During the 18 months of the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) campaign in support of what became the Affordable Care Act, I gave over a hundred speeches to thousands of activists who were working us in Pennsylvania. I frequently concluded my speeches this way:

Who is most responsible for the most popular domestic program in our history, Social Security? (Someone would, of course, shout out ‘Franklin Roosevelt.’ Or a history buff would say Senator Wagner.) No, that’s not really true. Franklin Roosevelt was President when Social Security was enacted and his support was crucial. But he came late to supporting it. Long before he did, a mass movement called the Townsend Movement made retirement security an issue of national importance. The Townsend movement held meetings, just like this one, in living rooms, in church basements, in fire houses, in union halls, and in public libraries. It never brought 100,000 people to tin Washington. But little by little, one city and congressional district at a time, it created the pressure and support without which Franklin Roosevelt would never have embraced and Congress would never have passed the Social Security Act.

You need to know that the work you are doing is as critical to the passage of health care reform as the work the Townsendites did in the 1930s was for Social Security. Health care reform won’t happen without you. There are huge forces opposing us. They have far more money than we have. But if you keep coming back week after week to our events and rallies; if you keep calling and emailing your representatives; and most importantly if you reach out to your friends and ask them to join us, we will win. We might not get everything we want this year—don’t forget that when it first went into effect Social Security only provided benefits for about 17 people.  But the 1935 legislation created the basis for the Social Security system we have today. That’s what we will do this year. We will make health care a right in this country. We will break the opposition of the insurance industry. We will set this country on the path to even further reforms in the future reforms that will complete the work we are starting this year.

And years from now, when your children or grandchildren come home from school and tell you that they learned that President Obama passed health care reform in 2010, I hope you tell them, “I was there. And the truth is we Americans passed health care reform in 2010, with President Obama’s help.”

A new book, Fighting For Our Health, by Richard Kirsch, the founder and campaign manager of Health Care for American Now, shows just how important the HCAN campaign was to the most important legislation this country in forty years. By skillfully weaving together the story of the legislative battle in Washington with the work of HCAN leaders and activists in the states, Kirsch demonstrates how, at each point in the battle, grassroots activism had a huge impact on the outcome.

To be honest, when he called me while doing his research, I was not all that eager to talk with Richard about the HCAN campaign, which I led in Pennsylvania. Nor did I rush to read the book in manuscript or again when I recently received a copy of it. Having lived through the exhausting Campaign That Would Never End, I feared getting exhausted all over again just reading about it. And I was busy trying to build on our work by taking our activists into other issues.

Getting caught up in the story

But each time I started reading the book, I got swept up in it. Richard tells the story beautifully. And it is an exciting story of a campaign in support of what is, despite its flaws, a huge legislative achievement. It is the story of the roller-coaster ride this country took for 18 months. Those of us who were part of the HCAN campaign bore the burden, not only of sitting in the front cars on the downside, but of pushing the cars up the tracks each time we reached a low point. There were so many ups and downs that, as Richard writes, we had to learn not to get caught up in each success and failure just so that we would have the emotional stamina to stay focused on the next step in our work.

It is an inspiring story, especially when Richard leaves Washington, and tells the personal stories of the staff and volunteers who, in so many states, gave so much of themselves to make this legislation possible. Anyone who doubts that citizen and labor activism can make a critical difference to our politics must read the book. And I have to say that I’m proud of the attention Richard gives to our work in Pennsylvania. We often said that the Pennsylvania HCAN campaign took a leading role in the campaign. Richard shows how true that was.

Showing the different that grassroots activism made

It is also an instructive book in at least three critical respects. First, HCAN’s grassroots work deserves a lot more attention that it has received, and certainly more than it go in major newspapers, including the newspapers in Philadelphia. Members of Congress always knew the importance of the work we did and told us many times. At the end of the campaign, one staffer told me: Congressman X always wanted to vote for the legislation. The work your team did made it possible for him to do so.

