In the course of arguing that Congress should really do virtually nothing about health care, Joe Lieberman approvingly cites the Civil Rights movement as a model of incremental change. Why he believes it was a good thing that nearly a century passed before the federal government outlawed racial discrimination and provided meaningful substance to the Reconstruction Amendments, I won’t bother to speculate, but one would have to be a complete tool not to recognize that if a society is morally obligated to dismantle an exploitative and violent caste system, there’s no especially good reason to advocate that such change should take place “in steps.”
It’s another thing entirely to recognize that such changes did take place incrementally, though it’s worth pointing out that the legislation of 1964 and 1965 were dramatic and comprehensive by comparison with anything the previous ten decades had produced from the institution Lieberman allegedly serves. It’s also worth recalling exactly why the gradual transformations Lieberman celebrates were so long in coming:
The leadership of two major political parties colluded for decades to avoid dealing with an evident national problem; when even the mildest of remedies were suggested, they relied on parliamentary tactics to block debate and preserve minority rule. “Sensible” opinion-makers argued that change, while acceptable perhaps in theory, should be delayed for the time being because current economic growth would solve all problems, or because economic catastrophe required that other issues receive more immediate attention, or because there was a war to be won. Advocates of change were cited by their opponents as evidence that a pernicious, foreign ideology was eagerly seeking the republic’s destruction. Dray loads of irate throwbacks, styling themselves patriots, organized themselves and vowed to preserve the status by all available means.
If Holy Joe wants to align himself with that history, he should at least recognize that he is, as the cliche goes, on the wrong side of it.
26 comments
August 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Ahistoricality
one would have to be a complete tool not to recognize that if a society is morally obligated to dismantle an exploitative and violent caste system, there’s no especially good reason to advocate that such change should take place “in steps.”
Well, you can call me a tool if you want, but a complex system doesn’t always respond well to sudden change. The comprehensive Civil Rights legislation which you cite did an immense amount of good, but it also both left important work undone and conversely provoked legal and social backlashes which are still with us.
A set of clearly defined stages towards a goal may not be mere foot-dragging: it could be the most politically viable and survivable form of reform.
August 23, 2009 at 4:13 pm
lockwooddewitt
In other news, Lieberman also believes we should start releasing Jews from the Nazi camps in another decade or two.
August 23, 2009 at 4:17 pm
G.D.
care to be more specific?
August 23, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Brodysattva
it also both left important work undone and conversely provoked legal and social backlashes which are still with us.
Is that not entirely the problem of those who suppressed the civil rights of others and those who benefited from occupying a societal position of unjust privilege?
August 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm
davenoon
A set of clearly defined stages towards a goal may not be mere foot-dragging: it could be the most politically viable and survivable form of reform.
But that’s not actually what JL is advocating. The legislation he’s currently shitting on does in fact (for people who support it with some reluctance) represent a somewhat clearly-defined stage toward a distant goal in which government-run health insurance is a reality. Holy Joe isn’t saying, “we’d like to reach that goal, but the absurdity of the current political moment might require that we add another stage to the process.” Nor is he suggesting that it might be worthwhile to challenge the absurdity itself by fighting for a cloture vote. Instead, he’s arguing that Obama needs to prove he’s “serious” by deferring to conservatives.
August 23, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Uncle Billy the Un-Cunctator
Fabius Maximus approves this post.
August 23, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Doug
Reminds me of my favorite William Lloyd Garrison quote (http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/Liberator.html):
“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.”
August 23, 2009 at 5:32 pm
theo
it was a good thing that nearly a century passed before the federal government outlawed racial discrimination and provided meaningful substance to the Reconstruction Amendments
…because by the time that happened, fifty-seven-hundred years after the creation of the universe, YHWY’s divine plan had finally produced Joe Lieberman, so that he could Freedom Ride down South to save the black folks of America.
August 23, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Dr J
I can think of some good examples of incremental change.
For instance, five years ago, you almost never heard the word “douchebag” used in reference to another person, at least in mixed company. But then Jon Stewart started calling people “douchebag” on the daily show. The usage slowly grew, and now it’s hardly shocking to hear somebody call somebody else a “douchebag.”
So when I point out that Joe Lieberman is a huge douchebag for saying this, you probably won’t even bat an eye.
August 23, 2009 at 7:40 pm
parsimon
davenoon. I did not realize you blogged here, for some reason. It’s good to read you.
August 23, 2009 at 8:07 pm
TF Smith
I believe that is Sen. Douchebag, JLP-Connecticut…where is Ned Lamont these days?
August 23, 2009 at 8:08 pm
ari
Counting his money. The market’s going up, you know.
August 23, 2009 at 8:50 pm
TF Smith
It can’t get no worse…
August 23, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Michael
Why he believes it was a good thing that nearly a century passed before the federal government outlawed racial discrimination and provided meaningful substance to the Reconstruction Amendments, I won’t bother to speculate
I will! Joe’s saying that we had to wait until black folk were ready for integration. Whereas today, it’s pretty clear that millions of Americans are not yet ready for health coverage.
August 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Vance
Lieberman went to Mississippi during “Freedom Summer”, 1964. Perhaps that’s the starting point he had in mind?
August 24, 2009 at 7:14 am
Michael Elliott
It’s worth recalling that when all the major civil rights legislation of the 60s was passed, there were large numbers of people saying that was too much, too fast. And that those bills had to be watered down to get enough support to pass. In other words, the Joe Liebermans have always been with us.
August 24, 2009 at 7:48 am
James B.
For such a momentous issue as health care reform, gradualism is the only option. Just look at emancipation – too much, too fast. If only the North would’ve allowed slavery to die a natural death, America could have avoided civil war, and blacks would’ve probably been enjoying freedom by, say, 1900, or 1910, or 1920. Certainly by 1930, or 1940, but surely no later than 1950 or 1960 or 1970 because by then most Americans (and undoubtedly all Southerners) had moved beyond racial intolerance. Of course, if they hadn’t been freed by 1970, Nixon might have been an issue. But Carter, he would’ve freed ‘em. Wait, didn’t he own a peanut plantation? Damn. Ok, Reagan then. What? Emancipation would prove too burdensome to the wealthiest Americans? Ok, 1992. Clinton would clearly be the Great Emancipator. Huh? From Arkansas, you say? Shit.
August 24, 2009 at 8:21 am
Michael
I for one will eventually welcome our new incrementalist overlords, if and when they arrive.
August 24, 2009 at 9:50 am
Batocchio
I suspect Joe waited ’til now to speak up because he could get the best headlines that way. He seems to get almost every position wrong. He also ignores that health care reform will actully save money, although there will be some initial expenditures. But I don’t think his analysis runs even that deep. And he never cared about costs when it came to an unnecessary war.
August 24, 2009 at 11:16 am
Ahistoricality
To quote the Tenured Radical,
Part of the problem with Americans today is that we either don’t understand what would constitute moderation anymore, or we apply this doctrine selectively.
And, to answer Brodysattva, above, morally yes. In practical terms, it seems like the responsibility (or at least good sense) of political leaders to initiate change that doesn’t make things appreciably worse for those who did not benefit from or enforce unjust policy.
August 24, 2009 at 11:49 am
JPool
Ahist, you’re not actually clarifying your position here. I think we can all agree that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts left things undone, and they certainly provoked a political backlash in some areas. Maybe you could explain how, short of doing nothing, such a backlash could have been avoided. I’d also say that the backlash is only part of the story, and that progress in these areas also built momentum towards progress in others.
On health provision reform, you’re probably right, which is why my plan to nationalize the health insurance industry and to place all it’s capital in trust for the administration and development of national health coverage probably won’t happen. It might have some unintended economic and political consequences. In the mean time, we have this moderate and gradualist “public option” thing that the president and some blog commenters have been talking about.
August 24, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Currence
Send the incrementalists packin’ in the only way that befits them: piece by piece.
August 24, 2009 at 6:14 pm
serofriend
Maybe you could explain how, short of doing nothing, such a backlash could have been avoided
I think the clarification questions revolve around causation and structure (if my interpretation aligns with Ahist’s intention). So perhaps something like the mutual constitution of race and class? According to Thomas Edsall, for example, when politicians in the 1970s and 1980s proposed a tax increase, many voters saw it as a conspiracy to take money away from working (white) two-parent families and distribute it to unwed (black, Mexican-American, Asian) mothers on welfare. Similarly, policymakers view the expansion of legal rights for criminal defendants as a color-blind infringement on victims’ rights. In both cases, he argues, fear and distrust of blacks, Mexican-Americans, Asians, and “minorities” are mixed up with more legitimate concerns about the erosion of traditional values.
Addressing arguments like the above would help assess the gradualist approach for both health care and African American civil rights.
August 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm
serofriend
Send the incrementalists packin’ in the only way that befits them: piece by piece
Focusing on the Civil Rights and Voting Acts, but implied a more diverse definition of citizenship and socioeconomic civil rights. Send them packing piece by piece, Currence, eh? Blue Dogs beware!
August 24, 2009 at 6:45 pm
pain perdu
This diary from Firedoglake has Lieberman dead to rights:
August 25, 2009 at 8:57 am
Dr J
Update: Lieberman Rebukes Lieberman Stance on Delaying Health Care Reform
http://www.openleft.com/diary/14788/lieberman-pushes-back-on-lieberman