> What is this "feasible" bullshit anyway? Isn't it much
> better politics to make maximal demands, and hope for
> compromises along the way? If you start by muttering
> mealy-mouthed things about incremental change you're
> likely to get health savings accounts.
There is one discussion about what strategy is appropriate, and another analytical discussion about why US unions have chosen the strategies they've chosen. I've merely pointed out that this Fitch character's explanations don't make any sense. My own view is that our ideological problems run a lot deeper than Fitch believes -- and that furthermore, everything I've read from Fitch (a couple of columns) is sloppy, which is no recommendation for me to read his book when my to-read list is long enough to begin with.
Further, as I've also pointed out, single-payor is not a maximalist demand; a National Health Service would be. Or rather, scratch that -- socialism is the real maximalist demand. But it turns out that you don't get anywhere by just "making maximalist demands." You organize and mobilize for them. There are a lot of tactical and strategic choices along the way, and principled discussion of them is in order.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories