As of this writing (Monday evening), the Democrats in the wee hours of this morning have won a bare 60-vote majority for the Senate version of the health-care reform bill, a major step toward the passage of some version of this legislation. In the aftermath of the vote, a noteworthy post from Friday by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com merits attention.
Greenwald writes that differences among liberals and progressives over whether to support the legislation come down to attitudes toward “corporatism.” “I’ve honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of ‘new’ political approach or governing method when … what he practices — politically and substantively — is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more updated marketing. At its core, it seeks to use government power not to regulate, but to benefit and even merge with, large corporate interests, both for political power (those corporate interests, in return, then fund the Party and its campaigns) and for policy ends. It’s devoted to empowering large corporations, letting them always get what they want from government, and extracting, at best, some very modest concessions in return.”
The point, of course, is that the “mandate” embodied in the legislation amounts to a giveaway to the insurance companies. An appropriate response might be to raise the question of what else can be expected, given the makeup and character of the Democratic Party as presently constituted. Can a serious opposition to “corporatism” be expected when labor plays so minimal a role as but one of an agglomeration of narrow interests in a party dominated by white-collar, public-sector professionals?
I don’t know whether progressives are capable of the self-examination necessary to address this situation. Having lived through 40 years of backlash, have we no reason to question whether the Obama victory really is the harbinger of a political realignment driven by Hispanics and younger voters? Don’t we see a pattern running back to the Carter and Clinton presidencies, in which the public does indeed seek an alteration in power on occasion — but in which liberal or progressive presidents find that conservatives have them by the throat, almost as soon as they are elected? Under business as usual, can there ever be a serious grass-roots opposition to “corporatism”? Won’t the right, with its mega-churches, “tea parties” and talk radio, always be far more of a grassroots phenomenon the progressive left as presently constituted? Can a serious response be formulated without addressing the secular-versus-religious component and the emphasis on issues such as abortion and gay marriage?
Some people appear to insist upon trying to build a “progressive” movement without organized labor. Maybe the possibility of a labor-based movement built around the economic question has indeed expired. The economic character of the country has changed, the economy is ever more oriented toward services, and the workforce is increasingly college-educated. As a consequence, the political system evolves in a direction in which both parties come to be dominated by affluent professionals — not exactly the kind of people who work at Wal-Mart. Under the circumstances, isn’t something like the emerging legislation the best we can expect on health care?
I see that over the weekend, Mickey Kaus has written on his blog: “The Wagner Act was written for an oligpolistic post-WWII economy, where layers of rigid work rules were seen as a positive triumph of benevolent bureaucratic precision.” I guess he fancies himself to be some sort of liberal or progressive — albeit with attitudes toward organized labor similar to those of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, more likely to support repeal of the Wagner Act than any form of “card-check” legislation. For comparison, just try googling “Jenkins” and “Wagner Act” at the domain online.wsj.com….