Green Lantern can't save us now

Netroots Nation frustration and the impediments to progressive change 13

I just returned to Seattle from Netroots Nation, the yearly gathering of progressive bloggers, journalists, and activists. Last year, in Austin, the atmosphere was absolutely electric, with the election approaching and a clear sense of battle lines drawn, victory within reach. Also, lots of great parties.

This year, at least from my limited perspective, the atmosphere was more muted, the panels less exciting, and the parties both fewer and less fun. Some of this could just be me getting to be an old fart, but others I spoke to had similar experiences.

The tone of the conference was, in part, related to a general frustration among progressives.

I wouldn’t say the “netroots” (I hate that damn word) have turned on Obama, this sensationalistic HuffPo story notwithstanding. New pieces from Robert Kuttner and Jane Smiley represent a growing frustration with Obama’s pursuit of bipartisanship, but overall, Obama’s personal popularity is still plenty in evidence. The sense, rather, is that we are witnessing a tsunami of progressive enthusiasm, organizing, and, um, Hope crash on the shoals of the status quo ... and the status quo isn’t budging. Bit by bit, the giddy high of those days following Obama’s election is dissipating. It’s dispiriting.

The dynamic is most obvious around health care, and in my panel Thursday morning, one of the things I discussed was what that battle portends for the battle over climate legislation when it resumes in the Senate this fall.

Depending on who you believe, heath care is going to come to a vote anywhere between the end of September and Thanksgiving. I’d say there’s around a 30-40% chance that enough conservative Democratic senators defect that the whole project crashes and burns in a cloture vote (60 votes are needed to overcome the threat of a Republican filibuster). There’s around a 60-70% chance that the Senate produces a watered-down, incrementalist bill that doesn’t come anywhere close to the fundamental changes needed in U.S. health care insurance and delivery. (It looks like the public option is the latest thing to be compromised away.) And there’s about a 1% chance of a genuinely good bill passing.

How did this craptastic state of affairs come to be? Without dragging this post out forever, here’s a short list:

  • NO is easy. The Republican opposition does not have to do any education of its activist base. The grounds for opposing every Democratic initiative are the same: fear of creeping socialism, with an undercurrent of racial and revanchist sentiment. So there’s this large army of wingnuts that can be mobilized quickly and easily, on any issue that comes up. By contrast, explaining the public option, or co-ops, or cap-and-trade, or offsets requires a patient campaign. And even then, it’s hard to work up passion for that kind of technocratic detail. Long story short: on the ground, in terms of tangible grassroots activity—calls to congressional offices, presence at public town halls—the right is kicking the left’s ass.
  • The filibuster. This “process issue” is difficult to make sexy, but it’s absolutely central to the difficulty in advancing the Dem agenda. It’s only in recent decades that 60 votes has become the default threshold in the Senate; it has fundamentally changed the political landscape. I asked Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) about it at NN, and his answer didn’t contain much cause for hope:
  • Blue Dog Senate Dems are bad people. Partly thanks the new 60-vote requirement, “centrist” Democratic senators like Max Baucus (Mont.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) have accrued enormous power. Their states went for McCain; they face no serious challenge (no election until 2012 for Nelson; 2014 for Baucus); they receive lavish support from special interests; and finally, importantly, they are not good people. It’s important to speak about this directly, without euphemism. They could decide to use their political power to insure better health care for millions of people or prevent catastrophe for low-lying developing countries. Instead they slow the process to a crawl with substanceless, affective appeals to “fiscal conservatism” for the “folks back home,” thin cover for acting on behalf of their corporate funders.

Two notable features of these lamentable facts.

First, they are structural. It’s really hard to see what Obama or progressives can do to change them except at the margins. Too frequently people talk as though Obama or House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) just aren’t trying hard enough—the Green Lantern theory of domestic politics. They aren’t powerless, of course, and it would be nice if the progressive caucus learned to throw its weight around more. But the fact that the U.S. system of government is riddled with procedural chokepoints is not something one can will away. The filibuster could theoretically be fought, but we seem to be a long way from that being a live possibility. And finally, it’s hard to see what leverage Obama has over conservative Dem senators whose states didn’t vote for him.

Secondly, on virtually every score, climate change is worse off than health care. The right wing is just as motivated and organized on climate as they are on health, but the progressive coalition is fragmented. The policy options aren’t as well understood; there isn’t single rallying point equivalent to the public option. On climate/energy there are far more “centrists” in positions of power to appease in order to get to 60 votes. (And it’s important to understand that “centrist” is a situational description. When Dems are in power, it means “a little weaker than whatever the Dems come up with”—see: stimulus bill. When Republicans are in power, it means “a little closer to the Republicans than the other Dems”—see: Bush tax cuts.) There’s even less credible leverage over Dem senators; voting against Obama’s climate agenda will not threaten the reelection of a single Southern or Midwestern Dem.

I’m afraid this is a depressing post, but it’s just become clear that structural features of American politics make it so change averse that virtually no progressive electoral sweep is enough to do the job. And however difficult those features may be for health care, they’re worse for climate. At this point, chances seem to be split pretty evenly between total failure and the passage of an utterly defanged bill.

Or as Jon Stewart put it: “And now, cap-and-trade—naked, bruised, and humiliated—is off to the Senate to get skull-f*cked.”

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Jesse Jenkins's avatar

    Jesse Jenkins Posted 11:24 pm
    17 Aug 2009

    Thanks for the somber thoughts Dave. This is a tough road to 60 votes for sure, and one we should have seen coming and internalized a long time ago. I think there's been a lot of "Obama will change everything" thinking going on since the Lieberman-Warner debate in 2008, on through the election and the "First 100 Days" of the new "Change Administration." But we've seen, as we should have back in summer 2008, when we got a clear preview of the politics of cap and trade, that this was going to run smack dab into a brick wall in the U.S. Senate.

    In the face of these procedural and political hurdles, we seem to only have two options: radicalize grassroots efforts in an attempt to change the political game, or develop new policy strategies that can succeed in this political environment. I've personally been focused on the latter in my job, but many have focused on the former as well. And a hefty dose of both is probably necessary.

    In a situation like we're in today, I worry we can't succeed into we internalize our failures to date.

    Thanks for 'keeping it real.'

    Permalink

  2. randino Posted 9:35 am
    18 Aug 2009

    I think that we are entering an era where structural barriers to change and to addressing the problems of our country are going to be the focus of our attention, instead of "good" or "bad" candidates or "good" or "bad" parties.  That means a much more radical agenda.  I would draw attention to the article Barack Hoover Obama by Kevin Baker in the July issue of Harper's Magazine. As it is today, the United States is incapable of solving its most pressing problems, from inequality and climate change, to our dead manufacturing sector, and toxic health care system.  You don't have to be poor or located in Africa or Central Asia to be a failed state and that is exactly what the USA is today.  It is a state that cannot solve its problems, address its future challenges or take care of its people.Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

  3. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 11:49 am
    18 Aug 2009

    Good post, but I've really got to question your metaphors.  The aggressive clique that controls the levers of power does something counter-productive and we counter with metaphors about comic books?  How is this not a way to invite a swirlie after gym class?

    Permalink

  4. Sam Penrose Posted 11:56 am
    18 Aug 2009

    1) Great piece.2) "If a call to action is motivated by fear, people will block it, unless call to action has specific steps." See: http://www.moskalyuk.com/blog/yes-50-scientifically-proven-ways-to-be-persuasive3) Everybody understood and cared about replacing W. with a Democrat, but even well-educated, NYT/NPR-consuming progressives suck at grappling with public policy. On Facebook my peers cheer for Sotomayor -- who represents virtually no practical change from Souter, but they can get excited about a Democratic Latina getting on the Court. They demand a "public option", and ignore short clear explanations of how it isn't the key issue, because in the absence of a key issue they have made one up so they would have something to cheer for. And they ignore virtually every thing else, notably the entire Waxman-Markey debate. I am talking about Prius owners here. Their level of commitment isn't the problem, at least not entirely.
    4) Someone needs to convert vexing public policy problems into concrete, appealing political platforms. We have more than enough analysis. We could use more reporting, but it isn't the bottleneck. The bottleneck is mechanisms for converting generic support into real political force. I don't know how to do that, but I hope you'll look for some answers.

