webb. Thankfully, Webb smashed the corporate motherfucker in the primaries and never sold out. Sure, he's not perfect either but he's far better on most economic issues compared to elitists any day. Beware of any potential backstabbing motherfuckers in your state's Democratic Party.
I think a lot of this has to do with the progressive myth that has existed post civil war. It is a story that progress is top down from the federal to state to local.
Below is a PDF by Ben Manski from Liberty Tree that looks at a pre civil war third party. While the state is question was radically anti-slavery, it used 'state rights' as the rationale to declare war against the United States.
http://nateweb.info/proletariat/uploads/TNR/uploads/2006/10/liberties_roots.pdf
It seems to me where we are certainly embarking on an era where progress will be more and more on the state and local levels. Personally, I am most optimistic about the city level and believe strongly in home rule.
We need to take Congress out of the picture".
Impossible. There's too much day-to-day legislation that needs to be done.
However, I do believe that national referendums on major items such as health care, impeachment, and such could be an important way to deal with at least some of the games people play in DC.
At this point, I keep getting the feeling that there's the smell of K-street involvement in this put down on state initiatives. "Progressive" media can be bought off just like Republi-lite "Democrat" in name only legislators.
One of the referendums needs to cover campaign and election reform.
Butte
It wouldn't suprise me in the least that K Street got to the D.C. progressives, as you say if they can buy off Repub-lite Dems there is nothing to stop them from buying some progressive activists. The fact that the PSN and Newman got attacked for their efforts right out of the blue points to this IMO.
FWIW if the D.C. crowd wasn't bought off, they wouldn't have went public at all. Their concerns would have been between them and Newman. Airing them as they did, served only to marginalize those doing state reform.
What happened to states' rights?
If a state legislature can cobble together a health care plan that will cover all of its citizens, however flawed, that's one more health care plan that will cover all of its citizens than the feds have been able to come up with. If it works, we should borrow from it. If not, we should examine why not and fix the next one.
Meanwhile kudos to each state that TRIES to do what it can to provide for the common good of its citizens.
If we wait for the feds to solve the problem, we could wait forever.
The pessimist in me says that Washington doesn't dare put togehter something that works, based on the Canadian system for instance, because that would mean one less campaign issue for both conservatives AND progressives at the federal level. And we know there must be issues in order to hold an interesting election.
Join the Discussion