George Lackoff has interesting things to say in an interview promoting his new book, “Don’t Think Of An Elephant!”
The interview, “In Politics, Progressives Need to Frame Their Values,” is on the Truthout website. The title of this post is one of the questions asked of him.
The simple way to look at politics is as a contest of different answers to the same question. That never works if you let ‘the other guy’ decide what the questions will be. Looking back to recent times here on BMG, the question decided on was whether or not to support the Democratic candidate. To sum up the BMG group-think: ‘she’s not progressive enough for me, so I’m fine with a Republican governor.’ Was that really the right question? Some progressives seem to think so, as evidenced by one group crowing about a “successful” election.
So here’s a question for you: Why are you fine with Massachusetts having a Republican governor?
I think it was more like “By voting for someone who is trying to act like she believes in what I believe in, but doesn’t really, I am encouraging her and people like her, and they will take that as affirmation. Nothing will change now or in the future in the direction I want as people similar to her will often prevail. Should my non or wasted vote cost her the election, that would not be horrible because the other guy probably can’t do that much damage, and if he’s not great, governing in a way that is only marginally different than the candidate from my party (the one I didn’t vote for), that will sharpen the contrast and improve the chances of getting someone more to my liking as the party nominee in four years.”
… derp…
Why was Coakley fine with a Republican governor , she and her team seemed to go out of their way to ensure we got one.
You are a sensible poster on other issues, so is methuenprogressive. You’re shared strategy of saying in April ‘you lefty n00bs hate Martha cause you’re sexist’ didn’t get us enthused about her, shifting to September’s ‘you lefty n00bs don’t realize how lefty Martha secretly is’ shifting to October and first week of November ‘you lefty n00bs <3 Baker and the GOP, and if Martha loses it's your fault' also failed to inspire us to suddenly love this candidate. You never asked us to fall in love, you simply commanded us to fall in line. That framing failed, and it should be avoided at all costs.
Her career is over. I really don’t think she could have done any better, and I strongly resent it’s the fault of progressive activists, Berwick supporters, blacks, Grossman supporters, or whatever boogeymen we can employ to exonerate a candidate who has now twice blown 25 pt leads to mediocre Republican candidates. The bucks gotta stop somewhere, it used to stop with the candidate, but apparently, Coakley always gets a free pass. Not for a third time!
Let’s examine how we can fix our broken nominating process and reform it to produce better candidates at all levels.
Let’s examine how we can create an actually progressive legislature out of our supermajority.
But please, can the circular firing squad and squabbles about yesterday and start focusing on the future.
I feel bad for Kate and Judy who made a consistently positive case and poured their heart and souls into this campaign. Fenway made an interesting point in this thread, I disagree with it, but it was better articulated than the really bitter and dismissive tone deaf posts you and methuen have been contributing. I am sure you lost Coakley some supporters on BMG during the primary campaign and it’s clear you haven’t learned your lesson yet.
I believe I said we should stop talking about that candidate and campaign and move on, like three or four threads ago, but all you and methuen have contributed is diatribes like this blaming the people you need to work with to stop the Baker agenda for the fact that he won. Admit it-your candidate lost-arguing about why is sort of a waste of time when we have work to do together to stop Baker, or pressure him to our side as Judy suggests-and move on. Seriously. She ain’t coming back and we aren’t having another vote-focus on the future. Coakley is the past.
Seriously….
To where do we move…? You keep saying it. Back it up. Where do we move on to? What’s next? Where do we go?
If your argument is that Coakley was a tool of the establishment then treating her as merely an aberration invalidates your own argument. Where do we go from there? The establishment is still here. You get to have a rage-gasm at the proximate stand-in for the establishment. Zowee! Good for you. Bet you feel better for about a tenth of a micro-second.
If, on the other hand, as you argue above Coakley DELIBERATELY tanked because she wanted a Republican Governorship, then we’re not in the past are we? We’re smack dab in the vortex of her scheming plans. To where do we move from there?
If, on the other other hand, you just ‘amen’ everything Merrimackguy and porcupine and centralmassdad say because they ‘sound’ reasonable, or they’re disagreeing with me, you’re letting your progressive bona fides leach away like some low-tide and spineless jelly fish, leaving behind nothing but hot air and a bad smell.
I’m really not the least bit sorry Coakley didn’t give you a chubby in the same way EW and others did and/or do. You are not guaranteed a prophetic ecstasy with any candidate: you have to do this sober or it won’t work. For every superstar like Warren there are a million and one Coakleys who are earnest and hardworking and won’t, in the least, excite any adrenaline in you. And it is because of the Coakley’s that people like Warren get any chance at all. Ask EW that and she’ll agree with me. That means you have to vote for them even if you don’t like them.
I think we are both painting with broad brushes. I disagree with the notion that voters looking for Berwick or Grossman found them inspiring. Berwick is a boring speaker, so was Grossman, so was Markey, and so were Murray and Goldberg and countless progressives I backed. So was Pat Quinn in Illinois. But, we were certain that they were solid progressives who had our backs. I personally, and I think many here on the ‘other side’, felt Coakley didn’t get that across.
For the future, I would like as you said, an earnest and hard working person rather than a showboat. I think our Mayors like Curtatone and Driscoll deserve a good look, and I’d be proud to back either. I strongly feel we also need to make sure we can get a legislature full of progressive workhorses like Pat Jehlen, Denise Provost, Karen Spilka, and Dan Wolf. That is the most important party building exercise we could undertake, and in spite of our disagreements on the last election, I look forward to working together in the future.
Progressives in Massachusetts will now have to react to Charlie Baker. That may not be a bad thing. If he does what people expect him to do – cut taxes on business, increase fees on people, increase services for business, cut services for people – and if those things result in pain for the general public, then it should be relatively easy to figure out where progressives should go.
Honestly, if Charlie Baker governs like a liberal or a Good Government Democrat, I don’t particularly care what his party affiliation is. I’m skeptical that he will, though. I expect him to fully try and do things in line with conservative thinking, which is that business = good, helping people = makes them lazy, welfare = lazy people, government = bad thing that we should reduce.
It was not a case of ‘she’s not progressive enough for me, so I’m fine with a Republican governor.’ It was a case where someone wants to win on a strategy of GOTV and then refrains to motivate the core of that demographic. 20% at the convention and less than 50% at the primary counting the most energetic demographic does not seem to support that strategy, does it? Unless, perhaps, it was assumed we would all fall into place. I can tell you that no one feels like being taken for granted.
While I did some campaign volunteer work, it was nowhere close to the time and energy spent on the Warren campaign, for example. I guess I was like a lot of people out there.
So no, I am not ” fine with a Republican governor” and I hope that future Democratic candidates are not fine without a progressive base. We can win together.
Translated in practical terms, the first quoted statement means you were fine with a Republican governor. Otherwise you would have brought more energy to the race.
My agenda from Sept. 10 to November 4 was: “Work as hard as I can to elect remaining viable candidate who is closest to my values.” I worked as hard for Coakley as I did for Warren. That doesn’t mean I hate fall foliage, football, or my family. It doesn’t mean I find Coakley as inspiring a candidate as Warren. It does mean she was in a close race and had fewer volunteers, so from my vantage point she needed my help just as much and probably more. But of course that assumes that having this Republican governor we’re going to have is an undesirable thing to be avoided.
My agenda from November 5 on is, “Work as hard as I can to push governor and legislature of Commonwealth, as much as possible, to the policy outcomes I think best.” That’s what I’ll be doing with Governor Baker, but I would have done the same damn thing with Governor Coakley. And it would have been easier to do with Governor Coakley.
Too many progressives do not play the long game well. They seem to get really active only when sufficiently excited by a superstar candidate. Too many purity tests, too much rationalization that their sitting on the sidelines (and doing a fraction of what you’d otherwise do counts as sitting on the sidelines) is justified by the candidate’s perceived failure to be sufficiently progressive or to court progressives.
Getting stuff done in politics is hard work in this era. No matter who wins we’re gonna have to keep the pedal to the floor lobbying that person on issues. We’d always like to have a governor we’d grade as an “A” on our issues. But there is no we’re served by withholding volunteer hours from a “B-” at the risk of getting a “D-.”
Of course there’s room for more full-throated progressivism by candidates. Of course there’s room for more outreach. But people like those on this board who are involved should know better than to withhold their services because they’re “not feeling it.” Get the candidate elected, then point out at every chance that it was you who put her over the top.
42% in a primary with three non-trivial candidates is pretty damn good. And I say that as someone who didn’t support her in the primary. By that logic Bill Clinton didn’t do well in the 1992 general.
20% at the convention is what it is. But by that logic Don Berwick, who had 20% at the convention AND 20% in the primary didn’t motivate either. It can’t be both ways.
So glad to hear your story…especially this part..
My agenda from November 5 on is, “Work as hard as I can to push governor and legislature of Commonwealth, as much as possible, to the policy outcomes I think best.” That’s what I’ll be doing with Governor Baker, but I would have done the same damn thing with Governor Coakley. And it would have been easier to do with Governor Coakley.
Keep on keeping on..
You set the example – keep on keeping on – for all of us.
In some ways, a GOP governor is more likely to have to listen. The democrats can take the progressives for granted, IMO more than the Republicans can get away with just smiling and nodding at some of the more outre conservative demands.
Besides which – Baker has experience in running a not-for-profit.
You are correct that Charlie Baker will listen, but not because he has to, but because he’s smart, strategic and polite.
Let me quote my own comment in an earlier post summarizing my professional advice to advocates promoting social, economic and racial justice by making positive policy change in the next four years.
Let’s get started people.
I was just responding to your comment that it would have been easier with Coakley, because I really don’t thin so.
This is why Coakley’s campaign was entirely run with a sense of entitlement.
All candidates have to earn their votes.
and you berate him.
Firing squad, meet circular formation.
A few Dems are really having a hard time facing up to this loss.
but at you, fenway49.
For people who post regularly on this site and care about the result, showing up for the campaign should be a given. Democrats should show up.