    Permalink

  5. Catmoves Posted 12:42 pm
    18 Aug 2009

    Not one single about the real future facing the U.S. Just accept it or get "skull-F**ked". How sad there is not one, single word about what the truth of twenty years from will be. A once proud nation kneeling down to its overlords and begging for "more".Political strategists are far from even being able to guess, let alone predict, what horrors the present administration has in store for them ... and us. Combine BO with GB and you have disaster for the America we loved and cared for and success for the one worlders who are doomed to failure. The roses are available. Smell them please.

    Permalink

  6. ohfercleanenergy Posted 2:44 pm
    18 Aug 2009

    Dave: Why not make climate policy a national security issue? These reports keep coming out about the real threats that climate change pose for the US, and the Department of Defence and Intelligence folks sign off or create these reports (those left-wingers)...Lets see people knock it down when the Patriotic, strong national defense thing to do is to fight climate change. Cue shots of flag, eagles, jet fighters (we'll buy carbon offsets for 'em), apple pie... Science doesn't seem to reach people, morality issues about preserving life as we know it don't seem to reach people...Let's trot out the uniforms and black sunglasses crowd with that fear fear fear that that climate change is a peril as great as terrorism (which it is and then some). A messenger and a message folks seem to understand. Sad but Truuuuue....

    Permalink

    1. David Roberts's avatar

      David Roberts Posted 2:57 pm
      18 Aug 2009

      I dunno. People always SAY that message will work. But as you note, it's been around for a while now -- was prominently displayed in the New York Times the other day -- and it doesn't seem to be moving the needle. I sometimes worry that progressives' testosterone envy gets the better of them ...

      Permalink

  7. Green Granny's avatar

    Green Granny Posted 6:02 am
    19 Aug 2009

    How many hundred years did it take for our country to substantively address civil rights issues?  And when outrage over the institutionalized abuses of African Americans finally boiled into marches, demonstrations, sit-ins, and moving speeches from charismatic champions of the cause, the majority of citizens still did nothing.  They sat on their couches and watched Walter Cronkite calmly describe the latest news-worthy development and then mouthed platitudes to each other.  It was a small (mostly young) minority who did something/anything.  The subject might come up, with some controversy, at my mother's bridge club for a few minutes before they resumed gossiping about neighbors and bragging about children.  It didn't truly move them or change them any more than Sunday school did (probably less).  Had a poll been taken, the majority would say "yes, of course we should extend civil rights protections to all, including African Americans"  And when we finally did pass legislation and enforce civil rights laws, and neighborhoods and schools started becoming desegregated, the white "middle class" majority were quick to move away.Apathy is the American way (but not unique to us).  So long as the majority are untouched (or think they're untouched) by the consequences of ruining the environment or healthcare or war or recession or. . . they will barely move.  As long as the majority enjoy a "middle class" existence and their pavlovian needs are well met, poverty and injustice and suffering are someone else's problem.  Sure, they "care", but its not their fault that others don't have the wherewithall to pull themselves up.  Perhaps it will take the further decline of the middle class to get people to act.  When its you that suffers its different.We must bring the issue of climate change "home".  We must demostrate how it adversley affects all, not in some unmeasurable "future", but in the now.   We are more likely to suffer casualties and massive property damage from a monster hurricain fueled by warming waters than we are to suffer another World Trade Center style terrorist attack.  We must make it clear that those who put profits (plunder) ahead of effective climate action are worse than terrorists who hold a few hostages or set off a few bombs.  We are all being held hostage.  And inaction is no longer an option.   

