Kevin M. Kruse: I've now had three different people in my mentions insist that the Obama administration took an incrementalist approach to health care not because they believed it was the only practical way forward but because they believed incrementalism was, in and of itself, "virtuous" and "moral" Sorry, what?

I've now had three different people in my mentions insist that the Obama administration took an incrementalist approach to health care not because they believed it was the only practical way forward but because they believed incrementalism was, in and of itself, "virtuous" and "moral" Sorry, what?

I suspect this is coming from leftists who believed that *their own* position was virtuous and moral but was defeated by the grubby incrementalism of liberals and so they've now somehow retconned an argument that the liberals were making a case on virtue/purity/morality too?

I think they’re coming from the idea that there is this mysterious “DNC” organization that is controlling the elected officials and (among other things) that Lieberman could have been strong-armed into going along with the public option but the “DNC” just didn’t want to.

I really want to know where this image of the DNC as an omnipotent political machine comes from, when my whole life they've done nothing but show they could fuck up a one-car parade.

The 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, and especially its online supporters, needed a conspiracy theory.

[insert Will Rodgers quote here]

Hey now, there were a couple of good years during Dean where we learned we could put the emergency hand brake down and push the car through the parade.

That's a fair point. Just makes the recent iterations so much worse.

The Bernie Bros?

He didn’t win the primary because the voters didn’t pick him. It wasn’t some grand conspiracy. He was on the ballots for heaven’s sake.

Oh I know, but they still talk about the DMV conspiracy to do him dirty.

Same place the idea that Biden can be at once a senile old man asleep at the wheel while controlling multiple state level prosecutors, The FBI, CIA, countless jurors and umm, the weather apparently.

As far as I know it was from the Bernie '16 campaign, no? It would make more sense to have come from Hillary '08, since the DNC actually did make some marginally relevant choices that sort of mattered in that cycle and the campaign certainly had a bitter dead-ender faction, but I don't think so.

🎯

Even the Chicago machine fell apart and can barely do anything anymore.

Would it be the DNC was that capable...

the use of “DNC” as a pejorative is a general red flag indicating the person saying it doesn’t really know what they’re talking about

^^^ absolutely do not get me started on the way people use "DNC" but there's a case to be made that the Obama White House did tend to sort of negotiate itself down. We could debate endlessly about why this was or whether there were any feasible alternatives.

agree on both counts! I think there was a “we’ll get credit for being the reasonable ones if our initial asks are pre-compromised” in the early Obama era

For the ACA in particular, but broadly applicable to the early Obama years: moderate Dem: "My [insert GOP friend here] says they'll vote 'yes' if we make these compromises." Obama makes those compromises *six months pass* GOP friends: We're voting "no" moderate Dem: *shocked pikachu face*

I think that was part of it, but also, extremely moderate Dems/committee chairs were jumping up and down yelling “this is the plan right here and I think we can get some Republicans on board” and the leaders were like “cool, let’s run with it.”

I think two things are both true about Obama and Hill Dem leadership in 2009-2010: (1) They could have done somewhat better, and (2) That they did get the ACA (+ other meaningful stuff) across the finish line was truly impressive.

Same thing with using "liberal" as a pejorative.

One of the more baffling premises that anti-Democratic leftists operate on is that failure or partial successes don't happen because change is hard or unpopular or opposed by a powerful and well-financed political party, but because Democrats secretly hate them and want bad things.

See also "the Uniparty" and "Rotating Villain" conspiracy theories.

Promotion of the rotating villain theory is the surest sign of a dingbat

When they believe that it's either everything they want exactly how they want it or nothing, they'll apply that belief to everyone else. So for them, any outcome that is unsatisfactory must be exactly what the people who achieved it had secretly wanted.

Yeah, but it can be simultaneously true that (a) Obama usually got as much as he could out of Congress and (b) in more than a few cases (e.g., the stimulus) his initial ask was too timid, and left something on the table.

A whole lot of them weren't alive back then or still infants. Alternatively they weren't paying attention. That was an old school hammer and tongs fight with betrayal, arm twisting, and log rolling. It was the best Obama and his allies could do. They definitely weren't happy with the results.

I mean- I think it's hard to argue against the idea that Clintonian triangulation and 'pragmatism' has been the default politics of the Democrats since the 90s. And the core of that politics is morally valuing 'getting things done' (which things? unspecified) over any kind of root-and-branch change

Like their whole project, essentially, is recasting personal opportunism as a public virtue 🤷‍♂️

It's really easy to argue against, actually. Complete and utter nonsense, from top to bottom. You shrug like this is just totally obvious and you're just the messenger, but no you're making things up here.

I mean third way New Democrats had an absolute stranglehold on the party until fairly recently, and Rahm was specifically brought on to connect the Obama admin to those folks. Their politics was not a secret. If what I'm saying is really easy to argue against you might try... making an argument? lol

It's also not uncommon in politics to decide the people who disagree with you must favor the exact opposite. For example, conservatives are opposed to taxes, liberals disagree, therefore liberals must love taxes rather than seeing them as a means to what they actually want.

I would assume it's because they can't disagree that their Manichean position would have resulted in no health care reform at all, so they're deluding themselves into believing incrementalism was the goal all along. That way, they don't have to acknowledge they were ever wrong.

There is very little that's more flexible then the policy memories of 'leftists'.

I kind of wonder how much of this is DFP’s polling saying the Bernie agenda was super popular and then just extrapolating back 8-10 years to say it would’ve been then

This would also track with the picture of the DNC as an effective cabal thwarting leftists.

so many people have forgotten just how fucking awful people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson actually were

One of them insisted that the Democrats "let" Joe Lieberman break away from them and ... sorry, what were they supposed to do with that shithead? Primary him? Kick him out of the party? Done and done. What else, kids?

you see this a lot with Joe Manchin in the modern day it is hard to accept but there are times when you simply do not have any more leverage over a guy and they can fuck you over at will! it sucks, but it's true!

That smug smile on Manchin's face all the time, as if he, and only he, is smart enough to know what's really going on, is almost as triggering for me as Gaetz or Cruz... maybe moreso because he pretends to be better.

it is especially true with the united states senate!

the Senate selects for these people

for most politicians the Senate is the peak of their careers and they know it and the whole structure of the institution is set up - unlike the House - to let each Senator feel like King Shit it is not a surprise you get a lot of obstinate egotistical assholes

Yeah look at this bsky.app/profile/no1l...

Remember when Biden gave Manchin his version of the IRA and Manchin thanked him by…attacking Biden? www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Analysis | Manchin’s IRA anxiety sparks tensions with Schumerwww.washingtonpost.com In today’s edition … What we’re watching: Blinken speaks at U.N. Security Council … Trump set to be arraigned today … How Hollywood’s walkout stacks up, visualized … but first …

Dems have a sort of anti-leverage over Manchin, he's in an R+30 state so any time they criticize him he comes out looking great

Yep. His leverage is always “think WV will elect another Dem in these times?”

They could have simply threatened to bring criminal prosecution against his family members unless he did what they wanted. But they didn't even try!

They didn't drone strike him, so they clearly wanted the public option to die

Post