Who cares that you sacrificed your free time. I bet your real name is “John T. May-I-Please-Take-a-Break-Ms.-Coakley?” The answer is No! The Party expects you to exhaust your every waking minute. And sleeping minute. If your dreams at night were not full of brilliant new slogans and strategies for the Coakley campaign (to be contributed gratis, naturalment), you weren’t working hard enough. The Party expects absolute devotion, and The Party shall get it.
I think John lived every day for Warren and might’ve saved Coakley for his weekends this time out-he gave more time than he average voter and probably more than the average poster. I even got a few friends to the polls by nagging them over the phone from Chicago. I agree with Fenway that we should put a full effort into every race and agree with John that Coakley didn’t make that easy with her positions, and according to Christopher, her campaigns lack of follow up with volunteers in his area (a city she lost I might add).
Let’s move forward, we won’t always fall in love, but we should always have a strong sense our nominee is progressive. Progressive MA made a good point that Coakley got this the last leg of her campaign, and in many regards she got outspent and the media was in Baker’s pockets. This is why voter to vote contact is critical-and the answer is always that we can knock on more doors.
To disappear again until you find some other person on this site to insult, as you do with regularity, and take your straw man Orwell bullshit with you. Some of us do, in fact, engage in campaign work a quite regular basis during the last few weeks before an election. Every election.
After bashing volunteers for not volunteering enough, now you’ve become simply an out-and-out liar. I most certainly do not insult people on BMG, and if my semi-regular status here is not good enough for you, consider that many of us read and contribute when we can but follow vocations that don’t lead us to spend as much time here as others. And you’re certainly doing your best to drive us away.
I was lucky to miss the posts up top before they got deleted, but the disgraceful posts that remain here under your name are providing everyone with Exhibit A of what jconway was talking about. This election has made some people so frustrated, they’ve sunk to finger-pointing and making enemies out of allies. If you can’t respect volunteers or respond to criticism without lying, better to keep quiet instead of pissing off even more people. If not, you will only continue to marvel at how hard it is for arrogant, humorless popinjays to win support.
The things you say are the issue. I recall you having extended personal run-ins with jconway and with Striker57 just in the past few months. Now you’re calling me a liar just for pointing out that you can be abrasive.
I actually haven’t thought much about the election since it ended. Surely didn’t come on here or anywhere else to point fingers. But the commenter himself was pointing fingers. He said the campaign lost because it failed to court to progressive base. And I think if you’re in the base as an activist — if you’re in the game, as opposed to being a casual observer — then withholding your help in a close election is poor way to advance your goals.
And let’s be clear: Your framing aside, I’m not yelling at a random one-time volunteer who just walked in the door of my local campaign office for not showing up more. I’m discussing a point with someone who cares enough about Massachusetts politics to write about it on a regular basis here, year-round, but says he spent “nowhere close to the time and energy spent on the Warren campaign.” I dispute his rationalization for that disparity.
“Translated in practical terms, the first quoted statement means you were fine with a Republican governor. Otherwise you would have brought more energy to the race. ”
Not even close. We all bring as much energy as we can. It’s not a bottomless well that flows on demand regardless of the inspiration. If a candidate fails to motivate the volunteers, you’re blaming the volunteers?
“Too many progressives do not play the long game well.”
Your moderate game led to a Republican touch down.
“20% at the convention is what it is.”
And it was what it was, a prediction of things to come.
> But by that logic Don Berwick, who had 20% at the convention
Don Berwick was a first timer, a newcomer and he virtually tied the experienced heir apparent?
I’d love to see you say that in front of people who know me well. They’d laugh for months. Your assumption insults not only me but a ton of people I know who worked hard in this campaign but whose progressive bona fides are second to none.
Yes. When the volunteers are supposed to be activists. If people have personal things going on that preclude involvement, that’s one thing. If people just aren’t “motivated,” get over it. This volunteer gives the same every time out. So do a large number of people I know. Virtually nobody in my political circles supported Coakley in the primary. Virtually all of us were out there every single weekend and more as the election drew near.
That’s because, as Christopher points out below, someone will win and be governor and we care which of the two choices that is. Nobody will say, when Baker vetoes a good bill or submits a bad budget, “Ah, it doesn’t count, he’s only there because the Democratic opponent wasn’t sufficiently…inspiring.”
I wish I’d known about these alternative rules. A lot of us could have used a rest there at the end.
There’s no handicap in politics. You can’t say Berwick’s 20% proves he’s inspirational, and Coakley’s 20% proves she’s so uninspirational that not working for her after the primary is justifiable.
> Berwick’s 20% proves he’s inspirational, and Coakley’s 20% proves she’s so uninspirational
How would you explain it?
> Your assumption insults not only me but a ton of people
Relax. We’re having a discussion here, not a popularity contest twixt thee and me. We can still be friends, even if I do not know who you are.
But I do not appreciate the suggestion, in the course of our discussion among friends, that I’m a “moderate” or playing a “moderate game.” Once the primary’s over the only question left is, “Which of these two people will be the next governor?”
How would I explain the convention? I would explain it that Berwick tried hard to populate the caucuses and win over delegates because he needed the 15%, that Coakley felt secure she’d make the ballot and didn’t go all out for the convention. I have other explanations but I’ve already expressed them and I’ll spare everyone.
I can attest that Fenway that you are highly immoderate in all the best ways!
Martha ran as a moderate at the convention and throughout the campaign, not willing to take any controversial stand or grand vision? For what it’s worth I think that Baker ran this way as did Steve Grossman. There was nothing awful …or inspiring. Baker was (according to the final tally) the more believable in the role that all chose to run on.
> Coakley felt secure she’d make the ballot and didn’t go all out for the convention.
I’ll agree. I also think it was an error, especially if one is putting all ones chips on GOTV, which is what a Democrat does if one runs a “safe” campaign that fails to take bold stands and/or be a personality that people can latch onto in a positive way.
Moving forward, let’s learn from the mistakes, eh? Massachusetts is not as “blue” as some would think and what is blue needs more than “I’m blue too” to GOTV.
Fenway makes a great point
And I strongly feel that point repudiates the original post on this thread, it soundly repudiates the idea that we have to blame those that didn’t support Coakley in the primary for her loss, those that were unenthusiastic about her in the general for her loss, and that the only takeaway from this election is ‘those damn volunteers didn’t work hard enough’.
Anyone who is arguing that it is progressives that cost us this election as Methuenprogressive does, is fundamentally wrong and steering our party in the wrong direction. Moving right will not win us votes, moving left would win us more votes.
I know you agree fenway, which is why I find it strange that you continue to harbor resentment towards those us of that fundamentally agree with you that Coakley was insufficiently progressive to win the election. With the exception of Somervilletom, nobody here ever argued she was insufficiently progressive to deserve our votes. I never argued that, and I strongly disagree with anyone who did.
Johntmay, I think it is safe to say that if this election nailed the coffin on Coakley’s career-surely it did the same for Berwick. The convention was the high water mark of his campaign, he beat that percentage by a mere two points in the primary. Had Grossman ran the ad with his mother earlier, and made the arguments she made more forcefully, he would have been our nominee. Part of that is on the candidate as I often argued, part of that is on Berwick and his team for focusing their attacks at both Coakley and Grossman instead of exclusively attacking the front runner.
Lastly, you two are on the same side. So is methuenprogressive and petr, I think I contributed to some of the rancor on this thread and elsewhere, and I have already violated my pledge not to comment on this race-but I do so to break you two up. I am facebook friends with both of you, linked in buddies with both of you, and look forward to getting drinks at the next Progressive MA , BMG, drinkingliberally, or Kate holiday party event I can attend. It is time we move past this election and focus on the future.
I think johntmay has an excellent point that our next nominee should be more progressive, and I think if we all work hard to advance that we will have someone who can all volunteer, work hard for, and rally behind in 2018. I also think Baker will be very beatable, particularly since he has surrounded himself with Pioneer people and will be pursuing a very retrograde economic agenda-one we have to work together to oppose.
Just a final clarification before that, not so much to rehash as to discuss general principles that will apply in the future. My take and Methuen’s are not necessarily the same. I think a number of factors contributed to the defeat, but I do think insufficient effort in the general by regular volunteers who supported another candidate in the primary was among them. I did know plenty of people who “got on board” and did a lot. I also knew plenty who didn’t.
To be clear, I don’t think I ever said Coakley lost because she wasn’t “sufficiently progressive.” Long before the primary, I said I didn’t want her as the nominee because I thought she was not as progressive as I’d like AND because I predicted others wouldn’t come out for her. Which was true. But she still could have won. It was close.
I’m certainly not arguing for moving the party right. (I’m not sure Methuen did either). What I’m saying is, in that narrow window between primary and general each cycle, when the primary electorate has spoken, we have a choice between (1) working hard for our nominee or (2) not doing so at the risk of a Republican victory. I share people’s frustration with tepid Democrats but I emphatically do NOT believe that anyone in power will move left because they see fewer progressives being active and understand that as a principled protest against insufficient progressivism.
I’m not sure Baker will be all that easy to unseat, but I have no idea what the climate will look like in 2018 or who will emerge. In the meantime, we will be working for sure to block anything bad he might propose. And to work with him if he happens to propose anything good.
The window is far too narrow. I think if we changes the rules to allow a primary earlier in the cycle, a convention earlier, and maybe adopting IRV we can ensure we have a wide variety of candidates and that it’s a less acrimonious election. If have been far happier, as in sure you’d have been, with an IRV vote. Either Grossman wins, or Coakldy still wins but at least she does so with the majority of the party backing her. Of these reforms changing the calendar seems to be the easiest to implement before 2018. No compelling reason not to in my book-for funds and acrimony and giving us time to unite.
First of all, Don’t Think of an Elephant! is old, not new. It was published in 2004.
I’ve read a boatload of Lakoff and Lakoff-inspired research. He has a point when to comes to framing. Coakley’s campaign certainly wasn’t effective enough in counteracting in Baker’s frame that he’s a reasonable, non-partisanish, Republican in a one-party state that needs more balance. Aside from Tom, I’m not sure which of us didn’t vote for Martha, but it’s fair to say she had a hard time shedding the frame of 2010 loser. “Groupthink” is a failed frame.
