I didn’t vote this year. For the first time in well over a decade, I was too annoyed to participate. Over the last six years, I’ve watched as the Democrats held power but proved unwilling or unable to wield it effectively. To make matters worse, those of us who fall left of center have been effectively stifled. Mainstream Democrats saw to that. So while many on the left fret about the Republicans and their Tea Party antagonists, I would argue that it was this stifling of discussion within the Democratic party that led to the debacle of the 2014 midterms. The Democrats are a party that is silently divided.
For me, it all started in 2004 during the Democratic National Convention, when I was summoned to the tv room to see ‘the next President of the United States’ as he delivered the speech that launched his national career. It was quite a speech. After hearing it, I had little doubt that Barack Obama would be running in 2008. But was he for real?
Because I like to know a bit more about someone than what they say in a fully scripted speech, I started scrutinizing his record to see if it stood up to his rhetoric. It didn’t. Instead, Obama employed a brilliant strategy to deflect criticism of his lackluster voting record. When presented with a liberal issue upon which he would have to declare himself by voting, he would start by off making a very flowery speech of support that would make you think he was actually going to vote for it. Then, at the end of his speech, he would announce why he wasn’t going to vote for it after all. It got so bad that as soon as he said he supported anything, I knew it meant the opposite. Ok, moving on…
Despite the divide between his rhetoric and his actions, the American electorate voted overwhelming for Barack Obama in 2008. That ‘hopey, changey thing’ really went over well. People even believed in it. “Yes we can,” said Barack. “Yes we can,” millions of hopeful Americans hollered back. It was almost cynical the way the Democrats played us that year.
Of course the first thing our new president did, even before taking office, was agree to bail out the banks. Bailouts for banksters rubbed many the wrong way, but we were still riding the wave of hope and change, so we weren’t allowed to say anything. Leftists who really wanted change (never mind that passive and pointless emotion ‘hope’) were left out in the cold, so to speak. Many progressives just shut up. We didn’t criticize the president because “look what he inherited, give him time, he’s got a plan, just be patient.”
Some people were surprised that when he got around to ‘fixing’ health care, he enacted a giant giveaway to the insurance industry at the citizens’ expense instead of the single payer system most people wanted. Although he promised early in his candidacy that universal healthcare would not take the form of universal health insurance, by October 2008 he had embraced the Mitt Romney health insurance mandate and that is what we got.
“Drone Warrior” Obama was simply depressing. We had thought he would be at least marginally on the side of peace, but it turned out that if there was a choice of options – diplomacy versus military action, for instance – his administration favored military force. Consequently there were a lot of targeted killings during his tenure, and many more killings under the euphemism of ‘collateral damage.’ All was excused in the name of homeland security, which apparently requires America to blow people up all over the world.
Connected to our now accepted state of constant war is the administration’s adherence to a policy of constant surveillance of the populace, because, as we now know, any of us at any time could turn out to be a terrorist, thus justifying spying on everyone all the time. Edward Snowden blew the lid off that operation, which (ironically) costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Does anyone think that America’s issues with Russia are unrelated to Snowden’s asylum there?
There have been lots of disappointments during the Obama years, and especially for progressives who were hoping for a change from the policies of George W. Bush. To our amazement and dismay, Obama’s policies differed little from those of Bush, but because he had promised so much, it felt worse.
Which brings us to this year’s mid-term elections which Obama’s Democrats lost resoundingly. I’ve heard all kinds of reasons why that happened, but extrapolating from my own case, I’m guessing that one possibility is that a lot of left-leaning people didn’t vote. For my part, I know the Democrats don’t have anything in their black bag for me, but then, neither do the Republicans, leaving me very little choice. Why vote? Why dignify this mockery of a sham with my presence in a voting booth, pretending that what I do there matters? And yes, I know, I’m supposed to trust the system, but let’s face it – I don’t anymore. And I’m probably not the only one.
As it happens, there are pundits who agree with me. I saw one on public television just the other day. She said that Democrats can have all the get-out-the-vote drives they want, but it won’t make any difference if they’ve lost the trust of voters. I think the Dems know that, which is why Obama made the startling move last week of showing support for net neutrality. This placating move is all very nice, but it seems a little late. Why now? Does he mean it? As you can see, the trouble with losing the trust of voters is that they won’t believe you even when you do something good.
I think it’s too late for the Obama administration to make back what they’ve lost which is a shame. They could have provided a much needed and desired counterbalance to Tea Party/Republican positions. As it is, Obama squandered that opportunity by emphasizing ‘compromise’ to such an extent that he started to appear rightwing himself, leaving real liberals nowhere to go. That Republicans can pretend Obama is a ‘socialist’ is an especially bad joke in the context of Obama’s actual policies.
Now, the problem of the forgotten left is starting to play out at the polls, which is probably a good thing since there’s nothing like losing big to get your attention. Whether the Democrats get the right message is another matter. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, they do to win back their progressive wing — or if they even try.
Could you please give give a
Could you please give give a couple of examples where you felt Obama’s voting record before 2004 was highlighted by a flowery speech for and then vote of non-support. Also the name of the public television pundit who made the statement about Democrats and get out the vote drives. Thanks
paving bills
Here’s a link that references Sen. Obama’s voting..I didn’t fact check or research this, but did recall the tendency
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/12/present-unaccountable-senator-obamas-illinois-voting-record
There’s no doubt that politics have become bloated and sickening, and voting had been made into a travesty.
This link discusses Obama's
This link discusses Obama’s voting record as a state legislator and it speaks to his voting present not no on items. It also explains why he did so in particular cases and might have in others. The state allows a present vote which is counted as neither no or yes. I found the explanation where he supported some of the legislation but there were line items he couldn’t support understandable. In the US Congress bills often have things tucked in that a legislator might find objectionable but if they vote no they are voting no on a bill that generally they agree with. They don’t have the option of a present vote which is not such a bad thing. Also I find some of this article pure conjecture as to why Obama voted present on some of the bills, it’s only the suppositions of some writers, nothing directly that Obama said as to why.
What Lise refers to is his making a speech that sounds as if he’s in favor of legislation and then at the end stating why he had, although generally in support, was voting no. I assume she’s referring to his voting record as a senator. I’m assuming from what Lise writes that she sees this as duplicity, I would like a couple of examples of where he did actually did this. I’m curious as to why she found his entire statement including the reasons why he came to a no vote lacking and can’t figure that out without an example or two. So would like to see an entire statement where he gives the reason why he’s voting no also.
Politics “have” not “become bloated and sickening”. This is nothing new, since even before the days when they used to stand at the polls and hand out cash money to buy votes.
Chads and Cads
I’ll leave the untangling of Obama’s voting record for you to sort out.
As far as the age old corruption motif…while it’s certainty true this is nothing new, the proportion and degree, when you factor Citizens United, 24/7 bombardment media, internet subterfuge, voter rights attacks, Koch fiends..et al..it does make one’s singular ballot feel like an exercise in absurdity.
I think you're right that it
I think you’re right that it feels that way but I’m not sure it is that way. We have so much more information, some accurate, some not, which is why I like to see things linked to exact statements and direct quotes.
It’s hard to sort out a journalist’s or reporters opinion from the what a person being written about has actually stated.
the Real real value
Would be great to know the actual value of a vote. Especially as that value is in flux domestically, and also fluctuates on the world market. What would our national standard be? Our suffrage drawn from the stores of what treasure? What’s a vote measured on? I’d say, or used to say, Personhood. But that’s muddy now too.
And don’t we already seeing traders and raiders shorting the price… “a consequence of the free market”
Not true
For what I can tell the Democrates and their super PACs maintained and in most cases surpassed the Republicans. Looks like your statement isn’t true regarding blanket disporpartional spending other then forcing the other to keep up, and in this case the Dems aired more media spots then republicans in most key areas.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/democrats_outspend_republicans_on_political_advertising_liberals_make_major.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_em_ru
Regarding Obama, there is plenty of very old threads on this site ruthlessly beaten down for predicting most of his current failures rooted in his lack of experience.
One story
I wrote this story about his voting after the first election but before he took office.
I read his statement a little
I read his statement a little differently than you do. He says that we have to be careful not to confuse the election outcome with the election process. I don’t see it out of character or necessarily out of line that he didn’t side with Boxer in challenging the vote. If you really look at what the issues with the election process were, it would have been a fool’s errand really to attempt to throw out the Ohio vote. That’s the problem with the way some of these elections are being run, it’s not an issue of not allowing people to vote, it’s more an issue of making it impossible or very difficult. Legally, the election outcome would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to challenge. Bush won by 50.8% to Kerry’s 48.7% which was not that off in the prior election where he won by 50% to Gore’s 46% with Nader taking 3%.
I just don’t see the big problem here, so Obama proceeded to move on some legislation that was pertinent to the voting issue afterwards but apparently he just didn’t do enough in your opinion. Seems he just never does quite enough for those on the far leaning left and does too much of the wrong stuff for those on the far right. I’m sure glad no one’s scrutinizing my work performance as closely or as demandingly. Heck most of us couldn’t even begin to get anywhere near as much done as he has, and most who have tackled this office haven’t. Especially considering the opposition and scrutiny he has come under. Just glad no one’s looking at me this closely but then I’m not doing anything nearly as complex which is probably a good thing for the world.
Yup, no problem, except no one is voting for Democrats
You asked for an example and I gave you one.
I think the onus is on you to list the great things he’s done. He was able to say them with his mouth to get elected. What did he and Democrats do since?
I’m hardly far left. I just judge people by what they do, and to me he talks a good talk, and doesn’t act on his words in any significant way. It’s a shame. He had the largest wind at his back coming in and could have accomplished great things. Instead he made many (an election-crushing number of) people even more cynical.
What will his legacy be?
I asked for an example of
I asked for an example of where Obama said he supported the idea of a piece of legislation but was going to vote against it which is what Lise referenced. Your example actually illustrates not something he said he would do and then didn’t do. As he clearly stated there’s a difference between an election outcome and election process. He never said he would challenge Ohio’s vote and in fact he said he wouldn’t because he thought it was probably correct. That doesn’t mean he thought the election process was fair or even necessarily legal but that there was no way to prove that the process necessarily affected the outcome. But whatever, I didn’t mean to reference you as far left but I do think he suffers criticism from the far left who are not as pragmatic as he is. Here’s a list but I don’t think it includes Lilly Ledbetter or a few other things he did initially. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all
I think it’s hard to predict what his legacy will be but I think in retrospect he will receive a lot more credit than he’s gotten for keeping us from another Great Depression for one thing, healthcare even if dismantled to some degree will probably end up being as popular and accepted as social security and other social service programs. Even with all it’s problems he moved us further towards a national healthcare program than anyone else has ever managed. I think history will look very favorably at Obama’s record. But that’s just my idea, and it depends a lot on what goes on with the next administration I suppose.
Just out of curiosity what would you think of a Bernie candidacy?
Point and perception
I remember a couple votes after Obama’s big speech in which both he and Hillary talked about supporting some group of constituents but then explained why they couldn’t. It struck me as wrong at the time (why bother with the statement? why not just vote?) and I never had much faith in either as presidential candidates in 2008. I remember them because I watched the press conferences live on television, but I don’t have video or specific references. Not sure it would help if I did, since so much rests on perception.
I used to be much more engaged in politics and right up through 2008, I still had an idea that our side could eventually win, or at least, be recognized. I was disappointed when I felt Obama distancing himself from the left early in his campaign. I felt he saw them as a liability and believed he could win without their support. Part of my point above was simply to raise the question — maybe too obliquely — of whether the Democrats need progressive voters today. I’m guessing that they do, but I don’t know that which is why I wrote an opinion piece extrapolating from myself… 😉
Whether or not you agree with my take on the Obama years, the fact remains that the Dems got pretty seriously trounced in the last elections. Why did they lose? Did progressives come out to vote for them? These seem like worthwhile questions for the Democrats to ask. And as a progressive, I guess I’m also saying — don’t count on my vote if you’re just going to ignore me after you get it.
Here's my problem with your
Here’s my problem with your opinion. You state that you felt early on that Obama couldn’t be relied upon beause he (and now Hilary also) made statements where he supported constituents but then voted against them. But you cannot remember who those constiutents were or what their issue was. This is so vague that unless you can back up your statement with some data it makes your whole opinion difficult. I would say the same about any opinion piece written on any topic. Otherwise I could write an opinion piece about anyone based on a statement that they had said something I didn’t agree with but I can’t remember what it was they said. It’s not a matter of perception, it’s a matter of backing up statements that you base your piece on.
Now I’ll admit that I disagree with some of your takes on Obama, I don’t believe that he ever gave the impression that he would govern any more “left” than he has. Personally I saw a lot of change once he came into office, but that is perception I suppose. Just a general change in tenor and attitude towards issues like fair pay and equality issues right off the bat made me hopeful, old crotchety cynic that I am. I certainly don’t see where Obama saw the left as a liability and distanced himself because he thought he could win without their support. I can think of no time during the campaign that he distanced himself from what some might see as left issues without making clear statements as to why. So while he may have distanced himself from perceived “left” issues at times, I just see no evidence that he did so because he felt he didn’t need their votes. On the contrary couldn’t one see it as being faithful to what he felt was correct rather than embracing left issues just to get votes. I see that as a sign of depth of character, a refusal to pander to a left or right side just to get votes. Rather refreshing actually.
Even the example Chris gave where about the Ohio vote count, Obama said quite clearly that he felt the election vote was probably correct but the election process wasn’t . And based on the Ohio percentages in the prior elections he was probably correct. The prior election had always split about 50% Republic, 48% Democrat back to Clinton who beat Bush by about 2% but Perot’s run skewed that whole election. Without Perot it’s possible that Bush would have taken Ohio as Reagan trounced Mondale in Ohio.
As for this last election I think those who want to see it as some evidence of voters dissatisfaction with Obama and his policies need to look at the history of midterm elections. In fact the turnout is always similar to what it was this past time. Always very low. And in the last 21 mid-term elections the incumbent party has lost on average 30 House seats and 2 Senate seats. Only 2 times in 21 years has the incumbent party gained House or Senate seats. So it’s really impossible to be making any sorts of judgments or predictions based on this mid-term election. It was totally predictable that it would go this way. And perhaps even more predictable that it would because of the huge amounts of money poured into besmirching Dems by the far right money groups.
Lost In Details
Sorry not to have opinions based on documented, chapter and verse facts. Sometimes, I like to look at the big picture, or maybe just cut to the chase and say what’s on my mind. And I’ve found that the more details you supply, the more you give people to hang you with. 😉 Don’t confuse ’em with facts, my old friend used to say. And it’s true, 9 times out of 10. You can look it up!
But seriously, how can the Democrats (or any party for that matter) be spurred to respond to people’s issues if we continue to vote for them no matter what, because they aren’t the other party? Not voting for them is about the only thing I can think of that really gets their attention. It’s the last refuge of the powerless. My opinion, just throwing it out there. If it’s true that I’m a complete outlier and no one else feels this way, then no harm done. The Democrats are fine and we can go on with business as usual.
But I do think that we’re going to see more response from congress and the WH on perceived left issues. I have no facts to back me up. It’s just a hunch.
I'm not asking for documented
I’m not asking for documented chapter and verse facts. It’s fine to look at the big picture but I’m just saying that basically to say I think this about this person because they said something that I didn’t agree with but I can’t remember what it was they said isn’t all that helpful. I’m trying to get a feel for why you see things the way you do but it’s difficult to understand when it’s so vague. If the details you give are understandable and pertinent how could anyone hang you? They might disagree or see things a different way but that’s having a discussion not attending a hanging.
Ah well, so be it.
Just a Hunch?
Where under God’s green Vermont did you get the slightest inkling that the Republican majority legislature will be getting on the liberal bandwagon anytime soon? From the get-go old man Mc Connell set the tone that they had no intention of passing or promoting any legislation which wouldn’t help big business. They wasted precious time trying 39 times to legislate away the ACA which has helped millions. They have threatened him since he has proposed the immigration exec order. They forgot( not an uncommon trait of Republicans)that they had 8 years under dum dum Bush and 6 years under Obama to get immigration and a medical bill done. With the Republicans in charge of both houses you won’t see any “left” legislation in the near future. I only hope Obama doesn’t send us down the river so he has a legacy. We just recently found out that he bargained away Medicare benefits to help fund the ACA, that wasn’t well publicized. Sorry for the rant, I enjoyed your comments and it’s great to read some people are watching, I just don’t hold the same hope you do.
