What’s really amazing here is that these were all rather conservative people socially, just like their counterparts in the Plains states south of the border. Yet they held together and got health care reform — TRUE health care reform — passed.

Of course, their Tories hadn’t yet figured out what our Tories did, which was how to trick working-class and rural voters into blaming a constant series of “others” — Wobblies, Indians, immigrants, Negroes, women, etc. — for the woes inflicted on them by big-money folks.

That’s really the problem isn’t it: trust. Its not just that the lobbying machine will make your reelection harder. They can give you, your friends, and your cronies great jobs post election. I’m convinced that’s why its hard for progs to generate victories in elections or congress. We just don’t offer as much.

Several remedies for trust:

1. Have our candidates sign a contract not to take a lobbyist position with the usual evil suspects, banking, big oil, big health etc after leaving office. Sue them for half of their earnings if they break the contract. Not a toothless “pledge”. Its a good rule for everything actually. Get it in writing.

2. Recruit people who have a long term commitment to social justice. Look for, and how can I put this, “ethical” people. I’d look for Unitarian ministers, college professors, Greenpeace workers, that kind of thing. The fact that they would sign a contract not to cash out after election would be a good first start.

3. I would also look for people who are sick of the two party system.

These suggestions are in the context of what I would do if I was creating a Third Party. You could run good candidates within the DNC but they’re run pretty much like the Mafia now.

Philip Shropshire
The 5/25 Plan

Good luck with this one, Jon. I applaud your ability to communicate ideas & opinions you’ve given considerable thought to. I’ll add I wish readers returned half so much as you’ve given. You cerytainly open up the forem for wonderful debate.
Truth is, no one knows how they’re going to act (react) when catapulted into a world new to them. There are ample studies addressing the problem, I vaguely recall one for instance that suggested people with advanced degrees in Philosophy might be better prepared to withstand pressures of the moment as well as trappings of grandeur.
I don’t know. Looking back it’s easy to “predict” Obama’s elitism, Clinton’s duplicty, Pelosi’s amoral love for power, itself. But, to select ahead of time those who bring the drive, skills & personality to reach the highest levels of decision making, who are also most likely to maintain untested ideals, is no easy task. It’s far easier to select one when their passion & ideals are intertwined. I have no doubt, while he has one more race to run Schumer will remain a reliable advocate for Wall ST. But, does anyone doubt Schumer ‘s or Lieberman’s allegience to all things Israel exceeds any “Democratic” ideal (issue)?
My entire adult life I can’t recall more than two times I’ve voted for a person I believed it was most important to see elected at that time. (Mea culpa, Obama was one!) Instead, I’m almost always forced to choose against the one I most do not want to see win.

Consider the very different fabric of Canadian history and American history. Our entire socio-political structure is rooted in the idea that man is, at his core, a selfish & greedy bastard. Our socio-political institutions are configured and arranged under the auspices of the best ways at that time to frustrate man’s intrinsic selfishness and greediness.

This idea pervades our society. It’s visible in how we view competition, how we view individualism, and even assists how we formulate our exceptionalism.

I often can’t help but wonder if the reason Americans have such a woefully difficult time cooperating as a society, is because our entire way of life, and our political structures, presume at the outset that we are not one.

Our conservatives were more liberal than your progressives.

Thank you again Jon. Another way to say it is the movement must develop first and there must be some bright lines that define it for those who would participate and be leaders. And in fact this is more history that the movement holding firm to principles doesn’t have to encompass a majority to have its way.

I get so frustrated with my colleagues who continue to empower the conservative Democrats by accepting the notion of “better than the alternative.” Broad goals cannot be achieved solely by pressuring political hacks.

Speaking of big money, folks and power, here is a story, hopefully apocryphal:

http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/54/ames.html

Profound description. It saddens me with its truth. It has not always been that way but those beliefs will lead to our destruction if we are unable to relearn.

Indeed. So, this begs the question; how does this reality alter our gameplan?

Interesting take. The fraud is so bad that it is simply impossible to stop without utterly destroying whats left. It will inevitably collapse of it’s own weight anyway.

“people don’t give a fuck about Jefferson and ‘free and fair markets,’ they just want their savings to be worth something. And people are right: Jefferson was an imbecile. He should have been a folk singer, not a Founding fucking Father. But that’s another issue that’s over your head — the point is, the guy who destroys this economy because it’s ‘the right thing to do’ will have to flee for his life, and whatever president or political party was in power when that decision was made will be out of power for the next 200 years.

Piffle. This is just another thinly veiled attack on the President.

Whereby you mean this is an overt attack on corporate-controlled representative democracy, and in as much as the President represents that configuration, then I suppose… yes, yes it is.

Totally, totally depraved.

Jefferson was an imbecile? That’s quite a statement. You must be really, really smart. ??

Not mookie. The line is in the story.

Sorry. Misunderstood.

It’s scary stuff. This one comes under the rubric
“Stories that might be true”

And it answers in some regard: How come 535 people in Congress are going along with this crap?

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Some have already responded with good analysis and info. This is a topic to be discussed and debated for a long time to come. Of courese, one thing really needed, but unlikely to happen, is campaign finance reform. The current system is rigged to permit only those with vast personal wealth or those who sell-out to the highest bidders (i.e., the corporations and/or the obscenely wealthy) to be able to run. Then when they’re elected – after spouting whatever rhetoric or promises during the campaign – they’ll do what they’re told to do and/or what the “machine” demands, which usually inures to the benefit of the very rich. The middle and lower classes have been consistently marginalized in my lifetime mainly because we don’t have enough $$$$ to buy legislation and regulatory agencies, etc; we can only buy votes in some elections. Not enough to push forward our agenda.

Another issue for progressives and our “causes” is the ongoing mockery, disrepect and dissing of almost any progressive cause, from worker saftey to health care to environmental issues, etc. The rightwing noise machine has been very adept at mocking us DFHs and our “causese” so as to make it trendy and quite acceptible to mock and deride almost anything progressive as if it’s de regeur stupid, wasteful, tax & spend, you name it.

So it’s hard to get through to the “average citizen” that most progressive causes are in their better interests, not the reverse. Witness the gushing oil volcano, and yet where are the pitchforks? I keep hearing reports on NPR that are still BP/BigOil friendly, where NPR interviews some purported “average citizen” in the Gulf region. Said citizen has mostly “good” things to say about the Rigs and drilling for oil and promotes the notion that stopping the oil drilling in the Gulf is a Big Mistake. Infuriating, but where’s the outcry against “nooz” stories like this? Not in evidence.

And so, it’s a tough row to hoe, but we’ve got to do the best we can with what we’ve got. Good luck to us all and to the planet.

Will this, or won’t this, require a Constitutional amendment? Why, or why not?

It does seem overwhelming to me most of the time. But I think the language is there if we will take it to the real grassroots. There are a lot of right wing lies to be exposed and propaganda to be undone.

The place to begin is with the resentment working people away from the coasts have for those they call “liberal elites” who they believe are arrogant and condescending. I found it interesting to see a bit of it in James Carville ans some of the other Louisianans. The great talent of Rush Limbaugh is how he has presented himself as one of them, “in fly over country” and play on that resentment.

A top longer term goal for me is campaign finance reform. With hopefully voluntary public financing of elections. I think it is the best solution that would not require a constitutional amendment

Yes my ten part series looking at past political movements to learn lessons for today was all about getting in one veiled attack at the president

http://www.youstreet.org They are advocating Public financing.

Public Funding is Up to You

You Street is where America turns the corner. When we succeed in enacting voluntary public funding of all federal elections, we’ll finally succeed in breaking big money’s grip on our political process. So we’ll once again have a government that works — for your interests instead of special interests. You Street is named for the one person we need to make public funding a reality . . . you. Welcome. Find out more

Public Funding Works

Public funding is not some experimental theory. Laws very much like the one we’re supporting nationally are already proving themselves in Maine, Arizona, Connecticut and in cities from New York to Portland, Oregon. Not to mention, public funding in some form is used in virtually every other democracy on the planet.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND …

Citizen Jon Walker:

Thank you again for a most important and thoughtful analysis of the structure of politics and the struggle for progressive change. I worry, however, about those who advance a third party effort in the United States argued from the model of European, or worse, the Candaian parlamentary experience.

My worry is simply that in the United States, at this moment, a thrid party from the left would have as it’s best case the re-election of a weakened coporatist Democratic Party and at worst the election of an otherwise unelectable fascist Republican Party which would lead, in my opinion, to a move from the oligarchy to consolidate behind the military and end in a comeplete collapse of any semblance of representative politics and unthinkable violence and suffering.

The advance of a truly progressive (and independent) labor movement that organizes politically behind the enfranchisement of immigrants and minorities, jobs and enviornmental legislation and an end to corporate wars, is the only way forward in this country. Progressive activists must coordinate and identify with labor and hispanics and press within the Democratic Party presenting the choice of complete loss of power or a complete change in direction, politically. This “inside-outside” tactic is used most effectively in basketball by those teams that have superior numbers and skill but not size and need to control the tempo of the game in order to open up the maximum opportunities while makin a bigger but slower team stretch it’s limited resources to cover more court than they have players. The Arkansas experience of what a progressive insurgency can do within the Party over the short AND the long run is a good example of what I’m talkin’ about. Halter’s loss was NOT a defeat for the progressive opposition rather it was a half a loaf that insured the a fascist Democrat would be replaced by a fascist Republican forcin the Democratic Party leadership to begin to listen to it’s base goin’ forward while settin’ the stage for future gains in the state against a weakened coproratist Democratic machine.

The key to the success of what I am arguin’ for is the progressive identification of and coordination with labor and labor issues. If there is a progressive force inside the Democratic Party that has as it’s immediate goals the elimination of Blue Dogs and corporatists and the consolidation of progressive power in the elcted majorities that remain, then I think there is every reason to hope that structural change can be accomplished without the massive bloodshed I see if a third party enables an out of the closet and hitherto unelectable fascist Republican Tea Party to take power at any level.

I am not opposed to a good fight and I believe that the collapse of the existing oil oligarchy, politically and economically, is inevitable and that the only question is where and how the battle will be fought and how much bloodshed and suffering can be avoided…the bottom line for me is that a progressive third party movement right now will fail and insure that the bloodshed will be massive and the suffering unmitigated.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!

Regarding power structures: Further examples of how the media/press controls presentations, thus (over time), conditions (reactive) connotations: When Elena Kagan was first picked as the Supreme Court nominee, criticism of her far-right bent was pronounced in various progressive circles. At that time, the most prominent photo of her in articles showed her to be somewhat scowling. From then on (once the administration started its campaign to get her approved), the predominance of any coverage relating to Kagan was accompanied with photos of her smiling (confidently, but sweetly). This particular (PR) representation is of the Huffington Post: Faces of Elena Kagan (Compliments of the Press)

Lookit this:

Your request is being processed…

Canada’s economy is suddenly the envy of the world

Well, I’m being processed, but the link should till work

Norske!!!!!!

Citizen Kassandra:

My goodness…well, “hi there” Sister future seer.

Once again, thank you Jon Walker for taking a proactive stance.

As the link from starbucks (7) above stated, fraud is now inherent in our financial system. Add a government without adequate functioning regulatory powers, a Supreme Court out of control in favor of corporate power, and a media owned by a few monopolies, and you have a disaster for “we the people”.

As talkingstick stated, we need to take it to the real grassroots. We need to talk to people about what it means to be a “progressive”…to begin with, the simple basic concepts. The Democrats and Republicans may yell at each other but the bottom line is that their final interests of power for corporations and the wealthy are very much aligned. A two party system doesn’t function anymore if the two parties represent the same interests.