But frames, just like completely rational arguments, aren’t sufficient in election. Many voters actually have a mind of their own. People had strong feelings about Coakley, and Massachusetts voters do seem to like bland, middle-aged, white, moderate politicians. Democrats and women voted for Coakley at a lower rate than they did Deval Patrick, but it’s nonsensical to blame the “groupthink” of BMGers.
I’m not fine with a Republican governor, but he’s what we have for the next 4 years.
moderate technocrat versus stale old hacks.
Not very accurate, but compelling.
I do not follow the whole thing about being fine with the outcome, or for that matter the title of the post. Or the rest of post. Is the idea that the Coakley campaign could have framed things differently? How?
He never said government wasn’t necessary. He said it needed to do a better job doing what is it supposed to do, and when it came to the private business sector he said the public had to enable rather than hamper.
We can all debate on what that last part exactly means, and maybe whether the first part means more spending is necessary, but in general I believe that’s what people heard. I know there are people on the far right out there that think the public part of the equation needs to be set to a minimum, but I don’t think Baker comes across as believing that.
Baker works for the Pioneer Institute, and I would argue, he honestly believes the public part of the equation needs to be set to a minimum. But I also strongly agree he came across as an old school Rockefeller Republican. Rockefeller it is important to note, was a tax and spend Republican and social liberal, as were our homestate’s breed like Brooke, Sargent, and arguably even Weld-Cellucci. It really wasn’t until Mitt showed up that we got a Laffer disciple who wanted to cut taxes at the expense of education, and even he passed a health care expansion (obviously one he ran far away from later).
By foolishly focusing on social issues for the length of the campaign, issues clearly decided in this state and uncontested by the Republican, Coakley surrendered the portion of the field open to economic populism.
Baker it should be noted, was to Coakley’s left on the Partner’s deal and to her left on casinos in some regards since he favored a vote while she used a taxpayer funded office to carry water for the casino industry and block a vote. The Partner’s deal, was Beacon Hill insiderism and cronyism at its worse, which I decried at the time. As was her willful ignorance of the probation scandal.
While she argued in the Supreme Court, and failed spectacularly I might add, about buffer zones, an issue relevant to the .08% of the population that gets abortions or protests outside of clinics around here, an issue her opponent quickly moved to her left on I might add-Baker and the RGA destroyed her on corruption being the sole cause of ‘high taxes’, and all Coakley could say is, “i will cut waste and abuse’. No defense of the role of government, no defense of increased spending which is desperately needed in our cities and towns, and no argument that actually, our taxes are mild and modest and 26th in the country right where Goldilocks and most economists would want them. She gave all the economic ground to Baker, while he left her with no social ground to fight him on. Two bland centrists, one engaged in cronyism and corruption, one didn’t, who do you pick?
No ads against Baker’s outsourcing, the sweetheart deals he got from the state bailout (and that would’ve been a great pun too!), or his far libertarian views on the economy. Nothing like that. No robust defense of Rooseveltian government, which at least Grossman gave in the last leg thanks to his mom (sure he won over a few Berwick supporters with that-but keep blaming us for his loss too!).
Coakley lost this election. Shaheen beat Brown in a worse environment this year, a year when the GOP captured 36 statehouses, won a MD governors race they had an 8% chance of winning, and nailed the coffins to the Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia democratic parties. She won a race against the same candidate Coakley lost to in a better environment. Coakley lost both of these races all by herself, and I am sick of the soul and army of the states democratic party getting exclusively blamed for it.
It is not so much that government must be set to a minimum. It is that it should be a last, rather than first, response.
How many programs, boards, and commissions have been created to ‘fix’ various problems? Many are moribund, some are populated with dead people, others are dysfunctional – but because a program was created, the problem is ‘solved’ even if the focus group to make recommendations hasn’t met for two years. IF nothing has happened, it is manifestly clear that the only failure was that not enough money was given to them, and if more is appropriated then the same solution will suddenly work. Democrats can take this kind of check-the-box approach to social ills.
For me (and I think Baker too, but who knows) I would look to see what solutions and actions the private sector and not-for-profit sector players have taken on the problem, decide their effectiveness and THEN build a program to fill in the gaps and to address the aspects that have not been taken care of.
The desired end result is the same – it is the approach that is different.
…I would say that government should in fact be the first response. It is the only entity to which all of us by definition belong.
There ARE too many boards and commissions, and there are some areas that government shouldn’t be involved in — promoting gambling being the most significant recent example.
But I disagree that, especially in these times, government has to be a last response. Take the affordable housing crisis — it seems to me that the private sector is responding (not unreasonably) to the law of supply and demand and non-profits can’t make up the gap. Do you see it differently?
Here is a quote from an intellectual hero of mine, Reinhold Niebuhr, on the dangers of runaway capitalism. Runaway capitalism is represented in our time by Paul Ryan. It is represented in Niebuhr’s time by one of Paul Ryan’s heroes, the economist Friedrich Hayek, whose 1944 book “The Road to Serfdom” Niebuhr is reviewing here.
… Howsabout you name one?
Anybody can take this kind of ‘check-the-box’ approach to social ills. Anybody could throw money at a problem. Anybody can ignore a problem. You’ve only here tossed a word salad that blames Democrats without so much as proof or even the conviction of the active voice. I guess that’s a sort of talent. Go you.
There was an election recently. It was in all the papers. And, as much as some here would like to put all that unpleasantness behind us, there was some aspects of it that have bearing upon your claim of Democratic bureacraptastic fail: to wit the tears shed over burly, yet mystical — nay, mythic– footballers-cum-fisherman
and their sad, hopeless, futures. The bleakness of their outlook (pardon me a moment while I wipe away my own tears…) rests upon a last-ditch effort to impose catch restrictions in order to restore the over fished stocks of the once mighty grand banks. (Pardon me while I blow my nose and clear the bitter taste of failed ‘focus groups’ out of my ‘stache. )
HONK.
Where was I…?
Oh yeah. Government is hard. Hard decisions gonna hurt. Best we just have a token commission and call it done…
You were saying?
#50 grit sandpaper as a model for your writing style?
I’m not against snark, but it isn’t a useful replacement of the word “the.”
… that smooth.
The meaning and/or intent of this is lost on me. Can you elaborate?
off. Your comments are unnecessarily abrasive and your use of sarcasm more frequent than warranted.
… at least, cannot agree with ‘unnecessarily’…
However, I suspect that I do ‘piss people off’, mostly because I’m quite often right when I’m pointing out how wrong they are. A more genteel delivery was seen the first fifty or so times they repeated their mistaken nostrums. It was not remarked upon then… apparently because it wasn’t sufficient to get them to realize their mistakes else they’d not repeat their mistakes ad nauseum.
Grit is as grit does, I guess…
You remind me of my ex-wife.
… You accused her of “bringing nothing to the conversation” also…
Next time you use it here, however, it’ll ring that much more hollow.
That statement (above) alone would be enough to make most people dislike you. Who says that? You should have someone read through your posts. The words and phrases that you use that make you sound pompous. You are also the person on this site most likely to directly attack others.
My ex-wife once said “My therapist said I should think most people are idiots, because I’m usually right” (note: unlikely the person actually said that). Maybe you could date her.
If you think that I do care to be liked, or disliked, then you are mistaken. So people dislike me? BFD.
And I will cop to directly confronting people on their arguments. If you feel ‘attacked’ by that perhaps you should have better arguments.
I’m quite happily married, but thanks for the thought.
And feel you both have interesting things to say, and sometimes, like me, let the disagreements become personal or get the best of you.
I think MG gives us an interesting perspective of what the other side thinks in the same mold as PP. You asked good questions on my IOC posts petr and we largely agree about foreign policy questions in those debates, we strongly disagreed about our recent gubernatorial candidate-but that’s a healthy component of our party. You feel criticism was over the top and disloyal, the former is definitely a fair criticism particularly when directed against me. I can concede that. The latter is an unfair criticism in my view, but again, the activist wing that is issue and candidate based and the wing more devoted to party building and straight ticket voting must work together to beat back the regressive forces at work in our state. You always defended Coakley as a champion of liberalism, we disagreed in whether she was, we are in full agreement that it is liberalism that should be our party’s guiding light. So let’s work on that going forward.
I put up some names Id like to see next cycle, who are yours? What might you want to see in the legislature?
When is comes to schools, roads, water, police, and so on, I’ll stick to the government. Hey, here’s an idea. let’s have the same people who ran Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc run Social Security! Let’s put BP in charge of the EPA! Let’s put John Thain and his $35,000 “commode” in charge of eliminating waste in government!
Yes sir, that “Private Sector” is the way to go…..
No security firms? No private plowing? No private water companies?
I know that’s not what you meant…..actually I’m not sure what your point is.
No police departments, no public schools? Ah, a libertarian paradise. We have been inundated with Republicans and their corporate media handlers telling us that the government can’t do anything right, that business is here to help us and that we’re all consumers/shareholders in the magic land of the benevolent invisible hands of the free market. Since Reagan and onto the Tea Party we’ve lost our identity as citizens, as a community.
Mind you, I am no fan of socialism as a single solution nor am I a fan of capitalism as a single solution as both have similar problems.
What’s needed is an appreciation of the better parts of each and a willingness to embrace those aspects while discarding the negative parts and move on to better things.
John – go back and read what I originally wrote, speaking about a philosophical attitude. I said nothing about police, etc.
“It is not so much that government must be set to a minimum. It is that it should be a last, rather than first, response”
Progressives tend to reach for government first and then let the private/non-profit sector wipe up the inevitable exclusions – $10 over the income limit, 6 months too young to qualify, etc. What conservatives often look at is what IS being done out there and then design the program to help solve the problem around what exists instead, sometimes supplementing existing non-profit.private sector efforts via contracts, etc. rather than creating new govt. jobs. (BTW – police is almost entirely a municipal function, and should be excluded from this discussion in light of Patrick’s new cuts to local aid. They only get brought up to make the state and ITS inefficiencies look better).
Progressives seem to LOVE to zoom to the most extreme examples if govt. jobs are threatened in any way, and then try to extrapolate backwards, in order to prove that he only solution to anything, anywhere, is MORE GOVT FUNDS. I’d match Lehman Bros. against DCF as examples of ineptness. I recently gave testimony to a state agency at a listening session about how to make an improvement that wouldn’t cost them additional money. Very cold reception, as it was not so much to listen as to get the local yokels to lobby for MORE GOVT. FUNDS.
