On Mass Democracy, part 3

In response to Ian Welsh, who blames the electorate of California out of what seems to me despair:

The California budget disaster is a result of gaming the California electoral system, not the will of a majority of Californians. Prop 13 was passed by 18% of California's population in the off year of 1978. Even of registered voters, it only got 45% of the vote. The tax cutting is not the will of the majority of Californians--never was. Such laws do not usually pass with even a majority of registered voters, and probably would not even pass in Presidential election years, even counting only that percentage of voters who turn out. So don't go blaming the citizens of California. Don't tell me they deserve it, or asked for it. An overwhelming majority never asked for any such thing.

To repeat myself: that many people do not understand or are not interested in politics is not a justification for mistreatment, any more than a patient's limited understanding of medicine is a defense of malpractice.

Croak of the Day: Robert Reich on the Public Option

“But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word ‘public?’ Make it available to only twelve people?” ***

What Brung Them, Part III, or, Like, Young

I called the other major group that brought the Presidential candidates, and the Democrats, to power “progressive beginners.” I wrote then, “These are the young (and not so young) Obama supporters who support Obama's ‘change,‘ even though they're not sure what it means. They don't want perpetual war, they want health care, they are environmentalists.” They're also getting stiffed, and when the health care mandate kicks in, and makes it harder to afford college, or be young in an economic depression, they're all going to know it.

New party coming. I give it 10 years.

What Brung Them, Part II, or, Women vs. the Democratic Party

Way back in September of last year, I commented that women, more than any other populist group, had brought the Presidential candidates. With the passage of the Stupak Amendment in the House, outlawing public support for abortion by the proposed health care, I think it's fair to say that the Obama administration prefers dancing with bishops to dancing with women.

I am surprised at how angry this makes me. Have the Democrats learned nothing from the past 50 years? Apparently not. If they will throw this many people under the bus, who won't be discarded if there is some interest group they are courting? I feel sick. I am old enough to remember the times before Roe v. Wade, and I have friends who grew up in countries where abortion is still illegal. I wonder how we will feel when our daughters die from backstreet abortions. I wonder how the unwanted children will feel.

It's class warfare, of course. The rich and the upper middle class will have access to safe abortion. The poor will not, and the lower-middle class will have to weigh the financial burden of unwanted children against potential bankruptcy of a medical abortion, or risk attempting to induce abortions without medical help.

The as-yet-unnamed third party to the left of the Democrats has just taken a giant step closer to reality.

[edited to correct copy errors]

Black is beautiful, part II

Both houses of Congress have now passed a "hate-crimes" (that is, anti-lynching) law. Krawk-krawk-krawk!

The Henry A. Kissinger "Fighting the Fire I Started Award"

For yesterday, goes to the Alan Greenspan, for saying "If [the big banks are] too big to fail, they’re too big." ***.

Health Care: Three-Eighths Bad

So. Word is that President Obama, Senator Baucus (D-Insurance), and Senator Dodd (D-Ct) will be hammering out the Senate compromise bill. Since the Finance Committee bill (Baucus) is bad and the HELP bill (Dodd) is half-bad, I figure that means the Senate will pass a bill that's three-quarters bad. Add it to the House bill, which is pretty good, and I figure you get a bill that is three-eighths bad. Maybe...maybe that's a decent start.

Hope?