Some Thoughts on a Way Forward
The principle lesson I draw, which should hardly be surprising given the history of progressive change efforts in our country, is that this Administration and a Democratic Congress simply are not going to move forward on this issue unless and until there is a coalescing of the many progressive groups active on this issue, a mass movement with public visibility and effective spokespersons, or some combination of both. Neither likely will or can happen soon enough to produce a health care outcome that will be broadly satisfying to activists.
There must, in the aftermath, be resolve to come back to the table on this issue soon, within, say, a couple of years, to build on this initial effort. We, progressive activists, are not well advised to think that the politicians we want to fight for progressive change, are likely to do that unless we are not only resolved to push them, but also find ways to improve the effectiveness of the scattered, diffuse efforts this time around. That will not be easy. And no one said it would be.
With those suppositions re health care, the question becomes: what is a way forward?
My evolving view is that a major jobs bill, with a focus on infrastructure upgrades and modernization with a strong green thrust, offers the best prospects of restoring the momentum generated during the campaign and avoiding losses, or possibly even under the best scenario leading to gains, in the mid-term Congressional elections.
The Republicans surely would seek to filibuster such a bill and I say, hooray: this is the best thing that can happen for progressive prospects going forward. Doing so will make their true values and agenda transparent in a way the health care debate, because of its complexity, cannot. But only if it is presented to the public as being about restoring American pride and hope and laying the foundation for a thriving economy going forward.
This will go a long way towards addressing what is the largest vulnerability at present for the White House and the Democratic Congress, which is the perception that neither has done much, if anything, to help Main Street and ordinary Americans who are suffering enormously on account of this economy. In specific political terms, no other initiative has as much likelihood of attracting support from working-class Americans who right now are wondering what change they were asked to believe in is going to do for them.
At the same time, my impression, and it is only that, is that a lot of the financial elite at some level might acknowledge that some measures to address the jobs problem are probably an overall stabilizing force for the investment climate, the more so because they are being created in the short-term at public rather than private expense.
I think a lot of those folks at some level also have to realize that they have, relative to what many ordinary citizens have experienced, skated and can entertain no self-pity or illusions that this Administration or Congress are out to demonize them.
That should, and might, be the case even if, as many of us certainly hope, there will be at least some positive steps next year towards addressing the financial sector regulatory failures that contributed so much to getting us into this mess. Again, I would anticipate that we will get a much less than adequate outcome on that issue. And I would draw the same conclusion as stated above regarding health care--that there needs to be something that looks like a popular movement that is visible to the policymakers and saying credible things in order for there to be real movement on that issue.
OTOH, perhaps there really is no limit to the extent to which financial and economic elites, no matter how coddled by the political elites terrified of incurring their wrath, are capable of feeling sorry for themselves and channeling that wrath into what are ultimately self as well as societally destructive efforts. And we've seen, over a period of decades now, just how destructive those efforts have been.
One of our fellow denizens said this today or yesterday, and I agree: there has to be a way. There is no alternative we can bear.
Happy Thanksgiving to all.












Oversimplifying somewhat, there are two basic reasons for the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership to be open to accepting ideas/requests for changes from individual or groups of Congressional Republicans to a bill they are trying to move.
The first is that a Republican member might have a good idea, one that improves the bill substantively, from a policy standpoint.
The second is to draw Republican votes so as to be able to claim whatever enhanced legitimacy and public support may (or may not) come from having Republican votes.
Where the point of accepting a particular Republican request to alter the stimulus package was to try to win a Republican vote, but the White House thought it made the bill worse, then accepting the change was a "concession" that should not have been made in the first place. Now that the Republican bad-faith MO has been revealed, such "concessions" should not be made in similar situations in the future.
With Congressional Republicans who are now showing their MO to be as negative as the Republican minorities in Congress in 1993 were with Bill Clinton, then the way the White House should think about the benefit of being bipartisan is solely for the first reason above--to be open to ideas that would improve a bill and policy, and not to be able to say they had bipartisan support for something they did to try to obtain greater legitimacy.
If they think a particular Republican-offered idea improves the bill, they should take that suggestion. Just don't imagine it will draw any Republican votes--unless they secure a formal commitment that that member or the group asking for the change is "on" the bill--will vote for it--if the change is accepted.
Because if they take a Republican change that they didn't really think was a good idea, with the hope of getting some support from across the aisle, and then that member or group of members votes no on the bill anyway, where are they? They've made the bill and policy worse, with no benefit to show for that.