    Permalink

  8. tatere Posted 11:48 am
    19 Aug 2009

    There are a number of structural problems, it's true. But it's not true that there is nothing our poor little Democrats can do about it.Max Baucus does not have to be chairman of the Finance Committee. Filibuster rules can be changed. The reconciliation process does not have to be so convoluted and arcane. The White House does not have to fellate Republican egos. These are all things that are possible. That the Democrats will not do them is because their priorities are elsewhere. They value comity over reality.That the Senate overrepresents empty rural states is a pretty unsurmountable problem, yes. But we are letting Reid and the White House off way too easy to put their personal preferences in that same category.

    Permalink

  9. Tyler Durden Posted 9:00 am
    20 Aug 2009

    Re the disappointment and/or disillusion of progressives:  What do you expect when you pin your hopes on a corporate Democrat like Obama?  Obama is not at  all a progressive, so how in the world could anyone expect him to pursue a progressive agenda?  Progressives in this country have been in defeat ever since the Democratic Party abandoned George McGovern in 1972, causing the criminal Richard Nixon to win reelection by a landslide.  Until and unless progressives stop supporting the Democratic Party, which by global standards is center/right, and begin only supporting progressive Democrats and other progressives (independents. Greens, etc.), we will never get any significant progressive reform from the government.  In the long run it would be much better to lose a few elections by supporting progressives against Democrats and allowing Republican victories than to continue to support a mildly right wing party against a fascist one.  If you're not willing to lose a few battles to win the war, you won't win the war.

    Permalink

  10. Charles Komanoff's avatar

    Charles Komanoff Posted 1:16 pm
    20 Aug 2009

    Gee David. Sorry you're so dispirited. The American political system is indeed structurally biased toward right-wing paralysis -- a condition that Dan Lazare diagnosed a dozen years ago, and it's a bummer.But when you write,... explaining ... cap-and-trade, or offsets
    requires a patient campaign. And even then, it’s hard to work up
    passion for that kind of technocratic detail",I have to say, "We told you so." We carbon-taxers have been saying for years that the sheer incomprehensibility of cap-and-trade alone would make it an extremely hard sell to the citizenry and Congress. If I recall correctly, the main response by the enviro establishment and Grist (you, Joe Romm, others) was either (i) ridicule or (ii) ignore.When the so-called climate bill finally fails, perhaps we can have a serious conversation about trying to start over, around a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

    Permalink

    1. David Roberts's avatar

      David Roberts Posted 11:30 pm
      25 Aug 2009

      Yes, if we fail to procure this thoroughbred, we should definitely go for the unicorn.

      Permalink

  11. Jon Gelbard Posted 12:37 pm
    23 Aug 2009

    Hi David -Thanks for this excellent post.  I think it reflects how a lot of us are feeling right now.  For example I just posted this:http://conservationvalue.blogspot.com/2009/08/dear-u.htmlI agree that what we are running up against are deep structural problems in our political system.  It's now becoming very clear why, in his defining essay, "100 Days of Climate Action", David Orr included (1) Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine and (2) Campaign Finance Reform as key climate change solutions. I blogged about Orr's essay here -- it's one of my all-time favorites, and is proving prescient: http://conservationvalue.blogspot.com/2007/10/leading-fight-against-climate-change-is.htmlWe are seeing the crucial need for both solutions above in both the climate and health care bill debates, in which the public has been deliberately mislead on our own public airwaves via
    media campaigns funded by big-moneyed interests.  We have systemic problems that
    the Fairness Doctrine and real campaign finance reform are needed to
    solve.I've joked with friends that instead of a national "call in" day, perhaps Congress needs a national "balls in" day to help provide them with the guts they need to implement the climate, energy, and systemic solutions that we need -- and that are actually a requirement for getting us out of this economic morass. We're economically stuck right now -- with Peak Oil on the horizon, any economic growth will lead to a price spike in oil, which will quell that economic growth.  The only way to break through this "Petroleum Ceiling" on our economy, as I call it, is via a massive proliferation of clean energy and transport technologies.  It's time for Congress to make it happen, for it's going to take lots and lots of people and jobs to get it done, for a very long time.  It's just what the economy needs.Please give Sarah Van Schagen my best -- it was fun to have her at the ROTHBURY Think Tank this year.  Maybe you'll join us next year.Cheers,Jon Gelbard 

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement