When "yes we can" could become "we thought we could".

Reaching out
"If the president says, 'Here is what I need in the bill,' and it doesn't include the public option, there will be no other way to interpret it than it was a retreat," added Weiner. "I speak for a lot of members who are allies of the president. We are prepared to take our lumps to get this important policy done. But I don't like this sense of us charging up the hill, and not only is the president not leading us, but he is not on the hill with us." Politico
There was a lot of talk last year about how Barack Obama would be a "transformational" president -- but true transformation, it turns out, requires a lot more than electing one telegenic leader. Actually turning this country around is going to take years of siege warfare against deeply entrenched interests, defending a deeply dysfunctional political system. Paul Krugman
As readers of my blog know, I've often been mercilessly skeptical of Barack Obama.
I have long feared that he was merely taking progressives for a ride in order to further his private agenda, in much the same way that Bush took the evangelicals for a ride, simply redirecting their energy and discipline in order to lower taxes for the rich.
Back in November I wrote:
The left is about ideas, about facing reality bravely with full unblinking consciousness. An opportunity for the left to rebuild itself arose in the unlikely shape of George W. Bush and now it is about to be wasted.When Obama addresses congress next week on public health I'll definitely know if I was right or wrong.
Now after lengthy labor pains, with much moaning and groaning, the mountain has given birth to a mouse.
What makes me sad and angry is that the consciousness that has been raised during the Bush years is going to be sanitized and neutered as we tell ourselves another soothing bedtime story about ourselves to ourselves.
If
he comes out strongly for a public option, which is as close as the USA
could probably come to a real "national health" program, I will happily
eat plate after plate of humble pie with a generous side order of crow.
If he dumps the public option -- which at this moment seems very likely -- I will feel that all my skepticism has been amply vindicated.
Eliminating the public option would be a tragic prevarication; a travesty and a betrayal of all those who have placed their faith in this man and who worked tirelessly to get him elected. They will know they have been used and discarded like a Kleenex in the futile search for a moderate center that no longer exists.
Because,
one of the keys to understanding contemporary US politics is that,
after Ronald Reagan's revolution (I put no quotes around the word
"revolution"), the American center has been destroyed.
As Paul Krugman recently pointed out:
Moderate Republicans, the sort of people with whom one might have been able to negotiate a health care deal, have either been driven out of the party or intimidated into silence. Whom are Democrats supposed to reach out to, when Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was supposed to be the linchpin of any deal, helped feed the "death panel" lies?To use a favorite simile of the right, Obama is acting the part of Neville Chamberlain, thinking that he can cut deals with people who take no prisoners...
Obama has often been compared to Ronald Reagan, but except for their phenomenal communication skills, they have little or nothing in common.
Ronald Reagan was first and foremost an ideologue. Behind his amiable, folksy and slightly goofy exterior he was in his own way every bit as firmly entrenched in his extremist ideology as, say, Cambodia's Pol-Pot was in his... and as far removed from reality too.
Ronald Reagan was totally focused on moving the United States politics much farther to the right than its people actually were then, or are even today.
Reagan was able to redefine the parameters of American politics.
Barack
Obama gives no sign of such focus or ambition of moving American back
to where it was, much less of moving it to the left.
If Obama or anyone else really thinks that a Democratic president can "reach out" to the right and "unite", them behind him on anything, they are somewhere south of naive.
This a time to fight and this is good ground to fight on.
The
chance to change American politics on a Reaganesque scale, to become
the anti-Reagan, exists in the health care issue. Weakness here will
cripple the Obama presidency: For all those that oppose him now or in
the future will see the clear discontinuity between the hat and the
cattle...













Agreed, David. This issue is make or break for his entire presidency and legacy. If he doesn't stand his ground here, the party will render itself so weak that no amount of campaigning will prevent a GOP landslide in 2010. Of course, that is exactly the GOP's strategy.
September 4, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well i am caught by two statements really:
"To use a favorite simile of the right, Obama is acting the part of Neville Chamberlain, thinking that he can cut deals with people who take no prisoners..."
I certain believe this. I certainly believe that the right in this country do not care about credulity, about the welfare of this country, about 'working within the system' when they are out of power.
The other point has to do with a siege mentality--from our friend Kruger. THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG AND BLOODY FIGHT. And if the repubs sell their parallel universe to the 'independents' starting next November, WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SCREWED.
September 4, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are all caught up in the moment. Take a breath. Work hard. Be positive; what does defeatism get us except defeat? Think long term. And work your ass off.
It took me a week out of the country not concerned with the news and another week in 12-hour day working-having-no-time-to-even-think-about-the-news to let me come back to this: We aren't going to get everything we want instantly. Which leads me back to this blog:
Right on.This is a long term battle that needs strategy and not over-reaction.
September 4, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo
September 4, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo
September 4, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choosing the ground to give battle on is key to soldier's art.
Health is a good place to fight.
To deny health care to millions of Americans is evil.
Health care is decisive... a fudge here would be deadly. Americans should be ashamed at not having a system as good as Canada's
September 4, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Of all the social programs to stand for, giving the option of healthcare to those unable to have it is nothing but a good. Most of us who already have healthcare won't notice any huge change whatsoever, but those who really need it will notice something amazing. If only to keep those who are sick from having to worry only on getting better and loving their family, and not who is going to pay. If only to give people choices and options who now have no choice. If only to be a society dedicated to improve the lives of its citizens.
It's the right fight.
(looks like I'm in speech mode)
September 4, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between not getting what you want instantly, and never getting anything at all, indeed getting the OPPOSITE of what has been, perhaps wrongly, expected. If not now, when? If not this, what?
September 5, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quote from the book The Presidents by Carter Smith and published by Hylas Press:
"Washington skillfully balanced the opposing interests in the country. Despite his deep regret that political parties grew out of the opposing camps within his own administration, he worked hard to instill in his contemporaries a sense of the national union, bearing in mind what he saw has the best interests of future Americans or the "unborn millions" as he called them."
If you read the history of George Washington, his greatest worry and indeed, now prophecy, was eventually political parties (of which we only have two so by virtue of only having two of anything you are either together or divided and two cannot possibly represent the vast diversity of political persuasions in 2009 so I would call this a vast failure and ridiculous that in 2009 we only have two parties which is why we must register DECLINE TO STATE so we kill the two party system and please, you third party moles who only come out during Presidential elections otherwise you don't give a rats ass about third or fourth or fifth parties in this country, give me a break and where in the hell was I and why do I always do this..?). The prophecy of George Washington that eventually the party system in his new republic would tear it apart is now coming true.
It is coming true while George Washington rolls in his grave.
September 4, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've come to the conclusion that the parliamentary system with several parties that often have to form coalitions in order to govern, backed up by a first class, professional (no revolving door) civil service is superior to the American system. The fact is that no country, on becoming a democracy has adopted the US system makes me think I'm not alone in this.
September 4, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree the parliamentary system where the one party that makes a coalition is in charge of legislation/executive and elections can be called sooner than expected is better than our divided gov't system.
September 4, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In some ways it may be superior whether or not there are needs to form coalitions. In England, the executive is a member of the legislative branch...there's no dodging responsibility. Loss of a vote of confidence means an election--no lame ducks. One returns to the public every five years regardless, so even an unbeatable majority must return to the electorate.
September 4, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it say about American politics that it seems the Baucuses, Nelsons and Blue Dogs would gleefully join Republicans in a vote of no confidence in order to continue a center-right governance that was thrashed in the last election under a parliamentary system?
I don't want to go out of my way defending Obama. He's been a huge disappointment so far (more for matters of style than substance, IMO); but blame for the weakening of health care legislation has to be placed firmly on the back of the establishment elements of the Democratic Party.
What continues to baffle me is that these elements have made what to me is a venally selfish (and probably shortsighted from a tactical perspective) decision that the financial support of the insurance, pharmaceutical and related medical industries is more vital to their electoral survival than legislation that would win them the allegiance of huge numbers of ordinary voters.
If I was naive about Obama in any way, it's that I really thought Democrats would act as an organized party for at least the early stages of his presidency and get some big-ticket legislation passed. But, just like with Carter and with Clinton, these Dems challenge a Democratic president with a boldness they would never dare with a Republican. I just don't get it.
September 4, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it.
"...Just like with Carter and with Clinton, these Dems challenge a Democratic president with a boldness they would never dare with a Republican..."
Because they know, as Seaton has emphasized, that the Republicans "take no prisoners." They are genuinely scared of Republicans. They are not scared of Democrats.
Dems won't privately threaten Dems with blackmail, with wiretaps, and with actual physical violence. Republicans will—and have.
(No, I'm not suggesting we need to do all that awful stuff ourselves. But exposing the Republicans' methods, both public and private, to the largest possible audience is the only way we will ever end their real control over Dems; who, on some level, are understandably afraid, if clueless in their reactions to that fear.)
September 5, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, who in politics with a realistic shot at getting elected President were you not 'skeptical' of in today's political/media climate of make believe facts and fear fantasies? John McCain?
Would Hillary and Bill, with Hillarycare II have done any better? They impeached Bill you know.
Hillary seems happy to be out of the wingnut asylum called the US Senate and in State where at least she can do something productive without Republican interference.
September 4, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I often said, that "my inner Lenin" thought that things had to get worse before they would get better.
The bottom line is consciousness... George Bush woke a lot of people up and got them thinking. The "yes we can" Obama movement would never have existed without the catalyst of Bush.
From that point of view McCain would have been better than Obama... if Obama turns out to be a fake.
That's why I said
Like I say, if Obama is ready to fight for the public option, to get low down and dirty and twist arms and bust heads to get it, I'll take it all back and he'll have won me for good. But if he fudges, I'd rather there was a Republican in the White House so that I wouldn't have to cut him any slack.September 4, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One could make the argument that anyone who didn't wake-up after 8 years of George W. Bush would not wake up if 4 years of McCain was added, or even 4 for McCain's and 1 1/2 for Palin (I am assuming she would resign under the pressure).
If the country was driven even deeper into the gutter the right wing could, as in other countries of the 20th century, become even more extreme, and the rich more protective of their position and status. The rest of the world might jettison their interest and investments in the US at an accelerated rate under such circumstances.
September 4, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four more years of McCain/Republican rule hoping for some progressive political renaissance in this country would be risky to say the least, it could just as likely move more to the fascist direction.
September 4, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's moving in a more fascist direction right now! What do you thing openly toting guns at public meetings and bullying people with shouts suggesting physical resistence is about? It's about intimidating people with threats of violence.
Guess what?!! It worked!!!!
Expect more to follow.
September 4, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that if elected McCain would have sunk the country even deeper, making the anger and the search for scapegoats even more intense, and the scapegoats the media and the GOP would direct their mindless armed hooligans at would be the usual targets, gays, liberals, brown people somewhere on the planet, immigrants, or anyone but themselves.
September 4, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's not happening now? Why win an election if you govern like you lost it? They've got Obama on the ropes already. They have demonstrated that fear and intimidation works and if they can incite a few folks to make trouble Democrats will surrender the very most important domestic issue of the last 30 or more years with barely a whimper.
Electing John McCain would have been bad, but why did we elect Glenn Beck?
September 4, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans will be Republicans. Short of Alaska seceding and all of them moving there they will do what they do.
A president McCain's solution for the economy would be war. He would likely, along with Israel, be at war with Iran by the end of this year. A terror attack of two after the war started and that could be blamed on Iran would also be likely. Of course, it would do nothing but sink our country and its economy faster, along with killing lots of people.
September 4, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did we end the wars when I wasn't looking?
September 5, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's where I differ. The progressives didn't hear: "Yes We Can" they heard: "Yes I Can"
September 4, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very Sharp Foxy, very sharp indeed.
September 4, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
David,
This post, IMHO is, without question, one of your best and I try to read all your posts. Not only is it insightful and from my viewpoint accurate, it's very very reasonable and well thought out in all respects. It would be hard to label you as just being another dogmatic liberal/lefty.
One of the biggest problems we face though is Obama's naivete about just who and what the Republicans really are and his stubborn refusal to acknowledge that we are, in fact, waging a war with them over the future of the nation yet the opposition is the only side fighting thus far. As you so deftly point out, there is no common ground any longer upon which to meet them half way and though it was not our choice it is the reality and if we fail to deal with it we do so at our peril.
If Obama fails to deal with that reality and produces another Chamberlainesque tome to a bipartisan fantasy that never was or will be, millions who believed in him will no longer be able to avoid concluding he is just another politician and not what he purported to be. They will become completely disillusioned and alienated when they realize they were manipulated and our long awaited moment will have been lost.
I'll join you in eating crow if he comes out swinging next week, but there's simply no evidence thus far in his performance as President that would indicate we'll see more than a timid, tepid, uninspiring cave-in to the powerful as we have seen on war crimes and other rampant corruption during the Bush years, the banking bailout and giveaway, the refusal to do anything effective to stem the foreclosure crisis, the unconscionable continuation of the two wars and escalation of the Afghanistan quagmire, the complete failure to support labor and push EFCA through Congress, the watered down cap and trade bill, etc... Like you, I'm skeptical but open to being proved wrong and hope I am.
Regardless, great post! Keep em coming!
September 4, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Great post.
I do find it a wee bit ironic that Obama has his choice of being compared to Hitler or to Chamberlain. Or maybe it isn't his choice at all.
September 4, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is ironic, but ya have to remember that one example is appropriate and the other simply is not. The hysterical right wingers compare Obama to anyone they don't like, Hitler is just one of the more well known bogeymen. There's simply no relationship between Obama's actions and their calling him a Nazi and therein lies the difference.
September 4, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What good do you think his "coming out fighting" will do if there is no party support for that fight?
And, right now, the high-profile Democratic voices I hear most are cautioning against fighting for too much too soon. Eve though the signature issue of this election was "universal health coverage," not "incremental insurance reform."
September 4, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there's no party support for the fight that just means it's time for a new party.
September 4, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire progressive or as we say Democratic wing of the Democratic Party would support an energetic all out assault. Actual Democrats as opposed to DINOs make up a majority of Democrats believe it or not. Only the corporate whore wing of the Democratic Party, the DLC people, Blue Dogs, etc... counsel continued cowering and shying away from a fight.
September 4, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always it goes back to taking action at a local level. Congressional officials outside your state and district will only be subject to your will if you fund their opponents and canvas for them. Better if they know about this, too! Otherwise, you have your own single vote.
We have seen millionaires, who spend their own money, go down in flames in politics. In the end, vast sums of money doesn't explain everything.
We have gotten what we (collectively) have wished for.
For example, it would be impossible for me to do, but I don't believe healthcare is even the most important issue on the table now. It is energy -- but that has gone by the wayside. However, without a cheap source of energy, you will lose the economy, and with that you lose accumulated wealth, and with that you lose the basis of a healthcare program at all. But try to explain that to others.
September 4, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very beginning of the word "progressives" is progress. The quantity of progress we will be able to achieve here is currently limited by the Senate, and even looking back before November at the likely makeup of the new Senate, the Democrats were not going to get the votes. I see no reason to blame Obama. Yet.
There is a mid-term election in 2010. Take a look at who is up and compare it to those known to be opposed to the public option, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
You can do the same for 2012.
Have an idea of the work we need to do?
David, you're absolutely correct that this is worth a fight. And if I were a progressive in MT, AR, or any of the other Senate boat anchor states I'd be faxing handwritten notes.
President Obama has been around for just over 8 months. A battle may be lost for the public option this month, but there is much more time to get it done.
And as clearthinker implies, the real challenge ahead is energy. If you think there are forces against progress in healthcare, wait until the climate change legislation is up. Keep digging, folks.
September 4, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . after Ronald Reagan's revolution . . . the American center has been destroyed.
If Obama . . . really thinks that a Democratic president can "reach out" to the right and "unite" them behind him on anything [he is] . . . naive. David Seaton
There is a center. It's not much interested in policies; its more into affect; but it's there. And it's called the Independent Voter -- Obama's necessary and together with us Pwoggies a sufficient constituency.