The strategy we adopted is one reason that the HCAN campaign didn’t get more attention. Aside from the one large rally we did in Washington on June 25, 2009 we chose not take large numbers of people to Washington for national rallies. The rally on June 25 did make the front page of the Times. The Inquirer didn’t mention it even though Senator Specter announced his support for the public option that day. However it would have gotten much more attention if Michael Jackson had picked another day to die. With the funds at our disposable, we could have done another bigger rally in Washington. But we believed that on what promised to be a long campaign, a grassroots movement was likely to much more effective if it spent its resources building a field operation in states and congressional districts. That was the right choice, especially since the campaign turned out to be even longer than we had expected. But the consequence was that the activists and reporters—who had grown up on marches in Washington for civil rights, against, the Vietnam War, and for the environment—had trouble recognizing just how large our movement was. We were aware of this problem during the campaign—I wrote about it—and thus here in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, we spent a lot of time blogging about our actions around the state and country so that our activists would understand that they were part of a large and growing movement.

But our strategy didn’t work with a press that was already suspicious of claims to grassroots activism; that leaned over backwards to show that it wasn’t too liberal; that was stretched too thin to actually go and see what we were doing around the state; and for which a long series of actions didn’t count as news. (In Philadelphia we also had the problem of the city’s inferiority complex. Philadelphia reporters simply were not ready to believe that actions taken here could possibly have a national impact.) The few outbursts of the Tea Party in Pennsylvania, which were heavily subsidized by the Koch brothers, got as much attention as we did. That we outnumbered the Tea Party in 40 of 44 Congressional Town Halls in September and October 2009 was ignored. Indeed, it appeared that the more we did, the less the press was interested in covering the events we held at critical moments of the campaign, such as our anti-insurance actions in September-October 2009 or the fifty events we did statewide in three days in March 2010. A few pages of Fighting for our Health discusses Melanie’s March, the trek from Philadelphia to Washington we led in February 2010 which did so much to restore momentum to the campaign after Republican Scott Brown was elected to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts. But neither Melanie’s March itself nor the concluding rally at which five Senators spoke, including Senators Reid, Casey and Specter, were ever mentioned in the Inquirer or the Daily News.

By linking the actions around the country to the events they shaped in Washington, Richard shows how central grass roots politics was to passing the ACA. And by making clear that the critical actions we did were only possible because of HCAN’s huge investment in building a field operation in 43 states, he will teach leaders of issue campaigns today and in the future—as well as historians—just what it takes to pass transformational legislation in America. Perhaps the press will also learn from his book and be better prepared in the future to understand the role of grassroots activism in national and state legislative struggles.

Why the HCAN Strategy worked

The second important lesson of the book has to do with the strategy of HCAN. HCAN was criticized on the left for not demanding single payer health insurance. Richard and Jacob Hacker independently came up with the alternative strategy of combining market based reforms with a public option as a way of overcoming one of the critical barriers to health care reform. As Richard explains, in the past Americans had favored health care reform up until the point when they began to understand that reform would mean they would have to give up the insurance they had and, however wrongly, believed was adequate. At that point, opponents of reform could play on the human fear of change as well as the long anti-statist tradition in America to undermine reform legislation.

Richard’s genius was to come up with a way to finesse this issue while building a coalition that included most progressive labor and advocacy groups. President Obama adopted the HCAN strategy and told the American people that “if they like their health insurance they could keep it.” President Obama and HCAN promised progressives a public option as part of health care exchanges that would reduce the cost of health insurance to individuals and small businesses while providing huge subsidies to low and moderate income families. As Richard points out, this public / private hybrid is in many ways closer to what is found in most of the countries in the world that guarantee everyone quality affordable health care than single payer, which is found only in Canada.

We didn’t quite get what we wanted. The public option was lost when Senator Baucus dithered trying to make a deal with Republicans and the President and Senator Reid were reluctant to insist on using the reconciliation procedure to move a public option through the Senate with a simple majority. This was a defeat for us and, while it’s not clear it would have done much good, many of us in HCAN were sorry we didn’t push the President and Senator Reid even harder than we did.

But as Richard points out, the public option was not the only crucial element of what became the ACA. The exchanges together with regulations that require insurance companies to insure everyone and everyone to have insurance will change the business model of health insurance. The subsidies in the exchanges are huge and are paid for by taxes that fall almost exclusively on the 1%. (Taking the benefits and taxes together the ACA is the most redistributive legislation in America history.)  While insurance companies will gain millions of new customers, there are new limits on insurance company profits. Already some observers have suggested that these limits, together with the pressure of the reforms in Medicare that are part of the ACA are likely to drive insurance companies out of the market sooner rather than later. The insurance companies knew this. Anyone who thinks the insurance companies really wanted the ACA has to explain why they funneled $86 through the Chamber of Commerce to defeat it. And the public option is not totally lost either. Already it appears that California, with 1/8th of the population of the country, and perhaps a few others states, will institute a public option when its exchange go on line. If those public insurance plans work as we expect, other state will adopt them done the line.

The crucial role of President Obama

All this is predicated, of course, on President Obama being reelected in 2012 so that the Republicans cannot repeal the ACA. The last lesson of the book is how much we do owe President Obama as well as Speaker Nancy Pelosi. President Obama didn’t do it alone, but we certainly did need his help. Time and again, from the first days of his administration to the dark moment when Scott Brown won that Massachusetts Senate election, President Obama kept his eyes on the prize of comprehensive health care reform, often against the advice of his top political advisers. Like many progressives, I’ve been disappointed with the President’s failure to stand up to the right wing and draw a clear line between our ideals and theirs. Richard shows, however, that despite his failure on the public option, President Obama did that on health care, not once but many times.

Learning from success

There are many reasons to be frustrated with the state of our politics today. We progressives have taken our lumps lately. And we are, as always, inclined to exaggerate every defeat and turn on our leaders. That’s sometimes healthy. But it can be dispiriting as well.

So I urge you all to buy and read Richard’s wonderful book because it shows that progressive victories are possible, even during the worst recession in 80 years.

There will be more books on the ACA and perhaps even on the HCAN campaign as there is more to be said about our strategy and how we built the coalition and field and internet operations. (The literature on the origins of Medicare keeps growing even today.) But this book is great because it gives us an exciting narrative that explains in broad strokes how victory was possible: formulate a sensible strategy for change; build a coalition of citizen groups and labor not just in Washington but in the states and Congressional districts; and put all our resources—especially our time and energy—into the battle.

PDF Download    Send article as PDF   
 

On Wednesday, Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards will take office as Montgomery County Commissioners after winning the most important political race in the state in November. As you must know, this will be the first time in this history of the County that Democrats have controlled the County Commission.

At the same time Joe Hoeffel will be leaving public office, perhaps for the last time.

But everyone, from Josh and Leslie down, know that without the efforts of Joe Hoeffel, there would be no Democratic majority on the County Commission in Montgomery County. Without Joe, Allyson Schwartz would probably not be the member of Congress for the 13th Congressional district which includes a big part of Montgomery County and which Joe once represented. And many other Democratic public officials would not old the offices they do today.

The contemporary Democratic Party in Montgomery County is, to a very large degree, the creation of Joe Hoeffel. The “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” agenda Joe has been articulating for years is the platform of Democrats in Montgomery County. The reputation for rectitude and integrity that Democrats have in Montgomery County—and that was so important to the victory in November—is in large part due to the reputation of Joe Hoeffel.

Continue reading »

 

Today in the Inquirer, Kevin Ferris channels PA Senator Pat Toomey, who has been providing a Republican spin on the failure of the Super Committee.

In the imagniarium of Pat Toomey and Kevin Ferris, the Senator courageously broke with fellow Republicans to propose a balanced, bi-partisan deal that would combine $450 million in tax increases along with $750 million in budget cuts to meet the Super Committee’s ten year goal. In rejecting this proposal, President Obama and the Democrats showed that they don’t truly want a balanced bipartisan solution to the deficit problem.

This is what the proposal looks like when you take off the funny glasses.

Toomey’s proposal would have raised revenue slightly—no more than $45 billion a year. But most of that increase would have come from the middle class not the rich.

Toomey proposed to reduce the marginal tax rates for everyone by 20%. However, the absolute reduction in the tax rate would vary from top to bottom. People making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see their after tax income increase 1.7%; those making $200,000 to $500,000 would see their after tax income increase 3.5%; and people making over $1 million would see their after tax income increase by almost 4.4%.