Were you directing this
Were you directing this comment to me? If so, I am totally in agreement with you. In fact, didn’t the Republican leaders including, I believe, Mitch McConnell, have a meeting while the celebrations were going on the night of the swearing in where the Republican “leaders” took a pact to not let one piece of legislation through in order to keep Obama from being reelected. No discussion about what KIND of legislation, they just wanted to impede him at every point. If you were commenting about what I wrote I was referencing Lise’s statements. I have no belief whatsoever that these Republicans are going to do anything but try and make Obama’s last term a mess, the public and the public good can go to hell for all they care. Hopefully his persistence will win out.
Answer
No I wasn’t. I was replying to Lise’s last paragraph. Sorry for the confusion
... what would you think of a Bernie candidacy
This really deserves its own story, but as a quick comment and point of interest here’s Bernie’s appearance on Colbert last night.
All other issues and factors aside, this trope from Bernie really rubs me the wrong way.
“…What we have to ascertain,” said Sanders about his possible run, “is whether or not, in this country, there is the appetite or willingness to put together a strong grassroots movement to take on the billionaire class….>
I understand that the full quote references the crazy unevenness of the playing field, but the language of a leader to his constituents should not be “show me”, or “if you are really serious, then maybe..” it should be decisive, “I’m going, are you with me?”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/18/bernie-sanders-colbert-frightening-billionaire-class-should-be-goal-grassroots
Lise captured the mood of voters
Even without the accurate specificity of dates and records, it struck me yesterday while I was reading Lise’s article that she captured the mood of voters not comfortable with this corrupt and devious 2-Party system.
There aren’t many options. Change them from within or work on the outside hoping to get a bigger piece of the pie.
Not voting supports status quo
And there won’t be more than two options as long as people who are fed up decline to vote. While the apathy and disgust are certainly understandable, withholding your ballot won’t build any alternative to the two-party centrist paradigm. A lot of Liberty Union Party candidates got my vote this election, mainly because I wanted to support a third party. But there were also centrist independents and Libertarians on the ballot for those who aren’t looking for a left alternative.
There are many in this country who would like to take your vote away through gerrymandered districts, voter ID laws, unsecure voting methods, and other barriers. Staying away from the voting booth hands them an easy victory.
Lise Wrote Brilliantly
I do agree that Lise captured a good synopsis of one set of viewpoints. I think they are serious and well-considered observations, and she and her thoughts would be welcomed by discriminating Democrats anytime! 🙂
Rebuild Democracy!
Getting on in years, I decided to re-assess my commitment to issues-oriented movements (nuclear weapons, the environment, etc.) and go back to my 1968 roots, having worked for Bobby Kennedy’s campaign and watched our hero get assassinated, like so many other folks in US politics have been. So I started teaming up with local Democratic organizations and politicians and giving the Party my radical voice, without too many reservations, but some, mind you.
Now, you say the ‘Democrats Lost’. But in Windham County we had a good voter turnout for a non-Presidential year. We gave a large majority vote of confidence to the Progressive/Democratic challenger for the Lieutenant Governorship, Dean Corren, who qualified for public funding, by the way. And we resoundingly re-elected Governor Shumlin with more than 4,000 votes over all his competitors combined (statewide the vote margin for Shumlin was much smaller). Not only that, we elected 14 out of Justice of the Peace candidates who ran as Democrats — the Republicans didn’t even field one!
We are as solid as a rock on universal health care, and I am trying to get the Party to help get big money out of politics. If you care about these issues, and others, why not help co-opt the Democratic Party? It is surely the one that is most likely to help bring about the kinds of changes you seek. For the Democratic Party is nothing unless it stands up for government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Come to the meeting of the Windham County Democratic Committee this Monday, November 24. at 7:00 PM, at The Works (bagel cafe), 118 Main Street in Brattleboro. Our special guest speaker will be Dan Weeks, who heads up the ‘Granny D’ legacy organization called ‘Open Democracy’, based in Concord NH. We’ll be there at 6:30, a half hour early, if you want to ‘klatsch’ (talk informally).
As one Democrat, I am serious about getting big money out of politics, and the Supreme Court’s so-called ‘Citizens United’ ruling is in the center of my bullseye. C’mon, stop beefing and join the fray!
John Wilmerding, Chair
Windham County Democratic Committee
Vermont Democratic Party
1-802-257-DEMS
Universal Health Care
As I heard Gov. Shum on VPR he is back stepping on his enthusiasm and former commitment towards reaching a single payer health care system in state quickly retracting to appease, a direct result of such a close tidering election concluding this issue may have been rejected by right wing voters among others who have been utterly frustrated with Vermont Health Care Connect whose incompetence I can say as a patient democrat, has cost me personally over three hundred dollars in out of pocket payments already due to a billing glitch in their malfunctioning billing program that did not acknowledge timely payment with an inherent disconnect with dental providers and they wouldn’t take any accountability there after an endless amount of run around CS phone communication and deceit eating up too many of lunch hours to mention to the point of having wage an appeal of their negligence which I finally gave up on. Winning by some 4,000 votes does not qualify exactly as a landslide and this health care system is a rip off and was ill-conceived from it’s inception in my opinion, somebody in government need to take responsibility for this is unacceptable and should be scrapped for a better system that actually gives us some attainable coverage!!.
Wha?
You’re not exactly clear in what you are saying here, but I am sure I respectfully disagree. The Health Care exchanges were a good example of what is called Responsive Regulation and they have covered millions who were not previously covered.
In Windham County, mind you, a 4,000 vote margin over all other competitors was indeed a landslide for Governor Shumlin, but not exactly surprising since he grew up here and his friends among the Democratic leadership here are solid.
I too have had trouble with Vermont Health Connect, which can be squarely laid at the doorstep of a faulty web site. My problems are fixed at this point, thanks in part to a smart Health Care Navigator who works out of Brattleboro Memorial Hospital, Joan Bowman. I am sorry that you had problems with this … I too had expenses out of pocket because of the glitches. I wish you well.
The greater good of having so many more people covered now far outweighs the problems of the exchange. I couldn’t care less what the ‘far right’ think because they don’t seem to give a hoot what the rest of the world thinks and only care about themselves and their greed.
It's a sad case scenario
I do not personally blame the actual people manning the phones although many have been evasive and given convoluted a varied answers for the same questions, they only take instruction from the top on how to deal or not deal with complaints ie redirect to another department who does much of the same passing the buck while we wait 20 min just to talk to someone special, Initially worked with Joan who is very nice, but setting up a system that leaves the burden on consumers to make up for it’s own flaws of trial and error in a time of great financial stress for many is just wrong.
I recently had to step in for a relative who could not acquire an oral surgeon in the region who accepted Green Mount Care (Medicaid) or if they did the waiting list was endless and just could not afford the thousands of dollars for the procedure. Because it was a dental emergency I had to cover out of pocket(take out a loan) for this person and I really couldn’t afford this myself having been ripped off by Vermont Health Care Connect leaving me to postpone my own dental work in need, so it goes, we pay more for less then get stiffed.
While I agree that the
While I agree that the process needs work, I find it really interesting that you are complaining about the DENTAL care you are getting as well as Medical. Vermont is one of a handful literally of states where up until the Obamacare plan, you could get anywhere near a useful health coverage plan that was affordable. Forget dental. It may be annoying but my reaction is that you should be really really happy that you are even having difficulties with your dental plan. Most people in this country prior to Obamacare who didn’t make substantial incomes have lived with no dental or medical care ever, at all, nada, none. Not that it doesn’t need to be improved but…….
As for Shumlin’s reason for stepping back a bit from single payer I suspect it’s much more likely an issue of figuring how to pay for it than anything to do with this past election. Remember that those countries with universal health care all have much higher tax rates than we do in the US and until there’s a shift in attitude about social services it’s going to be difficult to get single payer. It’s expensive but then as the Danish doctor said when asked by an American why he wasn’t more upset about his 75% tax rate: “I wouldn’t want to live in a country where people were going hungry, not getting medical care and children who had promise couldn’t fulfill that promise because they couldn’t afford a higher education. So I pay higher taxes” Interesting that with the burdensome tax rates those same countries rank highest on the UN’s national “happiness” poll taken per country. Needless to say the US isn’t that happy . . . yet.
But while it’s okay to criticize how efficient this system is please keep in mind how lucky we are in this state to even have it, and have had it while our fellow citizens have struggled without any state run healthcare system.
Dental coverage was once provided by many employers
now in many cases it is not. It was Shumlin himself who made those comments in reaction to the recent close call election results that left him stunned and stepping back on single payer was one former direction he would have to strongly reconsider in response to the recent frustration with the health care initiative and attributable to how it’s mishaps were handled. I’ll consider myself lucky when the cost of living doesn’t keep skyrocketing and settles down to a a more reasonable rate so a family can possibly survive and make do here in Brattleboro or the state as a whole without feeling as if having to take on another job, if one is to be found, or to move off the grid is the next option, which would be of course an expense in itself.
Sorry, dental coverage
Sorry, dental coverage historically was not covered by the majority of employers, unless you worked for the federal government or a really large corporation or had a high level executive job. In fact dental coverage didn’t really exist for most workers until the 1970s when the ACLU added it to their benefits package. Another job perk most workers have the unions to thank for.. I don’t know how old you are but “once provided” would only be true back to about 1980 and as for “many” I guess it depends on how you define many. Commonly small employers barely can afford to supply health insurance, the following stats only track medium to large companies. So the percentages don’t include the millions of small level employers that can’t afford to supply dental . . . until Obamacare came along that is.
By 1980, 56% of employees had dental coverage, 77% in 1984 falling to 57% in 1995. Only medium and large companies were charted, most small companies didn’t offer dental and probably still don’t. Since 1995 the percentages kept falling.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/dental-care-benefits-1995.pdf
Outside of a handful of states where there has been a statewide insurance program like Vermont’s, dental coverage has been so expensive even if offered as to be possible only for those in higher level jobs.
You won’t be lucky if the cost of living stops skyrocketing and settles down, you’ll be living in another world. Besides taxes going up, I would offer based on my long life-living experience, that you can also count on the cost-of-living continually and steadily increasing. Until there’s a huge depression but you wouldn’t want that either.
Dental coverage should not be
Dental coverage should not be treated as a secondary health concern that is regarded as optional or somehow a cosmetic indulgence, have you ever had a tooth abscess?, luckily I haven’t, but have heard the horror stories on how this can put you out of commission and incapacitate one’s ability to function in a hurry not to mention other serious complications that can arise as a result, any time you have to go under for a procedure I feel certainly puts our mere survival in question.
The Current BCBS “Silver” Plan (forget about the Gold elite plan) for your average Joe keeping his head above the water and for those who supposedly can afford it, should be the renamed the Nickel Plan as they squeeze every last one out of your hard earned, thin lined, shrinking pocket, empty out of pocket with over inflated high deductibles leaving us just as vulnerable to being cleaned out with a sudden emergency while dwindling our already stretched out budgets monthly, then followed by an imbalance of percentages of you actually are expected to pay out there after at every unfortunate health related occurrence arising from harm’s way. I’d like to know just how the health insurance companies are making out as a direct result of Health Care Connect, is business booming for them?
We might as well just take out catastrophic insurance alone and a call it a day considering the current plan and save on our monthly payments which exceed reasonable costs for those of us genuinely trying to take the necessary measures of leading a healthy life style (expensive vitamins, exercise ect.) that alleviates and prevents many health risks saving insurance companies great sums of money we don’t see the likes of really except for non smokers, yet what do we receive in return in cost breaks for our good behavior?. I don’t see how any of your statistics give any credence to progressive action in revamping the health care debacle over decades of degraded coverage here in our state or nationwide, sorry, seems more defensive to the dismal track record rather than to any drastic government appropriation reform deserved , what we have is good enough you imply and to consider ourselves lucky, as compared to let’s say Canada?, and we are already in a depression or should I say the Great Recession what’s the difference, times are hard?. The reason people did not pay for health insurance in the past was they couldn’t afford it, nothings changed in that respect!
Correction of Typo
P.S.: In Brattleboro that should read 14 out of 15 Justice of the Peace candidates.
Brand awareness and appeal isn't the same as representation
The best argument I can make FOR voting is that there is no law requiring anyone to vote for a “frontrunner” or established candidate. The ability to choose 3rd party or write-ins allows for a vote to be registered, and count officially. If everyone who didn’t vote would just go and write someone in, or choose from the other options, we’d have a different set of representatives.
The downside to this is that one has to find such a candidate before heading to the polls. It might be that in a given year, no options are appealing. In that case, I can see a reason to withhold a vote.
I’ve always cherished the write-in, but locally that’s been made extremely cumbersome. I don’t feel I really have that option in Brattleboro anymore. (Brattleboro will only count write-in votes if the person being written in agrees, ahead of time.)
I think as long as one has a reason, the choose to vote or not vote is solid. If one is not voting out of laziness, that’s a different matter.
A former reason to vote was that it matters locally. But, our votes for town reps have not gotten us accurate representation in recent years, we had no significant challengers to any elected seat last spring, and our ability to write-in votes that count have been squashed in town. That gave us an unchallenged ballot, and we couldn’t write in whomever we wanted without major hurdles.
A ballot without options makes voting seem quite useless.
Not sure what the answer is nationally, other than a different system entirely. Voting for corporations and their lackeys is not voting for representation or leadership. It’s brand awareness, not governing.
This just in...
I read Lise’s post when she first posted it and have been refraining from responding, partly because there have been enough good enough responses, and partly I didn’t want to come off as too cynical, albeit from a somewhat opposite point of view. But nevertheless I offer this perspective, for what it is worth.
I came of age in the 70s at a college that many regarded as ground zero for “The Revolution”. My first quarter there I had a dorm neighbor who was a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Tom and his fellow commie friend Leo were two of the nicest guys you’d ever wish to meet. Tom even played folk music on his guitar, for gosh sakes. Always there with a smile and a good word. But that first impression was rather quickly smashed when, after a group of us had published the first issue of our comic book, and we were trying to peddle it for a few kopeks. Tom took one look at it and threw it in my fellow cartoonist’s face, screaming “THIS IS BOURGEOIS TRASH!” It, along with the student strike that shut down the campus the following year, were something of a shock to my system that I’ve carried, in one fashion or another, ever since.
When I came to Vermont I found myself “rewarded” with similar experiences. The town crier (my little euphemism for her penchant for being on the front lines of every protest you care to imagine) was introduced to me by a mutual friend. He says to her “This is (my name)” and instead of any common pleasantry, she never looked me in the eye once, only turning to the introducer and asking “Is he a good guy?” which I took to mean, “Are his politics correct?” I slunk away, invisible to her, still un-introduced. Another fellow, who was a self-styled, self-appointed leader of all sorts of progressive causes, particularly at the time nuclear disarmament, held a meeting to throw around ideas for a way to raise awareness of a particular issue. I came up with an idea which he promptly nixed outright. An hour or so later into the meeting he raised the very idea I had brought up, it “passed” and that is what occurred. From a distance I would read how Bernie Sanders furthered his nascent political career, during his mayoral run in Burlington, for breaking quite alot of eggs towards creating the various omelettes that he wanted to accomplish. None of them, such as what would become the magnificent walkway park along the lake, were necessarily bad ideas, but many, to read the accounts of city council meetings, were apparently railroaded through. This, I concluded along the way, was the stuff of politics and I was determined never to have anything to do with it, despite the bumper sticker sloganeering demanding otherwise.
What I am suggesting, of course, is the open secret of alot of progressive politics and, to my way of thinking, is why it all ultimately fails or is destructive in ways not particularly foreseen. People that are attracted to a vision, or a grand idea, be it communism or social justice, or maybe even just a park along a lake, are either congenitally unable, or at least unwilling, to see the tree for the forest. Any person that comes along is seen either as a potential ally or obstacle to whatever their cause is, no matter how good or worthy it is. This isn’t to say such a thing is wrong, per se. It is to point out, as it seems to need to be with each generation, the adage about those with weak stomachs averting their eyes to both sausage and law making.
These days, after the era when even someone as established as Tip O’Neil declared that the personal is political, it seems that none of us are safe from the sausage making. Sausages, like that copy of our comic book back in 1971, are thrown at our faces to deal with one way or another. But in my extremely humble opinion, that doesn’t make the sausage makers correct in turning anything and everything into an issue, particularly when their opinion of an issue is already dead set, and all they are doing is covering their political backs. Same as it ever was perhaps.