After all, as Rahm whispers in his ear when he thinks about becoming combative, "It's the Know Nothings you've got to impress -- and they like the appearance of cool, of non-partisan compromise. Don't worry about the Pwoggies; they're with you and always will be. Where else could they go."
September 5, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny Ellen, but the Republicans took and kept power and look like getting it back again by abandoning the "cool" center and moving far right. However, if the Democrats act on principal and work for their base, they are doomed to irrelevance.
Funny, huh?
September 5, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he is still basically trying to accomplish what he promised during the presidential campaign, and hasn't compromised much at all on what he promised:
BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND ENSURE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL @
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
(9 pages.)
Of course, back before the election many Obama fans in the blogosphere were fond of explaining that when looking at campaign literature like this, and all his white papers, etc., that one musn't take them seriously, that they were just "for show," genius ploys to try and get the centrist vote, and that he didn't really mean any of it and was much more liberal.
The amusing thing about that is now some wingers are taking their word on Obama and running with it, saying that Obama's health care plan looks moderate but it's not, and is really a Trojan horse for more radical change.
September 5, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
yep. Truth hurts.
September 5, 2009 4:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he'll have the centrist vote he just won't have left, right, liberals, conservatives or independents.
September 5, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems what passes for the left in the USA fails to understand is that, no matter how moderate their proposals are, no matter how far they bend over backwards to appear centrist, (or how, after lowering their drawers they bend over forwards), that the right-wing smear machine, cum lie-factory is going to paint those mild proposals as communist, socialist or nazi or all three at once.
I would say that it is as well to be hung for a sheep as a lamb.
September 5, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and left, right or independent, few Americans ("centrists"?) admire capitulation and above all they don't admire it in the Oval Office.
September 5, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it capitulation to be mostly following his own campaign literature plan so far?
September 5, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I didn't read the part about him being run to ground by the teabaggers. Besides, you ain't seen nothing yet. We're still in the first act. They've forced him to cave on public option, next will be the employer mandate, then they'll cut the cost of the bill so that it is nothing but a decree that you must buy a policy from United Health or Wellpoin -- take your pick (going to need to the money for the "free" quagmire in Afghanistan).
September 5, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my mind anything that doesn't include public option is not a real public health plan. There are millions of Americans that aren't covered at all and receive no regular treatment and preventive check-ups from a GP, and this is bad for the health of the entire country... it is possible for rich people to catch diseases from poor people you know, unfair, but true. Therefore taking care of the most vulnerable is a very wise move by the least vulnerable, viruses being what they are.
Most developed countries understand this, but it appears that many Americans are either too dumb or too manipulated to get it.
September 5, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lady that comments over at my home blog, someone who has run a very successful business in the new tech, wrote me the following about the prez:
Interesting take.September 5, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This doesn't sound like any successful consultant I have ever been involved with and not just because the person used the word "prolly" to make the point.
Consultants are paid to tell our clients what they don't want to hear. Hell, nine times out of ten, they don't even know the right questions. Any good consulting relationship is going to involve hard conversations as well as compromises no one seems willing to make at the beginning, until reality catches up with necessity.
Obama is threading the needle quite nicely and every-so-gently nudging this country back to the left.
September 5, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already have a public option, David. It is called Medicare and is extremely popular with the left and right. "Sacrificing" the public option from HR 3200 and the Senate HELP bill is no sacrifice at all if the long-term goal is to use Medicare as the public option, as it is already set-up to be and could work quite well with some significant reforms.
I personally think using the public option as a lightning rod for right-wing criticism allows it to very easily become the sacrificial lamb that gets health care reform passed with significant margins. Mostly this blog and most of the "progressive" objections to the effort so far seem to lack that larger sense of strategy and tactics that changing this country is going to require.
I am actually pretty happy with the consistency between who Obama ran as and the president he is trying to become. We'll just have to see if the left wing of his party cooperates while the president executes the strategy he outlined in Audacity of Hope and during the general election.
It doesn't look good so far, but maybe ya'll will come around in a couple years.
September 5, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep the faith Jason!
September 5, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always!
September 5, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
May the good fairy give you a fair shake on your teeth.
September 5, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink