But as a policy matter, I agree with the left-wing single payer advocates. That's not because I'm a socialist (though my mother sometimes accuses me of that). It's because I don't believe that the private model envisioned will even begin to achieve the ends its proponents insist it's designed for. Fundamentally, I have been convinced by Paul Krugman that private market solutions  can't cure healthcare. (For reasons he has not yet explained, he supports this monstrosity).

I consider myself a pragmatist first and foremost. But I've always thought the test of whether a political proposal is pragmatic or not is whether it is likely to work (effectively addresses the issue it is intended to address) -- whether it meets practical objectives and not just ideological ones -- not how many senate votes it can muster at any given time.

If some senators vote for a bill because it will hold them in good stead with well-heeled contributors, others agree to vote for it once it meets some ideological demand that has no real or direct bearing on the problem at hand (for deficit neutrality or increased limits on access to abortion services for instance)  and others sign on because some specific provision is inserted to provide a boon to a powerful constituent, etc., enough votes may be gathered for passage -- without the bill in fact addressing the issue it claims to address in any genuinely effective and pragmatic way.

It's certainly easier to leap from one position to its total opposite if you never understood your original stance in the first place, and I am thinking Chait's theory could get some traction. "When I sat next to him in the State Senate, he always surprised me by how little he'd learned about the bill at the time of the vote," said Bill Curry, a former Connecticut comptroller and Democratic gubernatorial nominee.

I really like the not-that-bright theory, in part because it's as good an explanation as any, and in part because it will definitely drive Lieberman nuts.

So we are in a position to make a decision.

That decision is based on whether or not we believe that public policy can actually solve the problem or problems. This is where, I think, the divergence in governmental philosophy lies. The evidence does not show that people like say, Mike Johanns, have the answer. But ultimately, the village decides that Mike Johanns's opinion is just as valuable as any other opinion, despite the fact that he is wrong, given the evidence.

I'm of the opinion that the people who have decided to stop any real reform don't much believe in the value of public policy as any sort of valuable way to mitigate problems that a society might run across. If they did believe in the value of public policy, philosophically, deeply, than pragmatism and morality would become the same thing.

That's not happening right now. This is why so many people think the people in the Senate are useless and most people think they're acting like 4 year-olds.

The posturing is so obvious to even the least politically engaged.

The reasonable belief, considering the evidence, is that the people who have control over the process aren't pragmatists and aren't even motivated by moral or ethical considerations.

and before you disagree, just stop right there.  i know every single one of you is smart enough to know I'm right, but you all just lack the guts and honesty to admit it.  

D'UH!!!!!!

To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, "New Democrat" movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as "the Third Way," which often defended the use of private means for public ends.

Now imagine so-called progressives fiercely arguing for the Third Way.  That's just dumb.  But they are.

Understanding who you are dealing with is essential to effectively dealing with them. obama's refusal to recognize the insidious personality of republicans, that they will block what he does regardless of the merits or ideology is a great failure of (or counted on by) team obama. Has no one noticed that the public option blockers claim to be worried about HCR costs? Obviously this is all personality, not policy where they counter their own professed ideology.

Unfortunately, the collective decision by the administration, the Dems, the press, and the access bloggers to exclude, demean, and censor the "little single payer advocates" WAS corrupt. So why listen to the perps?

Certainly, the decision was intellectually and morally corrupt -- particularly from a White House that promised an open and transparent process, on C-SPAN!