“We the people” need representation. Maybe for a while (at least until we can turn the country around), we need to bypass the politicians and just start talking to each other at the local level with more town hall meetings. I still believe at the basic level, the majority of people in this country want others to live a fulfilling life. We need to capture the “good” in people instead of all the divisive anger.

now might be a good time for progressive canidates. I know personally i have almost zero interest in voting. The recent california election turnout was absurdly low. That’s what they want, to disengage people, and it’s working. But yes the deck is stacked against progressives from so many angles.

Canada has a very, very unsexy banking sector. They didn’t let financialization run roughshod over their other industries, meaning that finance was actually doing what it was supposed to do; acting as a thin minimalist layer of capital allocation between investors and entrepreneurs/enterprises. This is wholly contrary to the giant parasitic structure of finance that many others favored, principally the U.S. and U.K.

Obama indicated that he thinks the U.S. could learn something from Canada’s banking system, and while I can appreciate his saying it, I can also appreciate that he doesn’t actually think that, because if he did he wouldn’t have any of his current economic team still working for him, because none of them want to, or know how to, get there.

with all due respect firedogs – I loves ya.
now read, absorb, digest, and incorporate – the time for simply responding to news and events is over – the time to grasp fundamentals and move forward with a modern progressive movement is now

thank you Jon Walker – looking forward to the entire series

Speaking of progressive candidates, the Denver Post has just released poll results showing that Romanoff is trailing Bennet by 17 pts (53%-36%) in the Colorado Democratic Senatorial primary.

I can’t believe Senator Bennet is going to get away with his phony posturing for the public option, when he had no real intention of supporting it in the reconciliation process.

Time to send Romanoff money if you haven’t already. Bennet is a reprehensible poseur…a liar, nothing more.

If possible, people should attend the “America Speaks” National Town Halls in their area to get the progressive voice out there.

Join Us For The National Town Meeting on June 26 – America Speaks

My worry is simply that in the United States, at this moment, a thrid party from the left would have as it’s best case the re-election of a weakened coporatist Democratic Party and at worst the election of an otherwise unelectable fascist Republican Party which would lead, in my opinion, to a move from the oligarchy to consolidate behind the military and end in a comeplete collapse of any semblance of representative politics and unthinkable violence and suffering. (emphasis mine)

Although, I too, question the wisdom of founding some hypothetical progessive third-party per se (why re-create the wheel?), I disagree with the rationale presented here because I have, slowly and reluctantly, come to believe that this “complete collapse of representative politics” has already happened, i.e., the Democratic Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street. I believe, as others mentioned above, that this is largely a response to the party leaders’ desire for Wall Street and corporate $$$ to fund their campaigns, not because Democrats, per se, are evil people.
I do agree that change will ultimately only come from stronger political movements on the left, but in the meantime, while we are making that happen, supporting thoroughly vetted third-party and independent candidates, who are already running for elected office locally and even nationally, will force a shift in the national conversation. Ads supporting these candidates can convey a progressive message. And, as we saw in the case of Halter’s challenge to Lincoln in Arkansas, it is very likely that progressive challengers can force incumbents to move left, as with Lincoln’s shift on regulation of derivatives trading, that have positive consequences here and now, not ten or twenty years down the road. Whether the challenger is a Democrat or an independent is irrelevant to me. (An independent, as in the case of Bernie Sanders, can be more independent of pressure to toe the corporate party line.)
I have been a “lesser of two evils” voter for my entire life, and I do not take abandoning the Dems likely. I still respect those who want to work within the party for change. I just have abandoned all hope of that happening.
To not oppose the corporatist Democratic Party, from outside the party from the left, entails risks also, which opponents of third-party or independent challengers do not appreciate. The Democratic party brand has been largely discredited, and the risk is that the left continues to be taken for granted by party leaders, who continue to follow a pro-war, corporate agenda, ensuring our continued political irrelevance.
There is also a serious risk that progressive ideas will be discredited when the corporatists fail to reduce, say, unemployment, if the public at large continues to buy the Democrats hype that they are “progressives” implementing progressive solutions, when they are not.
The far right is gaining power in the Republican party, and we would both agree this is a troubling development. But there is opportunity in crisis. And, make no mistake, we are in a time of crisis. I believe your ideas on movement building are excellent, but I do not see this as an either/or proposition. I would characterize it as a both/and type of situation.

Very good, a nice historical analysis of what happens with progressive social movements when their leadership wants to be part of the power structure. My only disagreement (and it is a slight one) is an aspect of the (correct) admonition to choose one’s leaders correctly. In my opinion, taken too far, that puts us right back in the position of waiting for a messiah to save us, one that turns out to be a complete tool. My recommendation is to not rely on leaders at all, but to go for full democracy, with full collective decision making. Therefore, if one must send delegates or choose political candidates do so by drawing lots, as did the ancient Greeks, they are simply representatives of the greater whole. I recognize that this is alien to those who have come to believe democracy is a republican form of government where we are forced to trust that the person we have chosen to rule over us will not sell out. But in my opinion election is anti-democratic, leaders are anti-democratic, and sets us up for the abomination we now have in all three branches of US Government. For the inventors of democracy, the ancient Greeks election is anti-democratic and also a way to set yourself up for dictatorship.

2. Recruit people who have a long term commitment to social justice. Look for, and how can I put this, “ethical” people. I’d look for Unitarian ministers, college professors, Greenpeace workers, that kind of thing. The fact that they would sign a contract not to cash out after election would be a good first start.

No workers? We are the overwhelming majority of the population, who represents us? Forgive me, but what this tells me is that you only care about YOUR issues (I am making an assumption but I’ll bet that means upper middle class professionals).

I meant this one to be a follow on to my earlier piece. The point is we need to create systems that build future leaders.

I think a third party would work in Congress if it only ran in districts it could win: the West Coast, the Northeast, and large cities like Chicago, St. Paul, Denver/Boulder, etc. And do not run a candidate for president so that when we are confronted with the evil of two lessers we do not choose the most evil one (although now that we have Obama I really wonder how much that matters). The NDP in Canada is concentrated in the plains provinces and it has had an effect, as seen in the article, and they gave Canada single payer without ever electing member of their party to be the Premier.

You miss Steelydan3′s construction. These are groups of people that are experienced and traditionally serve ideas and the interests of others. But I take your point and agree workers too. The notion of leaders coming from only ideological and intellectual motivations is what has brought the resentment I spoke of in #19. and has been exploited so well by the right.

Could this have anything to do with the fact that we are such a diverse nation? Nations such as Sweden and Denmark, which seem to be on a progressive footing, are (or were until very recently) composed of people with social identities that were very similar–people whose roots in the country went back many centuries. I’m not expressing this very well, and I am certainly not saying that I think our diversity is a bad thing, but could it be a large part of the reason that we don’t cooperate with each other very well?

I think you may have something there. It is clear that the white identity groups (which really include the GOP) are threatened by minorities and diversity. It’s a narcissistic thingy.

Whereas I would agree with Hightower (latest Hightower Lowdown) that a majority of people in the country are populists rather than corporatists, and that most corporatists are not true conservatives. Neither is this group liberal or progressive. They serve themselves via their corporate strength. However, many populists are also conservatives and many others, especially the uneducated and undereducated find the Republican rant against government and taxation appealing. Given these competing beliefs and interests, how can one go about governing in any efficient and precise manner? The fact is, you can’t; if you muddle through and achieved part of what you planned, you have done well. The idea that somehow if the President had been bolder, things would be going much better seems to be a consistent theme amongst FDL contributors. Clearly the President has made mistakes (taking too long to understand the Republicans were open to bipartisanship being one), but it seems to me he is learning. I think had he taken the bold moves everyone on here seems so frustrated he hasn’t, I believe would have further alienated the independents, and continued to galvanize and energize the Republican base. Make no mistake about it; the next presidential election will be determined by the independents.

The President is frequently criticized as being a corporatist. I believe this is simply wrong. It seems to me, the fact that the President has had to consider the interests of corporate America as necessary part of the political calculus has been taken to mean he is a corporatist. No, it means he is a politician engaging in politics. That is the nature of the beast.

Does that mean I think it unwise to continue to put leftward-populist pressure on him? Not at all. It does mean that I think all of the nastiness and name-calling directed toward Obama is at best, misinformed; at worst solipsistic.

You mean in 21, I meant to include a response to that in my first post, I think there is much truth there: working class people hate feeling that they are being patronized. (My dad was a truck driver and I grew up among the children of Caterpillar workers and farmers so I know what I am talking about).

A voice of reason.

I personally agree, mostly. Though I also don’t think h e is a bought and paid for greedy corporatist I do think he is over impressed with credentials and the power of the wealthy.

There are more competent people who might have been elected but he is who we have and like him or not, enfeebling or destroying him would only hurt us and the country.

sorry for the typo.

Does this mean you grew up in Central Illinois? (Just guessing.) I did too. Caterpiller was, and is, the big employer. Their job cutting and salary reductions have really hurt the local economy.

The answer is simple: if the majority is working class, and if the workers are populist as you argue (I agree with both propositions) then one must understand what populists want. First what is populism? AN easy way to define political ideologies in the US concerns how one feels about government regulation (Marxists and anarchists do not fit here because both regard the state as generally exploitative, so leave them aside) along two axes: regulation of personal, moral issues (women’s access/power to choose contraception, who you choose to have sex with and how, want sort of literature one may look at, etc.) and of the economy (what standards should be for wages, working conditions, pollution control, pensions, food and other consumer goods inspection, tariffs on imports, price controls, etc). Populists are in favor of regulation of BOTH areas. They tend to be reserved about the social issues I mentioned, and want government regulation of them, but they ALSO favor government regulation of the economic issues in order to raise their standard of living. Conservatives and the rich people they represent have succeeded by giving populists the cultural regulation (cultural populism) they want at absolutely no cost to them. What we progressives can do is emphasize what is called “economic populism”, the redistributive policies that they ALSO want while deemphasizing the cultural issues. If Obama had embraced economic populism he would be one of the most popular and respected presidents in history rather than the mediocre corporatist milquetoast failure he is largely seen as now.

Yep, I was born in Peoria and grew up in a small town northwest of there in Marshal county. I actually wrote a chapter of my dissertation and published an article on the 1991-1998 strikes at Cat Inc (as it is now known).

More name calling, little logic.

Too late to edit but I mean northeast, I have lost my sense of direction after having lived in Florida for several years.

little logic

Oh? In what way? If you are calling my argument illogical you need to point out how.

The idea that somehow if the President had been bolder, things would be going much better seems to be a consistent theme amongst FDL contributors.

I don’t think the President needs to be more bold. I think just not actively working against his own purported positions would be an appropriate expectation.

HCR wasn’t a shameless fiasco because the President wasn’t bold enough, it was such because his administration setup pro-AHIP/pro-PhRMA deals, played favorites amongst Congressional committees to have pro-AHIP/pro-PhRMA members take lead on the issue, and established pro-AHIP/pro-PhRMA liaisons between the White House and Congress.

It has nothing to do with being more bold, and everything to do with not being a hyperactive direct adversary.

Your premises about what defines populism, I believe are false. I refer you to Hightower’s delineation of the tenets of populism as I am not going to repeat his article hear.

I pay $930 monthly for a high deductible BC/BS plan; I am a single parent to three teenage children, and am a sole-propritor. I am also a health care provider, most of whose income is Medicare/Medicade, because I work exclusively in nursing homes. I am reimbursed at a rate of 50% of the allowable because I am in mental health, whereas a primary care physician is reimbursed 80% of the allowable. So, these issues bear directly on what I pay for health care insurance and what I am reimbursed for my work.

Do I believe in a single-payer system? Absolutely. Do I believe that pursuing that in the current political system is politically viable? Unfortunately, no. The fact is, the reforms so far accomplished are to my benefit, both as a consumer of health care insurance and a provider of medical services. AHIP is a political force to be reconned with. So is big Pharma. I don’t believe one need to capitulate to them, but they are forces to be dealt with.

For myself, I have recommended three specific ways Medicare and Medicaid costs could be reduced to my state representative. So far, no response.
For example. Medicaid pays for nursing home care, but not for assisted-living. One can go to assisted living for about seven hundred dollars monthly; nursing home costs Medicaid about four thousand dollars monthly. I could list ten of my clients who could go to assisted living, but do not have the resources to pay even seven hundred dollars. So, they are stuck in the nursing home, at much greater expense.

That’s all very interesting, and simultaneously not at all germane to what I said.

President Barack Obama actively worked against the overwhelming majority of the American people, the bulk of his Party’s purported platform, the grassroots organizations that worked both for him (and for healthcare reform), his own campaign positions, and his own public rhetoric.

He did that by setting up pro-AHIP/pro-PhRMA deals, played favorites amongst Congressional committees to have pro-AHIP/pro-PhRMA members take lead on the issue, and established pro-AHIP/pro-PhRMA liaisons between the White House and Congress.

If what you say is true Nathan, then in order to affect the kind of progressive changes that most members of FDL want, they would need to do much more than simply elect progressive politicians or (presumably through the use of Constitutional amendments) change the nature of government in the country, itself a Herculean task. They would also need to completely and fundamentally change the way that Americans think about themselves and each other.

When faced with the near-impossibility of this task, wouldn’t progressives based in the U.S. be better off moving to Canada, from where John Walker suggests they draw their lessons, where such apparently impossible tasks are not necessary?

Wasn’t directed at me, but my response: I don’t like the cold, my family and friends live here, I like the food and culture (for the most part), I don’t need to relearn the cultural idiosyncrasies, etc. I actually had a conversation with a Canadian university professor, whom I told I wanted to live in Canada, and his response was the opposite of you: “why not stay in the US and change things there?” He may have been hoping things will change here because things will get better in Canada, too, as an effect. But the reality is there just isn’t anything about the US that forces us to be the way we are.

Hey reddflagg,

The question is whether it is possible to change current circumstances in the U.S. If you accept Nathan’s premises (and it is entirely possible you do not) then expressions of optimism in this regard are merely the product of wishful thinking, rather than a sober examination of the facts. As we have learned in the last year, change does not necessarily follow from hope. Yes, change requires action on the part of progressives who desire it, but there must also be a certain degree of receptivity on the part of the persons or institutions affected, otherwise those changes will be temporary. As Jane, Jon, and others at FDL have indicated, the U.S. government and its two big political parties are pretty thoroughly rotten. Nathan has suggested that the rottenness is fundamental to the American way of life; to change those core beliefs requires something much more than a functional third party.

FWIW, most Canadians do not live in excessively cold locales, and in any event would take the occasionally blustery day in exchange for universal health care. The differences of food and culture exist, but are comparatively negligible. But again, if you do not agree with Nathan or the implications of many other members of FDL, then you’d have every reason to stay in the U.S.

Here’s an idea: all of the blue people in red states move to blue states and vice versa, and the blue states secede and join Canada. The red states can then name Wichita their capitol, we would have single payer and they would be just like that show “Moral Orel” on Cartoon Network.

Never seen “Moral Orel,” unfortunately.

I’ve spoken with friends who were born in places like Winnipeg, Manitoba who suggest that they have more in common with some folks in the Midwestern U.S. than the residents of British Columbia or Nova Scotia. That said, it seems a shame we cannot annex Chicago to Canada in exchange for, let’s say, Alberta.

Actually, the whole HCR sellout occurred so that instead of spending tens of millions on Harry and Louise and other ads trashing Democrats as happened in 1994, the health industry lobby would spend $150 million on behalf of Democrats. Tom Carper admitted as such last fall:

In a stunning moment during the Senate Finance Committee markup Sen. Tom Carper defended a secret deal that the White House, Baucus, and PhRMA had reached. The White House has long denied the deal. Carper publicly acknowledges that part of the deal was that PhRMA would run millions of dollars worth of campaign ads in support of health care reform.

According to Carper the “golden rule” in Congress is that secret back room deals in exchange for advertising buys must be honored.