To increase revenues and make up for the decline in tax rates, Toomey’s borrowed a proposal from Martin Feldstein to caps tax expenditures—loopholes—to 2% of adjusted gross income.  That sounds fair. But look at the details and you see that taxes go up far more on lower- and middle- than upper-income people. Feldstein’s proposal limits tax expenditures used by lower- and middle-income taxpayers such as the Child Tax Credit and the exclusion of employer paid health insurance. But It does not limit those used primarily by the rich, such as the partial exclusion of capital gains and dividends from taxation. And because the cap is set as a percentage of income, those with higher income will benefit more from loopholes than those with moderate or low incomes.

Toomey’s tax rate proposal would also lock in the already regressive Bush tax cuts, shifting the tax burden even more on the poor and middle class. And it gives up the $3.3 billion of deficit reduction we would get by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Of course Toomey claims that reducing marginal tax rates would spur economic growth. But while right wingers repeat this claim ad nauseum, it turns out to be true only in the fantasy world in which they live. At some point higher marginal rates do reduce economic growth. But recent studies by Nobel economics laureate Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez and by Mike Kimel suggest that raising the marginal tax rate on the highest earners to between 65 and 75% would not harm economic growth at all.

This sounds counter-intuitive only because thirty years of a Republican drum beat has made it seem so. But the greatest period of economic growth in American history took place between 1945 and 1973 when marginal tax rates were initially as high as 91%, only coming down to 70% in 1965. Why? Because people with incomes in the stratosphere can’t possibly spend all they earn. At that level, a higher income only boost one’s self-esteem not one’s consumption and pre-tax income serves just as well as post-tax income for that purpose. Moreover, the best way for small businessmen to reduce a high income tax burden—and increase the value of their holdings over the long term—is by reinvesting in their businesses. So increasing their income taxes is an incentive to, not a burden on, job creation.

The spending cuts proposed by Republicans also fall on working people. Medicare recipients would face higher premiums and co-pays. And states would see federal support for Medicaid slashed, with the result that many people, including many seniors in nursing homes, would face severe benefit cuts.

So the Democrats and President Obama were absolutely right to say reject Toomey’s plan, which was neither balanced nor a bi-partisan. It was one more effort on the part of Republicans to help the rich grow richer while placing the burden of deficit reduction on working people and the middle class. Pat Toomey and his friends in the media can spin all they want. But as a great Republican once said, you can’t fool all the people all the time. Sooner rather than later, the Republicans will discover that the majority of voters will take off the funny glasses and see the world, and Toomey’s ugly proposals, as they really are.

PDF Download    Send article as PDF   
 

The bizarre moments in our political and cultural lives are sometimes the best windows into currents of thought underlying our explicit beliefs, currents that are so deep that we often don’t even recognize them as our own.

Which is worse: sexual harassment or a long term affair?

Consider, for example, the reactions of conservatives to Herman Cain’s alleged sexual misconduct. Two weeks ago, when Herman Cain was charged with sexually harassing multiple women, conservative ran to his defense. They claimed that sexual harassment is an overblown phenomenon and attacked the credibility of the women who accused him. And yet last week, when a woman came forth to say that she had a long term affair with Cain, most conservatives criticized him and said that his candidacy was or should be over.

One would think that sexual harassment—that is using material inducements and physical pressure to induce a woman to have sex with you—was a far more damaging charge than a consensual affair. Yet the conservative reaction was exactly the opposite.

It is possible that the stronger reaction to the second charge against Cain is just the result of the accumulation of evidence that Cain has some issues with women. But the striking difference in tone in how conservatives responded to the two different charges against Cain suggests something deeper is at work.

We can’t get at the deeper ideas that account for this bizarre phenomenon unless we recognize that the differences between liberals and conservatives on sexual matters—women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, and sexual harassment—are not just the product of superficial disagreements that rest mainly on which passages in the Hebrew Bible we take seriously and which we think we can ignore. (As liberals often point out, the conservatives who quote Leviticus 18:22 condemning male homosexuality don’t feel bound by the prohibition on eating shellfish in Leviticus 11:10.) Rather these differences are rooted in very different conceptions of the nature of sexuality.

The conservative view of sexuality

We can summarize the complicated set of ideas that underlie conservative views in this way: Sexual desire, especially in men, is a dangerous force. It is a potentially overpowering, anarchic desire. It is fundamentally promiscuous and does not naturally lead men to form romantic relationships or families. Indeed, in men sexual desire aims not just at physical pleasure but at the conquest and domination of women. And that desire must be constrained if we are to have stable families in which children can be raised well. For most of our history, women have provided that constraint. By denying men access to their bodies outside of marriage, women have tamed male sexuality and directed in socially beneficial ways. For some men, even that restraint is not sufficient. And so we allow other outlets for the sexual desires of men, pornography and prostitution, that are lesser threat to families and minimally disruptive to the social fabric..