Please make your case without canards. I’ll need actual data, facts, not Fox News copy/paste.
Health care alone is proof that government ought to be the first, not the last. Doubt me? Take a look at the rest of the developed nations of the world.
Please make your case without canards. I’ll need actual data, facts, not MSNBC copy/paste.
The fact that longtime European entitlements in places like Greece, Germany, Sweden, etc. are being dismantled due to unsustainability and economic failure leaving people having invested a lifetime in them is proof that government should be the last, not the first. doubt me? Take a look at the rest of the developed nations of the world.
I believe very literally that the government is an institution of, by, and for the people. In fact it is the only entity that can lay any claim to being of, by, and for all the people. Therefore, whenever there is something proposed to benefit all of the people I see it as the government’s role to drive that. To use johntmay’s example, other developed nations have universal health care and have better outcomes and lower costs to show for it.
Germany and Sweden are doing just fine, thank you and putting them with Greece to make your point against social solutions is like putting Mississippi in with Massachusetts. There is a wide difference in the two. However, since you brought in Greece, it’s problems are many but most stem from the fact that there is a large number of wealthy Greeks who simply do not pay taxes.
Like us, Greece has a revenue problem more than a spending problem.
Putting government or business first is a chicken/egg argument. We need both. We also need to admit once and for all that either without the other, in balance for the greater good, creates overall misery.
Greece has the highest rate of tax evasion in the world, so the social construct of democracy isn’t a
As for Germany and Sweden, I think you are quite mistaken: Germany reformed it’s entitlement programs in the middle 00’s and it has been fairly robust (in the context of a continued recession) ever since. Sweden reformed their entitlements program in the 90’s and is consistently hailed (by the right) as the model for entitlement reform in the US. Nobody on the left is going to implement a suggestion by the right because we on the left happen to think those on the right are not sincere in their efforts at ‘reform’ but simply want to use that a cover to bulldoze completely.
as robust as other places, so you can’t use that for comparison.
I hate when I do that…
If a problem exists, then why haven’t non-governmental forces either prevented it or eradicated it? Government doesn’t act that fast, so it seems that by the time government gets to addressing a problem, the non-government actors have had a fair chance at it and failed.
… the instance where government must deal with issues created by the private sector? Everything from last centuries child labor to pollution to present day private sector fleets overfishing the Atlantic are or were as the result of private sector being allowed to do what it wanted.
One prominent argument against Obamacare is built on the presumption of businessmen as heartless bastards who will shed employee insurance the very first second they are allowed to do so. And so they are and so they did. And the government steps into that breach. But the argument wants it both ways: businessmen should be heartless bastards and government is forbidden from stepping into that breach. Because… I dunno… because why?
If it’s true that the government that governs best is the government that governs least why does “least” have to mean “not at all”?? Or, put another way, maybe this government is, in fact, governing the least…? Even though it governs more than you like…might it not be functioning at the least level possible to ensure freedom whilst still maintaining a civilized society…
In this particular case, government created the breach to step into.
And ‘least’ is not the same as ‘nothing’ except in rhetoric. I tried to discuss ways government could work WITH other entities instead of usurping/absorbing them entirely. At no time did I advocate NO government.
I have a lot of Randian friends (Rob Eno comes to mind) who DO want nothing at all insofar as possible. I am not of that persuasion. Every time I am accused of being a unilateral right-wing survivalist, I keep wishing I could introduce you to some people I know like Iron Mike who DO fit that description.
It all started back with Reagan, like it or not.
Way back the, hospitals would deny patients who did not have the means to pay. Ambulances would rush dying patients from one hospital to another in search of one charitable to take care of an uninsured or unidentified patient in need of critical care. It was barbaric as people who would otherwise live in any developed nation on earth because of their Universal Health Care would die needlessly in the USA.
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act of the United States Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). President Reagan signed it into law. It requires hospitals that accept payments from Medicare to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment. In short, private businesses were forced to treat patients without any reimbursement if they chose to gain access to Medicare patients.
The biggest problem with this was that the hospitals have to make up the loss somewhere when they give poor diabetic a free leg amputation and a week’s stay in the intensive care unit. That’s why an aspirin costs $10 at a hospital. So EMTALA means that those who have insurance are paying for those who do not. Hillary Care was aimed at this problem, and more.
Rush Limbaugh told his followers to be fearful of “Hillary Care”. The Heritage Foundation had a better idea than Hillary Care and it was a plan that is remarkably similar to Obamacare in that it insisted that everyone have insurance that is purchased on the market. The conservatives at Heritage thought it was a great idea, as did Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Mitt like it so much he signed similar legislation into law in Massachusetts. To quote Newt, “I agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle.”
As many of you may recall, there was significant support, early on during the health care debate, for what was called the Public Option. Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats fought this tooth and nail.
So what we have here is the Republican model of health care. It sucks, for sure when compared to what nations of the developed world enjoy, but it sucks far less than any free market Darwinian realities.
In time, we will join the rest of the developed world and I think one hurdle will be reached when one generation that has been taught that “socialism is evil” dies off, and die off they will sooner without better healthcare.
No, I don’t think that’s the case at all. The government has been, since Truman was POTUS, trying to address issues of medical payment and insurance: about 70 years of attempting to shore up that breach with a dichotomy; the rights and entitlements of the citizens without disruption to the profit motive. Guess which one I think comes out on top again and again…?
You state flatly that you are ‘not of that persuasion’ but your rhetoric says otherwise: it suggests you’re filling bags of sand as bulwark against an evident, incipient and invidious progressivism that is always a gross overreach. You have not stated what constitutes a reach but prefer to simplistically label everything an overreach.
government as the first and only possible response to all problems, is absolutely no government at all.
If there were any more straw men on this thread, it would be a scarecrow convention.
The government does nothing better than the private sector and market solutions?
Why was Ronald Reagan elected twice, a man who mocked the ability of the government to help its citizens?
…that government is not only too big to fail, it does not fail regardless of size.
Until recently, unless a private sector enterprise DID do better it was rewarded with bankruptcy. Now, if your failure is grand enough, the government will bail you out, so the prejudice in favor of the private sector having to do better is less accurate.
Then again, Detroit went bankrupt, so maybe we will see government begin to fail as well.
They called GM “Government Motors” during its heyday.
The nineteenth century was subject to frequent and awful bank failures and rather calamitous depressions. That was the result of under-regulation of the economy and not because Andrew Jackson set up too many bureaucracies.
So yeah, we really don’t want the auto industry to die in this country. Keeping it alive has proven a worthwhile investment. The worst moral hazards remain in the financial industry. To my mind, that’s because these companies were bailed out without being taken over. Would indeed have been better were there consequences. There weren’t.
Perhaps if your view of conservatives were less Manichean, this would be less mysterious to you.
Is to “know” what works best for a given situation without knowing anything about the situation. That’s why it seems like the left is always willing to reinforce government failure and the right is always willing to scuttle government success.
Yup, that’s the problem with American “conservatives” (who are more accurately defined as orthodox capitalists) who praise “market solutions” as the cure all for almost anything, in spite of its failure in health care specifically.
Government gave us the Internet, discovered the AIDS virus, built the interstate highways.
But to the right, government does nothing well except for protecting the rights and property of the wealthy.
This comment is a small proper subset of CMD’s.
it’s the ideology of fools.
There’s nothing wrong with ideology. It’s human nature to mix what we believe and what we think is ture. Your ideology, CMD, a form of centrism holds that there is a more rational, non-partisan way of doing things. You are too sensible to lump in with the Washingtonians, particularly those in the media, who talk love bi-partisanship as the end, rather than the means, but your own ideology has some similarities.
My point isn’t to criticize you in particular, but to argue that ideology is a fact of political life, all of our political lives. The key thing is knowing ourselves well enough to know when we need less believing and more thinking.
Ideology is an often useful heuristic that can point one in a good direction. However, one has to remain always suspicious of it and look out vigilantly for things like confirmation bias and affinity fraud.
My head only assplodes when it becomes holy writ; this is often accompanied by the use of the word “socialist” or some variant of “corporation” (e.g., “corporatist” ugh) designed to make the accompanying nonsense to appear self-evidently true to those who have already accepted their indoctrination.
We’re stuck with some very crude terminology in the movement against “education reform.” Corporate” is one of the terms for lack of a more precise term.
I use the phrase “ideologically sophisticated” to describe people who aren’t crudely lockstep, non-thinking ideologues. Lots of times when people talk about low-information voters they are talking about people who are ideologically unsophisticated.
KBusch and I are of one mind on this. I almost brought in Kahneman, but figured I wouldn’t take up space with it. You might be familiar with or be interested in Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. It’s dense, but readable.
“Ideology” is not a verb. There is nothing either transitive nor generative about the term. Ideology might motivate action or it might provide a template against which actions and outcomes are judged as successful or not… in other instances it might prevent action. But whether motivation, abstraction or prevention, it’s not, itself, action.
To the degree that someone, right or left, might “know” best for a given situation — in the context of ‘ideology’ — you’re really taking about abstracting outcomes to measure against principles. If, for example, the guiding ideology of the right is, “White people good, everybody else can go spit,” then “scuttling government success” fits neatly as a desirable outcome: if white privilege is maintained in the prevention of government providing everything they provide to white people to everyone else (that is to say, eradicating privilege) then it’s not necessary, for the right, to “know anything about” the situation, just the outcome.
On the other hand, I think that a significant component of ‘ideology’ on the ‘left’ involves process-oriented consensus and ‘buy-in’, even from the most wicked racist on the right: all this is to say that the ‘left’ probably has more situational awareness and is willing to live with a less-than-desireable outcome if the process moves everybody, even the most wicked racist on the right, forward. I get that you think that this is “always [being] willing to reinforce government failure.” I see it as getting closer and closer to success by millimeters.
In short, it’s not, actually, possible to distinguish the willingness of the ‘left’ to fail from the willingness of the ‘right’ to scuttle success… As long as the left treats the right as equal partners and willing, even earnest, advocates for a point of view, this dynamic will hold true.
It can be seen as less ‘foolish’ if you understand it as existential struggle: if the left gives the right what they want, not only is the left done, but we go backwards and everybody suffers. (Is this hyperbole? Maybe, but the past is the only thing we have to judge “conservatism” upon, and it ain’t pretty…) If, however, the right stops trying to scuttle government the left will force the right to see that white people aren’t epitome and maybe blacks and hispanics ain’t so bad…
Right. But I think it’s been re-published very recently. I wonder if it is in heavy rotation in academia…? Sounds like it might fit at the intersection of political science and cognitive (linquistics/psycohology).
I’m not sure you got the point of the article. At least as I read it, it’s as much about understanding how somebody else can come to a completely different (and from my point of view, whacko) conclusion while still using facts and cognitive structures in a way that we would recognize as (or at least resembling) ‘rationality’. I’m not completely sold on the argument and Truthout, and to some degree Lakoff himself, do at times seem to sell it as magical-miracle-electoral-elixer. I agree with you that it is not that… But as a model for thinking how other people come to conclusions it’s quite fascinating. My guess is that’s what Methuenprogressive was getting at when he posted this…
Lakoff. Frames aren’t enough, I think we agree. Eventually, there has to be a complete picture within the frames.
I spent the spring studying a lot of these articles for a campaign I was working with. They cover a lot of issues. Research was done with focus groups.
Saves a lot of time for one thing. I read the one tonight that mentioned me in this thread and was sorry immediately.
… you took the time to tell us you don’t take the time to read us… Ok. That’s your prerogative. Am I supposed to be, somehow, shamed by this?
I think that Methuenprogressive took the time to write something up and ask legit questions about how people shift and change the ground underneath legit questions… the first few posts were basically crapping all over this and, surprise, shifting and changing the ground underneath the questions. Your response is not to read it. My response is to call it out… to which you response by saying that it saves time not to read it…?
Head scratch.
You have perfect right to comment on anything you want. I check in on BMG debates every day, and there are a couple of commentators that drive me nuts, and I just try to skip over the their posts or comments….. just trying to keep the negative energy levels down.
I have noticed of course that you do engage in debates with some of these folks and I appreciate your smart funny responses. Peace.
Nobody said you supported Baker. You’ve done nothing but twist words, again and again.
The question was not “why did you support Baker”. No, the question was “why are you fine with a Republican Governor.” For you the answer is clearly: “I’m fine with a Republican Governor if it gives me justification for hating on Martha Coakley.”
“Don’t Think Of An Elephant” has been updated, and is “all new”.
A lot has happened in the last ten years.
https://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6694/t/17304/shop/item.jsp?storefront_KEY=661&t=&store_item_KEY=2916
For that.
You might also be interested in https://web.archive.org/web/20081216152834/http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research.html which is an archive of the Rockridge Insitute, which Lakoff either led or was instrumental in. It’s issues oriented and also based on research.
Elements of this thread perturbed me, I really don’t like the sour grapes spirit some have against backers of Berwick in particular. That said , framing is important. Moving beyond the particulars about Coakley-we lost three ballot initiatives progressives wanted to win . Examining why voters opted out of the gas tax, the bottle bill, and favored casinos over more sound economic development and job creation strategies is critical to highlighting the issues we need to win and how to frame them. That is a discussion not only worth having, but one that is essential.
Before this comment the word “Berwick” appears six times on this thread. Five of them are you complaining that other people are blaming Berwick supporters, and the other is me responding to a specific point made by a commenter who’s described Berwick as inspirational but now argues that Coakley’s 42% in the primary and 20% at the convention prove that she’s not inspirational.
My only point there was that you can’t have that both ways. If getting a mere 42% proves someone didn’t inspire the party, getting 21% must prove the same and double. It wasn’t about “Berwick supporters,” writ large, not doing their part. That you’ve protested my non-statement loudly five times in a few hours suggests perhaps the issue hits a nerve.
My problem is with people saying, “Hell no, I wasn’t fine with with it, I just wasn’t going to DO much about it.” Don’t know what to say when a commenter like johntmay (who happened to be a passionate Berwick supporter) flat out says he didn’t do nearly as much for Coakley in the general as he did for Elizabeth Warren. If a committed activist really wants to avoid having Governor Baker, and Candidate Baker is neck-and-neck with the Democratic nominee, I would expect that person to come out to help as much as he can. I think I can say all this because my opposition to Coakley getting the nomination was plain as day (plenty of comments here dating back to last year) but I got on board on September 10 and worked hard all fall.
If he doesn’t do that, it’s pretty clear that having “Governor Baker” was more palatable to him than giving up a few more hours on the weekend. So he deserves the characterization that he was “fine” with a Republican governor. At least Tom and CMD own that they were indifferent between Baker and Coakley.
For the record, I don’t mean to pick on johntmay personally, or Berwick supporters as a group. I had the same problem with some erstwhile Grossman supporters who declined to get involved, or get involved much. If one of them said similar things on BMG, I’d make the same comment in response.
I painted with broad brushes, your comment up thread was uprated by me. I was annoyed by petr and the OP, and also by the idea that Coakley lost because we did not work hard enough. I find that misleading, insulting, and certainly not a constructive way to get us to engage with one another so we are on the same team going forward. I was egged into a pissing match with petr over the election, and that was a mistake to engage in.
I agree with you that voting and working for the lesser of two evils is sometimes necessary to advance the cause forward, and that is why I uprated your comments on this thread. Where I disagree is the notion (advanced by the OP and petr specifically, not by you) that demanding we have more progressive candidates is somehow disloyal to the Democratic Party or holds it back. If anything, running solely as “not an evil republican” is what held us back in both midterms nationally, and held out nominee back this last cycle.
I’ll say this-I won’t comment anymore over the last election. I’ll take your pledge about 2010 and expand it to 2014. Let’s focus in getting a progressive in the Speakers chair by 2016, a progressive White House, House, and Senate that same year , and a progressive in the Corner Office.
We win when we run as progressives. Deval and Obama showed that, Warren showed that, and even a charisma free boring guy like Markey showed that, it’s about the issues that are important to the base.
I’m all for supporting progressive candidates in the primary. I take each election as it comes. This time I had my candidate and I was fine with him. I didn’t see any need to go with Berwick and, as I’ve written here repeatedly, plenty of reason not to. It was what it was.
Once the primary’s over, there’s no room for sitting on your hands. Sitting on your hands after the primary is in fact disloyal to the Democratic Party. And I can count on one hand the number of times in the past 40 years it’s even debatable for me that the Republican nominee might be better than the Democrat.
I don’t find it misleading to say that the failure of regular activists to get more involved contributed to the result. It wasn’t the only reason Coakley lost by any stretch but it doesn’t help. Sometimes activists need to be big enough — and focused enough on their own policy interest — to save a candidate from herself.
All fall my concern has been that you’ve been overeager to say “I told you so” that everything is shoehorned into the narrative. Coakley’s not my dream candidate, but I saw her a bunch of times in person talking about Democratic issues, not just “I’m not an evil Republican.”
I recall keeping it as positive as I could during the fall after her nomination. I praised her debate performances and her nominating speech if I recalled, I really harped on baker for the sweetheart and fishing gaffe, and I tried to stay above the fray. I may have been baited by others when I critiqued areas I thought she could do better in, but I did not want her to fail to match my “I told you so narrative”, and can’t think of any progressive Democrat here who did likewise.
But, I will take your criticism as constructive. There are ways to say constructive and positive even if the nominee is someone you can’t stand, this was the case with Kerry in 2004 and Coakley in 2010. It was a lot harder her second run around since so many flaws remained, ones even the Editors conceded was there. Her second loss was something I expected, not something I wanted in the slightest.
How can we work together on a post-Coakley progressive agenda in the short term and near term? That should be our guiding question going forward.
…namely SomervilleTom, to whom your spin of the attitude might apply. I for one wanted to help more, but despite my repeated offerings got almost no follow up from the campaign.
I’m not “fine with Massachusetts having a Republican governor”. That sentiment is just trollish garbage.
We nominated a tone-deaf candidate whose supporters were just as abrasive this time around as they have been in her past campaigns. This entire diary (and a great many of the comments within it) exemplifies the bullying arrogance of a self-appointed group of “true” Massachusetts Democrats who spent the entire campaign throwing various bricks at those who, like me, refuse to swallow their false dichotomies and cynical “pragmatism”.
We are in the process of killing public transportation. Our “Democratic” nominee refused to talk about it, and our “Democratic” Speaker of the House has been doing all in his power to advance the GOP position on that issue for decades. Excuse me for flatly rejecting the claim that by not supporting the do-nothing Democratic nominee I changed that reality AT ALL.
Each of the issues I raised (and supported with citations) was blown off by our nominee and her campaign.
Governance is about POLICY, not people and not parties. Our party has OWNED the Massachusetts government for eight years, and the legislature for decades. It is OUR policy that sucks. Royally. It is OUR government that is filled with corruption, and STILL denies that anything is wrong. The Massachusetts Democratic Party shows precious little evidence that it has ANY awareness of just how broken our current government is — and just how deeply its own failings drive that failure.
I’ve made a concerted effort to avoid getting sucked into this thread. I intend to continue that effort after posting this comment.
I flatly and categorically reject the suggestion that the “spin of the attitude” in the thread starter has anything to do with me. It is just more trolling, from a contributor who has been doing a great deal of trolling all campaign.
…that you said repeatedly that you would be OK with Governor Baker because there wasn’t enough daylight between the candidates to count and with an overwhelmingly Dem legislature he couldn’t do much damage anyway. When you were presented with the concern that in a close race your lack of vote for Coakley could contribute to electing Baker you seemed to reject the premise that such would be a bad thing. I think you even suggested he might be better than Coakley on civil liberties. If i’m misremembering or misinterpreting I apologize.
I don’t know why this concept is so hard. You are not the only one who seems to struggle with it.
Refusing to choose one of two equally bad candidates does not mean that I am “fine” with either one. Suppose somebody shoved two plates in front of you, one filled with rotten stinky fish and the other with rotten stinky beef, and said that one of them was going to be fed to your neighbor. If you said “Neither, they are both equally bad”, then your statement simply cannot be construed to mean that you were “fine” with either one. If the neighbor gets sick from eating rotten food, the problem is with the kitchen that loaded the plate, not the choice you made.
I think that Mr. Baker may end up better than Ms. Coakley on civil liberties and on corruption in government. So what. He still sucks.
We have a rotten stinky government right now. Each candidate was a rotten and stinky candidate. I said “Neither”.
After this election, the two candidates remain rotten and stinky, and our state government remains rotten and stinky. Mr. Baker is not going to address the problems we face, and neither would Ms. Coakley had she been elected.
Surely the energy invested in yet another rehash of these logical fallacies would have been better invested in improving our state government.
…and if not eating at all is a practical choice. However in a gubernatorial race one of the two is going to be Governor and to not choose is to cede the choice to others. By that standard if I don’t choose one of the plates I am essentially saying I am fine having someone else decide which one to force-feed my neighbor. Knowing that he is going to be force-fed one of them anyway I might as well put my thumb on the scale in favor of the one slightly less bad.
By construction, the two plates are equally bad. You can stand on the scale and it doesn’t make either offering “less bad”.
The conclusion you support is (1) fallacious and (2) insulting.
I’ve heard of two candidates who both fall below what I’d like to have in a candidate, but I’ve never heard of two candidates “equally bad.” Politics is far too complex, with far too many issues and corollary effects, to have a comparison of any two candidates be a complete wash.
…But you did attempt to make the case that there was no downside to refusing to vote for the nominee. In fact, you went so far as to say:
You, in fact, bent yourself into several interesting new versions of a pretzel to make this case, several times. You were, in fact, ‘fine’ with it.
However much you believe in the position you hold, that ground doesn’t have the altitude you think it ought…
Please see my comment above. The two candidates were equally bad. Each would do great harm to the state if elected.
The assertion that I am “fine” with either one is fallacious.
I don’t mean to suggest you would affirmatively like Baker, but rather you find him tolerable.
No, I don’t find Mr. Baker tolerable. Ms. Coakley was also not tolerable.
I cast a vote for neither because in my view neither candidate was tolerable. Arguing about whether one or other was less bad is, in my view, like arguing about whether I would prefer to die by asphyxiation or by trauma.
In my view, we have an intolerably broken government led by in an intolerable governor. After the primary, that would have been the outcome regardless of my vote. I therefore used my vote to help push the new “Independent” party above the threshold required by our election laws.
If nothing else, I hope that the effect of THAT is to perhaps turn up the heat a bit under the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
for using ad-hominem arguments and a truly unnecessary personal tone. If that makes the thread a little harder to follow, well, sorry. Gotta follow the rules. They exist for a reason.
…’Cause I consider the comment entitled ‘wrong question’ to be in direct conflict with the rules: it is a personal and demonstrably false attack on Martha Coakley and directly, and egregiously, disrespectful of Methuenproggresives legitimate efforts and questions.
If you’re going to follow the rules, follow the rules.
Lakoff and his ideas (and others tooting similar horns) have been around for over ten years (and the Republicans have been using them for much longer) and, except for some candidates who seem to have it in their DNA (Patrick, Obama, Warren), it’s the same-old, same-old when it comes to the Democrats.
Framing isn’t the total answer, but it is a necessary component. None of this is mysterious – as Lakoff says, this is how companies make you want to buy their product. The best-designed and built widget will sit on the shelf unless there is proper marketing to get people to think that they need to buy it. It is no different with political candidates.
She lost once, badly, then we nominated her again, and she lost again. Some candidates do better than others, she was not one of the good ones. We don’t need to make it more complicated than that.
She was a bad candidate. So was Charlie in the end. Coakley was a poor candidate who still could have won with a good campaign. She was a poor candidate who still could have won if she tried to speak to her base. She was a poor candidate who still could have won if she had showed just a little bit of political courage — see Deval Patrick’s support of Cape Wind in 2006, against Kennedy, Romney, and most of the legislature at the time. One simple act that turned people’s perceptions that he was not “business as usual”. She was a poor candidate who could have won if she had gone into the primary with momentum instead of deflation.
I would not say that either candidate was bad. They both played their parts almost perfectly in line with the script. Martha was the pro women’s issue, marriage equality Democrat and Charlie was the pro business “compassionate conservative” sort that runs in the Northeast states. Nothing noticeable, nothing spectacular. My Tea Party neighbor was hardly enthusiastic about Baker and there was not a lawn sign to be found in my conservative district. Then again, there were no Coakley signs either.
People were simply not motivated, not interested.
It was like going to Broadway to see Liza Minnelli and Joel Grey in Cabaret only to discover that both stars were ill and replaced by understudies. Some of us still went to the performance, but most decided to catch the show another day.
Hi Methuen Progressive,
I don’t think that Progressive Massachusetts celebrating a successful year (note, not election) at a fundraiser, is ‘evidence’, that some large number of people, and certainly not Progressive Massachusetts staff, board or volunteers voted based on, ‘Is Coakley Progressive enough for me?’ Nor did we calibrate our work that way.
Progressive Massachusetts made an organizational decision nearly a year ago that our priority would be to work with the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition for a few reasons;
1. It would help establish our VERY young organization as a group that actually, get something done. We were successful.
2. We, as an organization, were convinced that the Earned Sick Time ballot question would be critical to increasing voter participation of likely democratic/progressive voters. I haven’t reviewed the full numbers yet, but I think that is true. We most certainly had a lot of Baker/Yes on 4 voters as well, which contributed to the margin of victory for Q4 and demonstrates that progressive policy, effectively messaged and resourced, is a winner in Massachusetts.
3. We WANT to be an ‘issues’ group in addition to being an ‘elections’ group, so a ballot question was the best of both worlds for us.
I’m a fan of Lakoff’s work, even if I think that the saying, ‘Progressives/Dems/whatever, try to appeal to logic but conservatives appeal to values” while ringing true in some cases, is sort of our favorite go-to when we are frustrated with results.
What I saw on the ground, working 7 days a week for Q4, Coakley, Kerrigan, Healey and Goldberg (as well as a number of great legislative candidates) Was that the Coakley campaign did a pretty good job appealing to values. EW or Deval Patrick-level? No. But you’re right, we can’t expect that from everybody, even most people. And we shouldn’t need it.
I saw a general election Martha Coakley who took a strong stand for workers with earned sick time, started out very strong on Early Childhood ed, and motivated working people, particularly the SEIU local’s to work very hard for her. Were there hiccups? Definitely! In rare incidents is was tough to get the MC field team to fully embrace talking about Q4, but that is totally expected in large, fast moving field campaigns.
I have no significant issues with the campaign Coakley ran, I think she had a tremendous campaign staff who made a series of generally very good decisions in a tough year. Could they (we?) have been better? Obviously. Turnout was lower than in 2006 or 2010 and we as a movement need to heed Lakoff and others advice about motivation and persuasion. so we can turnout the votes we need while persuading the middle.
I do think it is unfortunate that some folks on this blog – people who I deeply respect, may not have given everything they had to elect Coakley. But I see that as a collective failing of all of us who did work hard, Coakley primary supporters, as well as (and maybe especially) Berwick and Grossman supporters, to sufficiently motivate folks to the work with us – I’ll try to get better at that next year.
Ben
Up until the end of the primary on September 9, I was beating the drum that it made no sense for metheuenprogressive to post a veritable avalance of anti-Grossman diaries and comments.
Now, metheuenprogressive complains that activists didn’t jump aboard the Coakley bandwagon.
What do you expect? You did your very best to alienate them.
Politics, it has been said, ain’t beanbag. And I would expect — indeed, have at times contributed to — many an ‘avalanche’ of pro- something and/or anti- other across the length and breadth of the primary landscape. And feathers get ruffled. And for ruffling feathers, perhaps deliberately, perhaps even doing his ‘very best to alienate’, Methuenprogressive might, indeed, share in some of the ‘blame’. But “only”?
I would expect activists to be adults who can at least roll with a punch or two (see prior paragraph, ref ‘beanbag’) and not allow
the sturm und drang of primary politics to alienate them overmuch, as, indeed, Steve Grossman himself exemplified.
…and his friends and family put out a commercial blaming her for the deaths of black children, I posted about it. And a few party insiders squealed like pigs stuck under a gate that I was being mean to him.
Also true – Grossman’s avalanche of lies about Coakley is a *little* more to blame for Baker’s win than my few posts in this tiny corner of the Internet.
…think that Democrats won’t support a prosecutor no matter how progressive they SAY they are, because they are oppressors like cops, not defending. I always thought that was nonsense, but wonder if Coakley and Reilly were both victims of this.
Cheerleading Grossman’s negative campaigning while slamming anyone that called him on it.
Congrats on your win.
??
Agreed on the tone of some posts but nothing Methuen says is going to make me stay home just to spite a BMG poster. Methuenprogressive is not Martha Coakley (at least I don’t think so).
Perhaps true of you, possibly not of others.
With the perspective of hindsight, strategic progressives might have recognized that Mr. Baker indeed had an excellent chance of becoming governor — and that we really wanted to avoid that. It would have been useful for the Berwick campaign to have noticed its remarkable lack of traction by August 15 and quit. The excessive, unfounded hopes that campaign engendered among volunteers were ultimately dangerous to Democrats’ chances of retaining the governorship. The effort for Democratic unity needed to start earlier. Everyone needed to know why both Coakley and Grossman were better than Baker.
We shouldn’t have ended up in a place where there was a perception that the general campaign was just a boring fight between two non-Berwicks.
In clearer and more diplomatic form, of what I was saying at the time. The primary was a huge disappointment for me. But no way I’m letting my decision to get involved in the fall be determined by some snotty comments here by Coakley supporters. I think it’s not too much to expect the same response generally.
Party is all that matters.
being stupid or applying trite aphorism.
The best thing for unity is telling supporters of a candidate that the candidate should have dropped out of the race and that he demonstrated a “remarkable lack of traction” despite going from less than 5% to 20% in less than two months and being a first time candidate with very low name recognition.
Saying this about the campaign is also great for unity.
Dangerous? Seriously? Having a campaign and candidate that raises some of the most important issues the Commonwealth faces is dangerous? What’s dangerous is having a nominee that ignores these issues and still expects everyone to fall in line and support her despite doing nothing to earn that support (except to point out how bad the other guy is).
You’re right. How was that the fault of Berwick supporters – most of whom volunteered for Coakley and almost all voted for her?
Many of us were desperate for Coakley to listen to what the Berwick campaign was all about and embrace some of those ideas. All we got was silence and then bullying from supporters.
Again, that’s great for unity.
before you run off and take it personally.
Yeah, Berwick gave the race to Baker.
Coakley barely lost. Berwick didn’t even place second — and wasn’t even close to placing second.
If we had prepared earlier for the general, we might have won it. If the Berwick campaign had worked harder doing what it was doing, it still would have placed third.
You are alleging that the Berwick campaign caused Coakley to lose to Baker. That is utter bullshit.
No such thing was alleged. Perhaps you’re just overly sensitive to an accusation no one made?
Kbusch pointed out two facts: A) should things have gone differently for Coakley in even the smallest of ways, the outcome might well have been entirely different; and 2) no change of even the largest of variables would have changed the outcome for Berwick in any way whatsoever. Berwick was never even so much as a long shot and his efforts, at least judging by the outcome, was a complete and total waste of time, effort and money. It might soothe your ego to think differently but no one here cares that much about your ego.
That’s what was written. The implication is clear.
Also in Dr. Berwick’s debate performance wherein we heard about how “politicians” were the problem. Aside from being anti-small-d-democratic, it’s an excellent reason to vote for Mr. Baker or not to care whether Coakley lost. Fed a steady diet about “moderate” or “corporate” Democrats, the campaign certainly narrowed its enthusiasm.
I share your outrage at whatever it is your straw man is asserting.
I, on the other hand, am alleging what I alleged above in my first comment in this exchange. I am suggesting that an earlier effort at Democratic unity could have swung the election. Further, that this election was worth swinging.
Instead, what we got if I read your contribution to this discussion, is a bunch of temporarily raised issues.
You said that Berwick should have dropped out and his supporters needed to back the nominee earlier. I think that’s garbage.
Berwick supporters largely volunteered and at the very least voted for the nominee.
What more should have happened? If you expected all Berwick supporters to volunteer for and become strong advocates for the nominee, then she needed to run a much better campaign. Ignoring those activists issues and then having supporters bully those people was not the way to go.
A real, non-trite reply to my comment might point out some lasting gain that we have achieved by sinking so much effort into a losing campaign. Losses are both demoralizing and expensive. So I’m open to hearing what good has come of the Berwick effort.
I suppose, if one can’t supply that, then trite aphorism is all we get.
Is to stop continuing the primary arguments past the general election. This was one of the weakest fields assembled for the Corner Office in quite some time. I think we have a small bench, those that are effective move out of office like Carl Sciortino or Tim Murray, those that are effective are stuck playing by the house rules developed by Bobby DeLeo.
I think we have to work from the ground up and elect progressives at all levels of government. I think folks like Kayyem, Berwick, Avellone, Gabrielli or whomever-should try for local offices first and see what they do.
I think we should look to people with proven progressives bona fides and strong management skills . Patrick’s second term failures are largely a failure of management. Berwick’s lousy campaign, Coakley’s inability to articulate what she would do in office-those are both failures of management since neither had to run anything before outside of niche specialties (the law, health care). Neither of them were generalists.
Let’s look to our Mayors who have had great track records building blue collar and activist coalitions-Curtatone, Driscoll, maybe Walsh. They also have the benefit of being outsiders and young. Dan Wolf ran a successful worker friendly business and has been an effective legislator. Let’s keep moving the ball forward.
I think silly comments deserve silly answers.
The same can be asked for the Coakley campaign, right? What do you think is the lasting good that has come of that? I hope it’s at least a lesson learned about “next in line” thinking and campaigns largely empty of policy ideas.
As far as the Berwick effort, here’s a few that may have something to do with the campaign that we’ve already started to see:
– in case you didn’t notice, he drove the entire primary campaign discussion, so the focus on those issues was worthwhile (although, unfortunately, not taken up by the nominee in the general)
– raised the profile of single payer in public discourse
– large (by state standards) group of young activists inspired by the candidate and campaign issues now working in various policy areas in the state
– increased scrutiny of the Partners deal
– more attention on ills of casinos that could come into play during regulation and oversight
– additional focus on poverty and issues of inequality
It’s too early to see if those things will have lasting effect, but you asked, so there it is.
In what world was Coakley’s failure attributed to a lack of policy ideas?
Berwick raised the issue of single payer. Now the state will be lead by a former executive of just the sort of business single payer would dislodge. “Raising” the issue in 2014 is not so useful if it’s going to be buried in 2015.
The attention to the “ills of casinos” led to what? The loss of the proposition? Not so helpful.
*
Now it would be nice if the Berwick campaign did indeed yield up permanent activists. Hopefully, they won’t set too high a bar for being “inspired”. Time might tell there — though I’d be happier if various of the progressive organizations were crowing about their growth in numbers.
It’s tough to know what the true reasons why someone lost, but a complete lack of vision for the state could be one of the reasons – it was absolutely one of the reasons why I, and other activist friends, did not work for that campaign. The Coakley campaign provided no vision – what was the goal for transportation, health care, education, etc. etc? That was a huge problem.
You didn’t read what I wrote. More emphasis on the problems with casinos could lead to greater oversight and regulation. Remains to be seen.
And on the casino proposition, it’s no surprise that it passed, and having the general election candidates have the same (and remarkably shitty) position ensured it wasn’t discussed much during the race.
Again, though, what lasting effect did the Coakley campaign’s losing effort have?
If the answer is nothing, then your questions about the Berwick campaign is entirely without merit.
At the very least Charlie Baker starts his administration without a clear mandate: not having garnered a majority of votes and his plurality victory by less than 2 percentage points. Voters may not have warmed to Coakley but that didn’t translate into very much affection for Baker whatsoever. We shall see if this is, in fact ‘lasting.’
Yeah. No sale.
There’s a huge difference between a campaign that, one month out, shows no sign of winning and one that even the day before election day looks as if it has a chance.
You’re quite outraged, aren’t you?
And yet, neither was more than a shade of a difference apart from the perspective of an independent or casual voter.
gubernatorial crap. It happens every freakin’ primary. The discussions are typically fruitless and go either go meta or personal.
I’m re-reading the original post and wondering what the Lakoff bit has to do with the question asked at the end. Where I thought if might go was some sort of analysis of the Coakley team’s messaging though a Lakoff lens but instead someone ended up with the same old blame thing.
What was the point again?
Rational argument:
Irrational argument:
… how?
I’ve read a ton of Lakoff’s work and it doesn’t seem that you understand what he’s getting at. That’s fine – it just looks like an excuse to reopen wounds as Christopher pointed out.
I’ve read Moral Politics, in addition to the book on Metaphors and the book on Categories. I think the OP is simply pulling quotes that make things sound favorable.
Methuenprogressive is pointing out that overwhelming number of rational arguments — including the arguments put forth by progressive favorites like EW and DP– seem to have given way to one rather irrational argument. He characterizes that irrational argument as “She’s not progressive enough for me, so I’m fine with a Republican governor.” and people object to that characterization. While I agree in general with methuenprogressive, I might have phrased it somewhat differently: characterizing the dispute as between the one side who thought the worst possible outcome was a Governor Baker and the other side who did not think the worst possible outcome was a Governor Baker.
The legitimacy of the arguments put forth by methuenprogressive is proved in the vehemence of the responses and their willful disregard for reality:
— “She was a lousy candidate.” (but she lost in a squeaker…)
— “She wasn’t progressive enough” (well, neither is the electorate…)
— “You guys are just taking our victory personally” (because you’re not concealing your hatred for MC adequately…)
— “You’re petty and childish (for pointing out my childish pettiness…”)
Methuenprogressive is just pointing out how so called progressive groupthink can mirror the irrational groupthink on the right… or, put another way, why did some think they were immune from it…?
that has nothing to do with Lakoff’s work.
MP actually quoted a question directly asked of Lakoff at Truthout.org. The questions was about progressives (continued and repeated) surprise at how irrational arguments sometimes (often) trump rational arguments. The context of the question was irrationality on the part of conservatives and their supporters. But instead of asking “What’s the matter with Kansas” (not Lakoff, I know, but similar) the question might well be “What’s the matter with the CommonWealth?”
MP just pointed out that progressives are not immune to irrational thought and behaviour… and that Lakoff, whatever the perception, doesn’t just study cognitive deviance on the right.
I think that if Lakoff were here, rather than at Truthout.org, talking about the same thing, very few people, yourself included, would wonder at the relevance…
He quoted the question but ignored the actual context of the question (and the answer) and twisted it into something else. Lakoff never uses the word “irrational”. It isn’t about the irrational trumping rational – it is about not understanding how the whole brain works and why some arguments just do not resonate. Note what he said in response:
What he is getting at is that Democrats continue to think that if they just talk “rationally” and put the facts out there that everyone will get it, because it makes sense to them. But his work has shown that the brain just doesn’t work like that. I’m not going to explain it all because he does a much better job than I do.
…If you’re going to assert that MP can’t use the question and the context as template for conversation here, then we have precious little we can, let alone will want to, discuss.
So your point is that the electorate is what? Is it the electorate that elected Elizabeth Warren or is it the electorate that elected Charlie Baker?
…was unnecessarily stir the pot among people who should be allies, something I expect a Republican to parachute in and do (and yes I’m guilty of taking the bait myself – my first attempt to smack down what I thought was an impertinant question resulted in an exchange with another BMGer because I honestly didn’t realize he would reject my characterization of his attitude.).
If the not-Republicans had been allies in the last go-around, we’d have a not-Republican Governor. The notion of a coalition lost out to pettiness and selfishness.
…is that you did a horrible job of diagnosing BMG groupthink and thus asked a question the premise of which could not be supported. The vast majority of us voted and volunteered for Coakley I think it’s pretty safe to say. To ask that question and make those assumptions do nothing but reopen wounds that it’s high time to close and move on.
I find your comments during this campaign to epitomize those, as well as a number of other disagreeable characterizations.
This diary, as Christopher pointed out, accomplished nothing but exacerbating the gap that already exists between the Massachusetts Democratic Party and progressive Massachusetts voters.
Congrats on your win.
If either of us swayed any votes here one way or the other, I’m willing to wager that your bullying, abrasive, and relentlessly divisive commentary moved ten votes against Ms. Coakley for every one of mine.
I called Grossman out, as did many others, for his negative attacks on Coakley. Grossman’s a big boy, but you’re free to ‘frame’ that as bullying if you wish.
And I called you out for you constant, and often fabricated, attacks on Coakley. Before and after the primary no one, not even the known Republicans here, typed more anti-Coakley and pro-Baker drivel than you. If you’re so insecure as to consider as to that ‘bullying’ you need to find another hobby.
absolute garbage.
that Porcupine and maybe Merrimack Guy did.
Let’s keep the alienation for those alienated from their labor.
Opposed him in the primary in 2010 and did nothing in 2014 (certainly didn’t support Fisher!). Was happy that lack of official status let me work only for candidates I genuinely liked such as as D’Arcangelo and my local leg candidate
…mean you are no longer a member of the Republican State Committee?
that Porcupine and maybe Merrimack Guy actively worked for Baker.
FWIW, I’m pretty sure Tom was there when JFK was assassinated and when they crucified my lord.
I see a thread full of acrimony , shouting, and the usual circular firing squad after a progressive loss. And I am one of the guiltiest up thread of contributing, so I my hands are just as dirty. My point is-we are stuck with Baker, whom all of is save for CMD, porcupine, and Merrimack guy votes against. Let’s work towards a legislative strategy that blocks retrograde conservatism from our own supermajority and focus on a nominee all of us can get behind.
One thing I also think we can all agree on-we need an earlier primary. Had Grossman pulled the upset and lost I am sure we’d be seeing a Grossman supporter making a post similar to methuen progressive’s blaming Berwick and Coakley supporters for not showing up. I am certain had Berwick somehow pulled an upset and lost we’d be seeing the same thing. Point being-by holding an earlier primary we can be sure these kinds of acrimonious exchanges can occur right after and then we move in to consolidate. It’s incumbent on the candidate her/himself and the base of the party to unite behind the nominee.
I think we can all walk away agreeing this didn’t happen from either end sufficiently in time to ensure victory-and the biggest reason is the late primary.
IRV in the primary would be an even better reform so an issue candidate like Berwick can get his or her views across without spoiling the nomination. But the first reform is the easier one to implement and kore essential. The longer time ensures the ultimate nominee is vetted by voters and the media, tested by opposition, and has time to raise funds and consolidate support after his or her win.
…that there is any evidence of a correlation/causation relationship between the date of the primary and our ability to win the general. Deval Patrick, for example, was working off the same timetable in 2006. I don’t think more time would have brought someone like SomervilleTom around to holding his nose and voting for Coakley.
More primary voters voted against Coakley than for her, and this would have been the case had Grossman won. I also feel that Grossman and Berwick made a mistake going after one another early-the acrimony between their campaigns prevented more late defections to Grossman. A later primary would’ve allowed Berwick to fizzle out earlier and would’ve given the other two candidates a better opportunity to assemble a majority.
IRV removes any incentive for negative campaigning or acrimony, and would’ve also been helpful in the CD-5 special where we had a great crop of candidates. It ensures the ultimate winner has the majority of the party behind them. Both reforms are a must.
Deval is a real outlier in terms of charisma, grassroots support, and fundraising prowess. It is unlikely another like him will emerge. Our goal should be ensuring that the rising stars don’t cut one another on their way to the top.
It also seems to me it would be good if we could fight harder for the less charismatic.
The structural deficit with which the Commonwealth has been saddled since the Romney years has been bad for education, infra-structure, local aid, and social services. Let’s hope the Baker years turn out less harmful.
was the margin of victory in a low turnout. Here’s a question we ought to be asking: If Martha Coakley’s margin of victory was 40,000 and we had a Democrat in the oval office, would we still be having this same debate? If you think not, then we have a problem and we’re simply ignoring it. The foolish move here is to blame Coakley, or Grossman or Berwick and continue on the same path with the same assumptions about Massachusetts being Blue and relying on GOTV.
We should have started this debate when Gabriel Gomez, a Republican who had never ran for office, grabbed almost 45% of the vote in a race against an established Democratic congressman from Massachusetts. (In fairness, maybe you did debate that here in BMG but that was before I got here but even so, if you did, nothing changed.) If an unknown, inexperienced Republican candidate in a “Blue” state can walk off with 45% of the vote, how Blue are we?
We thought we were flying high when Markey won but it looks like we were and remain in free fall. It’s kind of the same feeling until reality hits.
But she didn’t.
So we might want to learn from that.
And that part is healthy. Of course, any discussion of that is going to bring up points made earlier.
Might I add that I want progressive political leadership that’s as shrewd as a chess player? I don’t care at all for leadership that’s trying to figure out whom to “blame”. A lot of the discussion here has revolved around whether Berwick was “to blame”. I think the smarter question is, given Berwick’s own stated goals and preferences was running the campaign the way he did helpful or harmful to those goals and preferences.
From the evidence I see, I’d assert the latter.
I’m not aware of the harm. The election was completely void of any substantive dialogue on health care, even though health care is our states (and my personal) single largest expenditure – with the noted exception of Don Berwick. If pointing out the naked emperor is harmful, that says more about the emperor, eh?
And if Martha won by the same slim margin that she lost to, you are right, we would not be having this debate. But that’s just a postponement of the inevitable, like the growing uncontrolled costs of health care.
Shhhh, everyone stay quiet and maybe it will go away…
is having a former healthcare executive as governor.
P.S. The primary is over.
Your sentence sums up my fringes about this thread
Gentle reminder, the next one is less than years away.
If we’re going to get to single-payer, a legislative initiative could be very helpful — even if vetoed by the governor. When pressed about how a Gov. Berwick was going to get this through, there was a fair bit of reference about how expert he was at just this sort of thing. So no details were needed and none would be provided. The result is that he put himself a bit in the role of the sine qua non of single-payer. It would have been very nice if we had emerged from the primaries with a roadmap rather than with a temporarily raised issue.
Or stated differently, if the campaign was not going to result in a primary victory, there might have been things it could have done to help build off its efforts.
I suggest that temporarily raising the issue is about all that could have been done. None of the candidates could have done anything, if elected, to cause a single-payer initiative to pass this legislature. My support for Mr. Berwick during the primary was NOT because of his stance on single-payer (I think he belabored it, particularly after it became obvious that it was not an issue that resonated in any way with the electorate). Still, I think temporarily raising the issue was preferable to not talking about it at all — which is what our nominee was doing.
If this legislature is receptive to single-payer, NOW is a really good time to start it (a veto is easily overridden by the overwhelming Democratic Party majority). If, as I suspect, this legislature is not receptive to single-payer, then NOW is a really good time to start changing this legislature.
We need a progressive legislature. We need a progressive Massachusetts Democratic Party. More agonizing over the past does not help achieve either of those goals.
Why not have a Seinfled campaign, a campaign about essentially nothing or as we saw with both candidates, statements and platitudes that boiled down to nothing. Yeah, that worked out well for energizing the base, didn’t it?
Jamie’s bill has been in committee for about a year. Perhaps it is time to bring that bill to the fore, and let Baker veto it. If that doesn’t energize the base nothing will.
,,,why does everybody have to pay for a supplement plan?
And the reasons are all in red, that is to say red legislatures.
Universal Single Payer, while not perfect, is the better way to go and in reality, is a truly conservative approach is one understands the meaning of the term “conservative”.
…I think you are making an erroneous assumption that it could pass the legislature, hence it being in committee for about a year.
If it was easy, it would already have happened.
Don Berwick seemed to think the idea was a good one, and I can think of no issue more “progressive” than free healthcare for all.
response as I’ve certainly never advocated content-free campaigns — and my criticism of Berwick here is that he was not concrete enough, not that he should have been vaguer. Perhaps if you reread my comment, it might make more sense to you. Recall, perhaps, my criticism of Berwick’s debate response on casinos which was rich in vague condescension (“My colleagues haven’t read the literature”) but very weak on specifics. I’m all for content.
I also think the Coakley campaign has had terrible messaging as my post from over a year ago should confirm. The Coakley campaign put a great emphasis on fighting for “the little guy” which might just win votes in Lilliput but, in the real world in which proud people are unlikely to regard themselves as small and adorable, that’s just misguided. “All means all” says all that stuff better.
I like methuenprogressive’s suggestion below of bringing forth Sen. Eldridge’s bill. One of the problems the center-left has in this country is an inability to push on issues. The right has for years pushed on tax policy, gun rights, social issues, and defense issues. After years of f*** up in Iraq, it took Ned Lamont in 2006 to make Democratic candidates actually campaign against the failed Iraq adventure. Otherwise, they too were going to run for Senator from Lilliput. Democrats just don’t make the case for liberalism. For example, if you think about the recent victory on marriage equality, it wasn’t Democratic messaging that did it. The culture is under no obligation to do that work for other issues on the left.
Similarly, in state politics. It’s odd to expect that that burden be carried by an underfunded, not particularly well-managed gubernatorial candidate demonstrating only narrow sectoral appeal — and I liked that guy.
And finally, I think you underestimate the difficulty of making progress with a Republican governor. Instead of trying to overcome the resistance to progress, progressives end up having to become the resistance to harm.
Great analysis throughout this thread, and frankly the campaign. Good suggestions on how to move forward from you and Methuenprogressive. Let’s have a vote on this bill-at the worst it will let us know who the real Democrats are.
In that last paragraph.
However, the events of the last few months in Ferguson, MO have convinced me more than ever that the driving force behind Jean v. Massachusetts State Police, in which our Commonwealth tried to prosecute someone for posting a video of illegal police activity, would have been “harm, without resistance.”
a cross between this a troll and a zombie?
This post and this thread.