On 2010-11-17, at 12:02 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> It's my feeling too. Is there a way we can reach some agreement and put
> this issue to a closure?
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We're all of us repeating ourselves, no?
>>
>>> Marv: "By surrendering in advance without taking the fight to the
>>> country..."
>>>
>>> [WS:] You seem to consistently avoid addressing the point that Charles,
>> SA
>>> and I are trying to make - namely, that "taking the fight" was a suicidal
>>> tactic - virtually certain to lose and create even more damage, and the
>>> decision to move slowly without provoking the other side going ballistic
>>> seemed a wise one, as it offered a greater promise of a successful
>> outcome.
It would be nice to find common ground, Woj, but the underlying difference keeps recurring as new issues present themselves.
Take the looming battle over social security and other efforts to make the working class pay for the crisis.
Today's WSJ reports:
"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Americans skeptical of deficit-cutting proposals laid out by the chairmen of a commission appointed by the White House. In the survey, 57% of respondents said they were uncomfortable with gradually raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 over the next 60 years. Some 41% said they were somewhat or very comfortable with the idea.
"Roughly 70% were uncomfortable with making cuts to programs such as Medicare, Social Security and defense in order to reduce the deficit, with 27% saying they were comfortable."
I don't expect the bourgeois Democratic leadership to "take this fight to the country", any more than it did in relation to jobs, healthcare, financial reform, and mortgage relief. Polls then also showed initial public support for stronger measures of the kind we all favour. But public opinion was thin and uninformed and vulnerable to manipulation by the anti-reform forces, joined by the Obama administration which was eagerly seeking an accommodation with those interests congregated in and around the Republican minority both inside and outside Congress.
If this is again the case, I anticipate we'll see the same criticism of the administration from liberal intellectuals and DP activists.
I'm with those on the US left who think it's their responsibility to help build opposition to the cutbacks, and, as part of that process, to ally with the larger number of liberal Democrats who will be critical of the administration for its likely refusal to lead the "roughly 70%" who are "uncomfortable with making cuts to programs such as Medicare and Social Security" and its efforts instead to steer that vast constituency towards acceptance of an early backroom compromise with the Republicans which results in some mix of program cuts and higher taxes.
If you and Charles and SA are consistent, you will be defending Obama's efforts to reach a compromise BEFORE rather than after a confrontation - when it is not yet clear which party has the upper hand and which one will have to climb down, and by how much. Despite opinion polls and anecdotal evidence to the contrary, you will decry those who challenge the administration's course and want to test the balance of forces in the public arena as "ultra left" and "suicidal" and as "virtually certain to lose and create even more damage."
I don't like our squabbling over these issues any more than you do, but how do we possibly bridge such a divide?