It is ironic that we are experiencing a season of divisiveness amongst ourselves, during the administration of our first African American, given what was just released on Monday from the National Archives:
From CNN
President Nixon's campaign strategists hoped to create controversy among Democrats by fueling a push for a black candidate for the White House ahead of the 1972 elections.
Among the materials is a strategy paper titled "Dividing the Democrats" found in the files of Nixon aide H. R. Haldeman, dated October 5, 1971.
Dividing Democrats -- Divide and Conquer. Is there any other strategy that has worked so well, time after time after time, than when the have's have managed to win by having one group of have not's go to war with another?
Is there anything sadder or more pathetic? And, could we be headed that way again with HCR?
The paper, signed only as being from "RESEARCH," laid out perceived problems among Democrats that the GOP could use in helping Republican candidates, including Nixon, the incumbent president.
And quite rightly, they looked at the seams in our coalition. My son is studying mineralogy in science class, and one of his vocabulary words was cleavage. Cleavage is defined as the splitting or tendency to split of a crystallized substance along definite crystalline planes, yielding smooth surfaces. Even rock solid, beautiful diamonds -- the strongest of all substances -- can be cleaved from a well aimed blow, or pressures from within.
Back then, the strategy was sound but the tactics were clumsy and appear to have more projection than genius about them.
Among the tactics the document called for is the distribution of bumper stickers that "should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country" calling for "black presidential and especially vice presidential candidates."
The seam they sought to cleave nearly 40 years ago held firm. And it has grown stronger over the years making the Republican outrage over Harry Reid's reveled statement regarding President Obama into such an obviously cynical political ploy that even George Will and Lanny Davis found themselves in agreement as they denounced the effort on MSNBC earlier, today.
Though, they do have us talking about the silliness rather than HCR, and attacking them, don't they? And, it will sadly give the faux Fox crowd a bright shiny thing to point their fingers at instead of looking at their own deep seated, virulent racism. But I digress ...
The potential still remains to bust our coalition -- turning former allies into combatants -- while the lionshare of all that is worth having is once again hauled away by those who already have too much. And, the Republicans know it.
We have seen in recent weeks a passionate debate on this site regarding HCR that, at times, has threatened to cleave us assunder along ideological and tactical lines. Fortunately, there have been some like seneca doane and kellyRN2 who have encouraged (chided) us to pull back from the edge, to cool it lest the heat split us apart from within. There have been gracious efforts like slinkerwink's call to action to support MA Dems in preserving Teddy's seat. And, in countless diaries there have been kossacks who have walked others down from the cieling with rational questions and BIG kossacks who have apologized, after dousing their hair and returning to a semblance of civility.
Yet, there is a fissure and potential yet for this HCR legislative effort to go through, to be a win, that acts as a blow that cleaves us a part.
The Senate vs. The House funding approach.
Trumpka's speech, today, captures the situation well:
On the one hand we have the House bill, which asks the small part of our country that has prospered in the last decade--the richest of the rich--to pay a little bit more in taxes so that most Americans can have health insurance. And the House bill reins in the power of health insurers and employers by having an employer mandate and a strong public option.
But thanks to the Senate rules, the appalling irresponsibility of the Senate Republicans and the power of the wealthy among some Democrats, the Senate bill instead drives a wedge between the middle class and the poor.
I have been trying over the last month to examine the facts, the numbers. I wanted to see exactly what the Senate approach would mean for union members, like me, and middle class Americans. I even put together an excel spreadsheet, so I could run real numbers for what it might mean for actual families, sans the rhetoric. Honestly, the numbers weren't THAT bad -- at least not bad enough to throw the baby out with the bath water. And, I am one those poor, union members who has a 22K health benefit, who might see a hit sooner than most.
However, that said, Trumpka has a very REAL point, and IMHO, it's a point that trumps my spreadsheet:
the Senate bill instead drives a wedge between the middle class and the poor
And all my nifty formulas in my spreadsheet won't make a bit of difference, because as a marketing friend once shared with me, "You have to understand that for the majority of Americans, perception IS reality," our love affair with reality on this site notwhithstanding.
The Senate Bill could bend the cost curve by .3% (or even 3 or 30%), but that won't matter. The only thing that will stick in peoples' minds is 40% hidden tax, and it will mix with anger over the bankster's bonuses to create a toxic indigestion in the mid-section of America.
What might be the result? Will the swelling populist anger result in sweeping Progressive changes -- a better bill? -- or -- Will it lead to Dems being swept out of office leading them to learn their lesson leading to an eventual Progressive utopia? Somehow, I don't think so, because our opponents know this game too well to let that kind of crisis go uncapitalized upon. And they will use their formidable to capital to unleash thier favorite strategy -- divide and conquer.
Mr. Trumpka was quiet right in his observations, and the risks of the middle class going to war to hold onto their crumbs against the poor are only far too likely. The only question I have is which one of the Republicans lurking out there would step forward first to pick up Reagan's playbook for turning the middle class on the poor.
Respectfully, I suggest that we need to be pushing in every way we can for the House funding version and/ or having the tax point raised to a threshold like 35 or 40K, with some tax on the rich (can you say bankster's bonuses?). No, I can not go so far as to say, House Version or Kill the Bill, but I think it is very important that we do all we can to send a people's perspective to the WH and our Progressive Dems on the Hill to fight for the House version.
Or, I am quite concerned that not just we, here at KOS, will begin to fracture, but a far more destructive cleavage will occur, once again, between the have nots and the have nots across America.