One time in a moment of personal crisis, set off from the vagaries of a crazy love affair that threw me into questioning everything about myself, I found myself in the office of a Jewish scientist, otherwise known as the rabbi that reared me. Of the many startling things he threw out at me was this rather unforgettable line: “(My name), intellectually I’m a communist.” And then he sat silent, leaving that hanging in the air for me, thoroughly startled, to grapple with. But I answered his koan. “But it doesn’t work, right?” Right, he replied with an air of certainty that I seldom have seen. It was his way of trying to cool the flames of all the idealism and politics that had been going around my head, if for no other reason than being pushed in there by the times I grew up in and the people I had been unfortunate enough to meet.
It’s fine to SAY that you’re progressive. It’s a far other thing to do anything about it, let alone to even know what to do. Those of us that might complain about this or that political act or reality would be best to take pause before deciding that we have been necessarily betrayed. It’s one thing to say that Barack Obama has committed a “betrayal” of compromise. It’s a far other thing to assume that your write-in candidate of choice, the one that espouses words more towards your ideal, really would accomplish anything towards that ideal, at least not without a more dictatorial or ideological approach, something that I assure one and all would only backfire in ways unseen.
The problem isn’t the compromise. I fail to see any progress (if there even is such a thing; the very word itself has become something of a talisman) without compromise. The problem are the ideologues that are determined to believe, and most importantly have YOU believe, that they have the answer. They are only looking towards agreement, not discussion, and they need that agreement like oxygen. And it should be obvious by now that ideologues can come in more colors than any given political opponent that you might disagree with at any given moment. Time and time again I have been shocked and surprised at the corners from which any given “grand change” has occurred. The primary one that comes to my mind most quickly was from one of the greatest ideologues of recent times, Ronald Reagan, when he had his ice-breaking walk in the woods with the leader of the so-called evil empire. Even Bernie Sanders shocks and surprises me when he actually reaches out to otherwise ideological opponents and actually accomplishes something instead of blathering on and on about how we need this or that revolution in politics. I daresay it can, and will, happen again, if we can allow for it. I fail to understand the criticisms of Obama, if for no other reason than the atmosphere of sanity that he brings to the conversation of national politics. For me, it is like a balm. Politics is as much an art as it is a science, but the artistry comes not from any ability to conjure up visions of a better world. Any old fool can do that. But that which comes from knowing and understanding people for who they are and where they come from, warts and political disagreements and all. I can’t say I’m all that good at that myself. Can you?
Thanks for taking the time to
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, toyboy.
Why you should vote
My response is to Lise’s original comment about why she didn’t vote. Since then the column has devolved into an account of Obama’s record and a discussion of single payer. I do have specific thoughts on single payer and am happy to share them at any time but here I want to respond about voting.
This election was not about Obama, in Vermont it wasn’t even really about the antics at the federal level. But the election did have a huge impact on what happens in our state.
Whether Gov Shumlin made the right decisions about what to reveal about the details on health reforms, property tax issues, education, etc could be debated on both sides. But for anyone who believes that we should move ahead with health reform, climate change, continue to work for a liveable wage and working conditions, continue our support of civil rights for all (marriage equality, mental health reform, etc), and many other issues, this election was important and had a huge impact.
We can all disagree on details and that is where citizens must try to influence the debate. But it is important to support the general directions. The fact that many decided to sit this one out in some sort of protest gives more ammunition for those who want to defeat our initiatives.
If you don’t agree with the initiatives that we have been working on – health care, climate change, open and transparent government, liveable wages and conditions, etc – this was a great election for you. If you do agree with those initiatives, this election may prove disastrous.
Many of us will continue to work hard on these issues, but it is a bit less compelling when so many decided not to support us.
I don’t mean to sound like a scold but it is very disappointing that folks would sit out an important state and local election because of federal issues well beyond our control
Sorry to be so longwinded.
Jeanette White
Please don't loose heart. You
Please don’t loose heart. You are supported. Remember that it’s not that uncommon for mid-term election turnouts to be low. I don’t think it’s any statement one way or the other about your work and efforts. The comments made here about voting and the wisdom of it aren’t necessarily reflective of anything or anyone but those who have written here. As for the low turnout, it’s just something that tends to happen which a lot of people don’t seem to realize including Jessee Ventura who I am listening to on the radio right now. He seems to be claiming that the low turnout was because people are waiting for him to run for President, it’s his moment. Yikes. Sorry to slide off topic there but wow. Let me repeat, low turnout is common, not reflective of anything really but an ongoing trend. Your efforts are great appreciated. Thanks for all the hard work.
Local vs. Federal
I’m definitely looking for answers so I appreciate all the discussion. My issues are mostly but not exclusively with the federal level of govt. With regard to private citizens trying to influence the debate, I chose not voting as my method. This is a form of protest vote — a non-vote vote for something that wasn’t on the ballot, which is gov’t that’s really and truly for the people. I don’t think the one we have now is. By not voting, I felt I was demonstrating in a microscopic way that I’m not liking the status quo at all.
With regard to “federal issues beyond our control”, I agree that they mostly are beyond our control. If, that is, we just keep voting along for one or the other and hope for the best. But given how much that we call local is governed by federal regs and policies, we’re really not in any way independent of federal govt. So for that reason, the only way to change much of what happens locally is to change things at the federal level. So it seems to me, anyway.
But the real point I wanted to make was that maybe more people would vote if they thought it would make a difference. Right now, we seem to have a problem convincing some people that voting will make a positive difference in their lives.
More questions
This all brings up some interesting questions.
What is the purpose of voting? To elect someone to represent your views? To participate in democracy? To show support for issues? To register a protest? To be counted?
Why is it a minority of people that are voting? Why is the majority staying home? (Lise is in the majority of American voters, despite what some might want to think.)
Is a candidate elected by a minority of eligible voters really representative?
Will politicians who receive this feedback change anything about what they do? Will they reach out more? Be more clear about why they are running? Spend a bit of effort and ask us to vote for them for specific reasons? Follow through on issues we bring up to them?
So much to ponder…
Mid-Term Elections are Typically Low
I posted this earlier but will repeat. Turnout for mid-term elections is always this low. This election was no different and not necessariy any lower than usual. The only thing that an be deduced from the election turnout is that it was a low turnout as usual and there is nothing else indicated by the numbers than that fact.
Look it up.
I repeat below:
As for this last election I think those who want to see it as some evidence of voters dissatisfaction with Obama and his policies need to look at the history of midterm elections. In fact the turnout is always similar to what it was this past time. Always very low. And in the last 21 mid-term elections the incumbent party has lost on average 30 House seats and 2 Senate seats. Only 2 times in 21 years has the incumbent party gained House or Senate seats. So it’s really impossible to be making any sorts of judgments or predictions based on this mid-term election. It was totally predictable that it would go this way. And perhaps even more predictable that it would because of the huge amounts of money poured into besmirching Dems by the far right money groups.
Why are mid-term elections always low is the question that could and probably should be asked. But not tied to what does this low turnout indicate. It only indicates that history repeats itself.
Platitudes and Over-Generalizations
I have the same problem with the statement “mid-term elections are generally low” as I have with “the Dems lost” and “most people didn’t vote”. They are generalizations, and are not necessarily correct. The problem is the “Republican propaganda syndrome” — these over-generalizations can do harm if they are too oft repeated. That is the principle that some politicos use to tactical advantage: if you repeat the lie often enough, people will believe it. In this case, the lie is that ‘it won’t make any difference if you vote’ and ‘all politicians are the same: totally ineffective and useless’.
Politicians are human beings like you and me — we have flaws. Presented with multiple choices, all they can to is vote their consciences in representing us; same as we do at the ballot box. Are you holding out for perfection?
https://www.facebook.com/electdemocrats/photos/a.131018881544.111603.23790541544/10152522115286545/?type=1&theater
Platitudes vs. Verifiable Information
Actually John you are incorrect. I am so sorry that you have a problem with my statement but the fact is it is verifiably true and not a generalization or platitude. Personally I have a problem with someone who takes researchable true information and links it to “Republican propaganda syndrome” and lying. It’s particularly troublesome to me when you don’t make the distinction between fact and fiction and then even resort to linking what I wrote with lies. To say that the information I supplied is not necessarily correct is the same as saying that it is not necessarily correct that Democrats won the last two Presidential elections. These are stats that are researchable and verifiable. Take the time to look it up. While I agree that over generalizations can do harm if oft repeated, I really don’t think statements of fact are the same thing. . What I said was: “the last 21 mid-term elections the incumbent party has lost on average 30 House seats and 2 Senate seats. Only 2 times in 21 years has the incumbent party gained House or Senate seats. So it’s really impossible to be making any sorts of judgments or predictions based on this mid-term election.” There is nothing false or generalizing about that statement that I can see. Feel free to educate me as I fail to see the connection.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/
...
“Is a candidate elected by a minority of eligible voters really representative?”
It’s a philosophical question at best, or a set-up for a false reason to protest at worst (“This is a sham democracy because my neighbor, Mrs. McGillicutty, was attending the funeral of her cat and couldn’t get out to vote and her voice is not represented!”). Unless or until we’re forced at gun point or by law to vote, that’s just the way it is. I advise you to save your brain waves to ponder how much to eat on Thanksgiving than to try and pick to death the natural shortcomings of any given election. Even if there were 100% turnout of an election you can be 100% sure that someone would come out of the woodwork to proclaim unfairness due to the fact that the free buses to the polls influenced voters because the seats were red.
Why Do We Vote?
“Your Vote is Your Voice” … so reads the bright red bumper sticker and lapel buttons put together by Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos for a non-partisan campaign to get more people to vote this year.
“Government of the People, by the People, and for the People” is the phrase used by Lincoln at Gettysburg, where he sought to hallow the Civil War battlegrounds there. A related quote from Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” I would submit that we vote so there will be a minimum of such “refreshment.”
I am sure that you are not seeking to justify the act of declining to vote. We vote because we believe we (and others) are free, or that we should be. When you no longer have the vote, or when it becomes meaningless because of too much undue influence in politics, then voting becomes irrelevant and it may be too late to cherish and preserve freedom, except by the spilling of blood.
Don’t get me wrong … I am a Quaker and a pacifist, and so abjure bloodshed in any context or by any rationalization. We pacifists are in the minority, however, and even smaller are the numbers of genuine peacekeepers and peacebuilders. Smallest of all is the number of true peacemakers, who understand that the shedding of blood is avoidable in almost every context, and have real confidence that they can transform conflicts into non-violent, equitable outcomes. Peacemakers thus dwell in a hallowed place of certitude. Different traditions call them different names: Bodhisattva (Buddhism), Saints (Christianity), etc.
In a way I am a politician, but I am also a volunteer — I give my time, hoping that if enough other people do so, we will preserve “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” That is why I vote, and strongly encourage other people to vote.
The politicians I know, as I am Chair of the Windham County Democratic Party (Committee), are all open to criticism and change. They reach out as much as they can. They are clear about why they run for office. They talk about issues and ask for your vote for specific reasons, but also because they believe they can do the job well. They will always hold your views in the balance, and follow through on issues as best they see fit. You will not be able to vote in an informed way if you do not make your views known and find out what theirs are.
John Wilmerding
802 – 257 – DEMS