If this is how you think about sexuality, then the conservative agenda makes perfect sense. Anything that encourages or allows men to have sex outside of marriage undermines the only institution that can tame men and preserve the family. This includes the acceptance of promiscuity and men and women living together as well as contraception and abortion, which make these practices acceptable by reducing their risks to women. Homosexuality is also dangerous because it provides a non-marital outlet for male homosexuality. (Not a few conservatives have pointed out with trepidation out that sex with men likely to be more pleasurable to men than sex with women because male sexual partners share the same anarchic desires and know the bodies of men better than a woman do.) While prostitution and pornography must be tolerated as outlets for some men, they have to be kept disreputable and hidden away so as not to inflame the desires of other men.

How conservatives understand sexual harassment

Now if this is how you look at sexuality, it’s hard not to think that that the changes in our sexual lives over the last fifty years are a profound threat to our civilization. And the seemingly bizarre double reaction to the allegations against Herman Cain makes perfect sense. When conservatives say that sexual harassment doesn’t exist or that the extent of it is vastly overstated they are not really saying that powerful men don’t use threats or promises of preferment or physical force to secure sex with women. Rather, they are saying that this is how men are; that anyone who thinks that rules against this behavior will stop it is foolish; that women should know this and not put themselves in situations where men will be men; and that if they don’t, women deserve the blame. And when conservatives try to undermine the credibility of women who charge men with sexual harassment the point is not really to call into question the story they tell. Rather it is to remind us that women fall into two categories, those one marries and those one uses for sex and that the women making these charges fall into the second category. Cain’s new effort to redeem himself from the charges against him, a new website called Women for Herman Cain. It has become the political equivalent of mud wrestling, a place for the “good women” among his supporters to trash the “bad women” attacking him.

That Cain’s wife dismissed the harassment charges against him by saying his actions were out of character is, thus meaningless. Men like Cain always treat their wives with respect. That’s one reason they seek to dominate other women sexually.

It’s not hard, then, to understand why conservatives were so quick to dismiss the sexual harassment charges against Cain. It’s a little more difficult to understand why they were so quick to call him to account for his long term affair with Ginger White. Partly that’s because it is harder to simply write off a long consensual affair as a man being a man. The effort to discredit White, though, looks like an attempt to paint her as one more tramp like the others. But the fundamental reason for treating the White affair differently is that, to the conservative mind, a long term affair is a far more serious threat to marriage than a series of flings. While the statute of limitations on his sins may have passed, as Newt Gingrich’s star rises, we will see conservatives raise questions about his practice of trading his wives in for younger models.

The progressive task

It’s not easy to find a contemporary conservative writer who has spelled this line of thought about sexuality as I have. Indeed, I suspect that many conservative writers could not do so. But these deeper ideas, originating two millennia ago mainly mainly among the Father of the Church, underlie not just the conservative reaction to Cain’s troubles but so many of our contemporary debates. However strange they sound to the contemporary liberal ear, it’s worth making these ideas explicit and calling them into account, and not just to combat conservative views about sexual issues.

The bigger issue is this: conservatives are, of course, not entirely wrong about the sexual desires of men and how men behave. Men rape, assault, harass, and dismiss women every day. In doing so they are acting out a dominator mode of sexuality that is even more deeply rooted in our civilization than the conservative critique of it. The Christian writers who devised the conservative ideas presented above were largely reacting to Greek and Roman ideas that justified dominator sexuality.

So our task is not just to understand the conservative view of male sexuality but, first, to say  that is a product not of our nature but of our cultural and institutional inheritance and second, to continue the task of freeing ourselves of that inheritance by acting and teaching our children differently. That’s the path to bringing us all to a liberated, egalitarian view of sexuality in which we are free to follow our own path, and in which the sexuality of both men and women be part of the desire to love, not dominate, our partners.

Create PDF    Send article as PDF   
© 2012 Marc Stier at Large Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha