2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI've never thought of Hillary as a pregmatist
Howard Dean painted Hillary as a pragmatist rather than a visionary. Hillary has been a vacillator (weather-vane) and has not been successful with healthcare in the past.
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)challenging strategy to make healthcare a right rather than a privilege. HRC is thanking Bernie for his commitment to making healthcare accessible to all Americans. She was not endorsing a plan.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)underthematrix
(5,811 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)with the corporate powers and 1% than to fight for the people.
A pragmatist will take the road of least resistance.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)After working in an industry that was corrupt (though less so than politics) I noticed that people willing to sell out and do the unethical thing often preached pragmatism (I am just being pragmatic, you need to be more pragmatic).
When Dean used those words I had a discussion with a millennial about "pragmatism." When I read about Dean's lobbyist ties this morning I wasn't surprised.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)I hadn't realised that; thanks for the warning.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)but it cannot get passed. But what we seem to be hearing now is that they in principle are against single-payer. Their ideal is mandatory
private insurance that falls far short of genuine universal healthcare. They simply do not believe in anything resembling genuine universal healthcare by modern western democratic standards even it could easily pass.
Is that or is that not what the Clinton campaign seem to be saying?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)'Rome wasn't built in a day' Single payer can easily be done it just will take time. One cannot assume the congress will be dominated by obstructive Republicans (and some Democrats).
Those poor health insurance companies what will they do?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)that being a pragmatist is mostly about doing what works, which is to say especially doing what works for the pragmatist. In the lessons of my youth this was called 'letting the ends justify the means', which was never presented as a good thing, but rather as an attractive and menacing threat to morality.
Pragmatism is certainly not of necessity inconsistent with being a corporatist, an opportunist and a pragmatist. Historically, the pivot to pro-corporatist politics of the DLC was about seizing an opportunity to get corporate money to support campaigns. And it was a 'pragmatic' solution to the problem of democratic candidates being stuck with pro-labor. pro-regulatory positions in conservative districts. That argument is still used to defend political positions taken by conservative democrats across much of the country.
When pragmatism is placed as a priority, there is freedom to move/triangulate, which is to say freedom to campaign in any manner using any tools/tricks of the trade that provide leverage toward a win. And winning we are told by the legacy third-wayers who were at the heart of the DLC, -is- everything.
That freedom means being unchained from party traditions (such as being a pro-labor party of the common man) and even moral principles. Under pragmatism, there is no reason why even blatant lying, or worse, isn't and can't be made acceptable.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)What do you think she was telling them in those high paid speeches? She was telling them how she could increase their profits inf they invested in her? Would she be so welcome otherwise? If she wins the primaries, the flood gates of Big Business donations will open for her.
Hillary who states she is a CHRISTIAN knows the BIBLE says you can serve only one master. It sure ain't the people she will serve. But then rather than having to have regulation, she can just tell them to cut it out.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)So I can only conjecture based on things I have read attributed to her and recordings of her.
I think it's likely that the speeches were doses of various contents commonly found in Third-way snake-oil.
To wit: One of the contemporary criticisms of conservatism is that it routinely comes down to promoting classist/racist policy. American's recognize being indicted with racism is bad. Conservatives need a means to get around that. In the day before the 1960's we were commonly fed ideas of Plantation Morality. The folks in the big house looking out, as investors do, for the good of their property.
Post Civil Rights Act it's necessary to both reject that old disgraced morality at to give the folks in their big houses, and those envying them, a chance to feel good about themselves. One of the things that 3rd-way provides is conservatism without the blatant racism. But the economic disparity justified by Third-way conservatism always boils down the the cudgel that beats up poor people, who in America are disproportionately people of color.
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)There are pragmatists that say, "the system is unfair, too much trouble to sort out who is gaming the system so I'll just become a part of the problem, but on the plus side, I will get things done..."
And then there are pragmatists who see the same things, but with a longer lens. In other words, what Dean is calling a visionary is actually someone who realizes that those who are gaming the system ARE the problem. Remove them from the formula and you may actually reach your objectives faster.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)unfortunately for the American people.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Green Forest
(232 posts)I have never liked Howard Dean. I always thought he was an opportunist, especially since I knew what he was like as a DLC VT governor. Now he is back in their embrace.