Dear Wobbly Progressives: Insiders are Not Always Your Enemy
Why are progressives growing frustrated with the man they helped elect?
Perhaps it's because Obama's campaign for health care reform reminds us too much of the campaign he beat to win the Democratic nomination. In trying to avoid the mistakes Hillary Clinton made on health care in 1994, Obama has behaved like the Hillary who so repulsed progressives in 2007.
Hillary's campaign tried the classic frontrunner strategy. Create the impression that victory is inevitable. Co-opt or intimidate powerful folks who might be inclined to side with your opponents. Win early contests overwhelmingly and ride your momentum to success. It's an insider strategy, undemocratic by design, and it often works.
Obama used the same playbook to advance health care reform. As the debate began, the DC cognizanti believed that a major reform bill would pass. Throughout the spring and early summer, Obama and his team gave cursory attention to his grassroots network. Meanwhile, they worked as hard as possible to get endorsements from health industry groups, including insurance and pharmaceutical companies. He hoped to win the fight before the public really started paying attention.
It pains me to say it, but the Town Hall lunatics - while differing from the outsiders who flooded the Iowa caucuses in ideology, demography, decency, and hygiene - are playing the same dramatic role as the Obama grassroots. Once again, real people are derailing an insider juggernaut.
Does Obama's embrace of an insider strategy mean that he duped progressives during the campaign? That Obama has shown his true colors now as a stooge for the wealthy and their corporate interests?
Of course not. What matters is whether we get meaningful health reform. Populist, insurgent tactics are not an end in themselves. If they were, Glen Beck would be a hero, or George Wallace for that matter. The chances for real reform are still very good, if progressives keep the pressure on.
It's not even clear whether Obama's insider strategy was a mistake. What alternative did he have? Should Democrats have held hearings and organized events to demonstrate a popular mandate for reform? One might have thought the election itself proved the mandate. Should Obama have demonized the insurance and drug companies rather than negotiate with them? Perhaps. But imagine how hard things would be if the industries were throwing their full weight behind the opposition.
Do we need to go back even earlier? Should Obama have campaigned for single-payer reform instead of his more complex, harder to explain hybrid approach? Would he have gotten any further towards the nomination than Denis Kucinich?
It's been a hard summer, and carping and hair pulling are understandable. But let's remember that Hillary didn't lose because her insider strategy failed. She lost because her campaign adapted slowly and poorly to the insurgent threat, and because she had no contingency plan when she failed to sweep the primaries on Super Tuesday.
Obama has a contingency plan -- the budget reconciliation process, through which health reform can pass with only 50 votes in the Senate. This option is available only because Obama fought to include it in the budget bill that passed in March. While not the flawless leaders of our dreams, Obama has proven himself to be both steady under pressure and flexible enough to change tactics. He may be in Martha's Vineyard, but you can bet he's thinking hard about the next stage of the debate.
Disillusioned progressives should remember what's at stake, stop complaining, and check their email box for unopened action alerts - whether from Organizing for America or from any of the more explicitly progressive advocacy groups. Let's not declare defeat while the battle rages.
I agree that Obama's basic strategy was and is sound. But he's let Baucus dither for way too long. And the messaging has been off-key for weeks. Let's hope Obama comes back from vacation with his A game.
August 23, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are things with which to agree in your post, but I'd like to just draw attention to this, and try to remind everyone this doesn't mean Obama wasn't busy. He gave a speech in Cairo offering respect to Islam that one can't begin to imagine a Republican giving. He got the first Hispanic woman nominated and confirmed to the Supreme court in the face of some of the most thinly disguised racism it has ever been my displeasure to witness. And a bunch of other things, too.
I think he probably overestimated the sticktoitiveness of some of his base, but that's my opinion and I'm stuck with it.
I should also just suggest that what he's been doing is not so much the technique of the insider but the technique of the community organizer. Saul Alinsky, his Chicagoland hero, was able to get all the ethnic parishes in the Back of the Yards District to work together, though they were in some cases natural enemies dating back to centuries' old conflicts in Europe.
Obama's slow and messy method has split the coalition on the opposite side into at least three groups, of which two are supporting reform, and he's split brought over large sections of the religious community to the reform side of the table as well. I hope his own coalition will hang tough with him as we get to the end game here.
August 23, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hadn't considered that Obama's conciliatory approach -- which many have decried as appeasement -- can be seen as an Alinsky organizing technique. Interesting.
A president is pretty much by definition an insider, though. I get frustrated with progressives who seem to expect Obama to act like the leader of a movement (fiery, aggressive, inspirational) rather than a head of state.
August 23, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very interesting post. However, I believe it is based on a flawed premise. When both Hillary and Obama were duking it out during the primaries, they obviously each had an opponent. Obama doesn't really have an opponent now. We all know about the impotent party of no. We all know about the 60 votes. The next election is not until a long time from now.
In my view, Obama didn't necessarily aim to be a hands-on president in the way Hillary would have been.
My impression is that Obama always wanted to be a visionary, an American Nelson Mandela. A symbol of America, an embodiment of its promise, a spokesperson for its values.
That's the reason he has more Czars now than Cabinet members. And that's the reason he delegated the health care reform to Congress. I think he really thought it was going to work like that.
The truth is that while Obama did make several big mistakes (porkulus ultimatum for example), his biggest problem was forgetting that as a result of the 50-state strategy his party would end up with a lot of conservative congressmen.
The most important committee positions in Congress belong to coastal liberals, who have always been more "progressive" because they come from traditionally blue states. These guys wrote the legislation and we all know the rest.
August 23, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this post is provocative and thoughtful. I'm fairly confident we will see the passage of a meaningful healthcare reform package, mainly because congressional Democrats would see failure to pass a bill as an invitation to electoral disaster in 2010 and 2012. I doubt, however, that the bill will contain all the elements President Obama and the more progressive Democrats desire. In particular, a public option in the form originally described is doubtful, although some hybrid between a government run plan and a government "hands-off" non-profit cooperative arrangement might be engineered.
In my view, the president is doing a good job, despite some slipups, in the face of an extraordinarily daunting enemy. By this, I don't mean Republican or Blue Dog obstructionists, or Town Hall rowdies. What I refer to instead is the overwhelming dominance of the present over the future. In the present, the large majority of Americans are reasonably satisfied with their health insurance and health care, and consequently easily convinced to fear change as a dangerous gamble. No matter that this satisfaction is destined to yield to unaffordable costs and dwindling benefits in a future without healthcare reform. The ability to anticipate future needs and respond in time is the province of visionaries, but until the future they warn about is actually showing up in most living rooms, medical bills, and bank accounts, the public will rarely accord it the attention it deserves.
Given this reality, I find it somewhat remarkable that the Administration has been as successful as it appears to be in cobbling together a patchwork of interest groups to push toward completion something that the American people are reluctant to endorse once they perceive reform as something beyond a noble principle, and instead a set of specific changes they worry about.
To carry this to completion will take even more courage, persistence, skill, and luck.
August 23, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In the present, the large majority of Americans are reasonably satisfied with their health insurance and health care, and consequently easily convinced to fear change as a dangerous gamble."
- Great point.
The problem, however, is that "confidence in government's ability to make the right decisions" polled highest in the early 1960s. Since then, it has been on an unstoppable decline.
When confronted with evidence, Americans simply don't believe that the government is all that trustworthy or capable. And the health care reform in its current version is predicated on direct government involvement.
August 23, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, that's a really thoughtful comment. One note on your prognostication: I seriously doubt co-opts will make it into the final bill or even the Senate bill. The media loves a "centrist compromise" and so keeps talking about Conrad's co-op scheme as if it's viable politically. But the co-ops are a terrible policy on the merits (they've been tried and just don't work) and they make no one happy politically except the small club of small, red state democratic senators. The GOP doesn't like (will be perceived as a win for Obama in the short term) and most Dems don't like it (our base will be enraged). Finally, unlike the public option, the co-ops do nothing to reduce the CBOs score of the bill's cost.
August 24, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: ....the Town Hall lunatics - while differing from the outsiders who flooded the Iowa caucuses in ideology, demography, decency, and hygiene - are playing the same dramatic role as the Obama grassroots....
Noam Cohen, in today's New York Times "Week in Review," takes this thought a bit further than you, and argues that they are following some of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals in Know Thine Enemy; This summer, a rulebook for the left has been well-thumbed by the right.
August 23, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least on the environmental side of things, the corporate interests has long been using these tactics of stirring up the populace with falsehoods and having them descend on "townhalls" and using grassrooty named organizations as fronts fighting for property rights.
I remember back in the 90s when Washington State was to impose legislation to combat wetland and watershed destruction in the counties with the most growth, they did just that. On the last open forum (of about a hundred), suddenly the county council meeting was drowned out by all the trucks they parked outside, engines revving, radios blaring. They were screaming that the county council was trying to sneak this past the people, despite all of the open forums (and the fact they were just figuring out how to implement what the state was mandating them to do).
They ended up cancelling the meeting and holding a new one on campus. It packed in 300 people, roughly divided down the line between those who favored and those who were against, with another 200 outside listening on speakers.
All of this because some corporate interests sent out fliers to all the farmers listing a bunch of lies about how this was a way for the government to steal their land and depress their property values.
Luckily in case the forces of good won out and lo and behold none of the doomsday results materialized.
August 24, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good story. The Townhall protests really shouldn't have been a surprise. As a matter of tactics, the Dems AND the advocacy groups should have been better prepared for the recess. Can't make the lies go away - nothing to do but fight them.
August 24, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred,
I love this! But especially:
'What I refer to instead is the overwhelming dominance of the present over the future.' Wow. Perspective with Introspective!
The nut!
(Um, I'll most likely reference this sage many times in my discussions here in town! Thanks.)
August 24, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think all insiders are "my enemy"...the only the ones who get my ire are the ones standing in the way of change and for maintaining the status quo. And right now the president is close to making that list. Change we can believe in? Changing the way politics is conducted in DC? Nope...so far just more business as usual in the nation's capitol. Hopefully the president will remember what excited everybody about his candidacy in the first place was the pledge of no more business as usual in Washington before it is too late.
/rant
August 24, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And as if there was any doubt, I would characterize myself as "pissed off" and not "wobbly"...
August 24, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a contingency plan -- the budget reconciliation process, through which health reform can pass with only 50 votes in the Senate. This option is available only because Obama fought to include it in the budget bill that passed in March. While not the flawless leaders of our dreams, Obama has proven himself to be both steady under pressure and flexible enough to change tactics. He may be in Martha's Vineyard, but you can bet he's thinking hard about the next stage of the debate.
So the bipartisan approach was really just a faux round one designed to disarm opponents by forcing them to fire their one shots cannons? I can see that future campaigns of disinformation and intimidation will not be as effective as they were the first time. Boy do I feel stupid for being pissed off. I should have trusted that our supreme CO has already considered this in his grand strategy. (snicker)
August 24, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was/is sincere in seeking GOP votes, and the effort made sense on two counts: (1) it had a chance of working. One could imagine a scenario in which Grassley calculated that he had more to gain from being seen as the great dealmaker than a loyal party man. Collins, Snow, Specter (he was still GOP when this started) and maybe a few others would have joined him. And (2) the effort at compromise is good politics and fulfills his promise to "change the tone" in DC. If (and I'm not saying success is certain) we get a worthwhile bill on a party line vote, Obama and Dems generally will be better off this way than if they had immediately pursued a Dem only strategy.
Keep the pressure on by demanding a strong public option and a decent level of subsidies (as important as the public option, but less understood). Call out Baucus and the Blue Dogs. But anger at Obama, at this point, seems misplaced.
August 24, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also think that Obama was serious about bargaining away the public option with his talk about how people were "fixated" on public option, and how it is only a "sliver" of reform. As if we are dining room tables.
I am with you about keeping up the pressure, but on the supreme CO himself. Somehow I don't trust this guy.
August 24, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's with the "supreme CO" diatribe, your lack of respect indicates that you are either a troll or, as Dick Armey would say, a bed-wetter.
August 24, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
everyone is missing the most important point here.
Obama is NOT the progressive /liberal you think he is.
period!
August 24, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you equate progressive and liberal? He is a progressive, but not always liberal. I think he pisses people off because they can't pigeonhole him. Too me that shows some flexibility, which I happen to admire. I'm not talking about moral relativism or pragmaticism, I'm talking about flexibility--being able to move around to stay on course. Like stepping around a puddle in the road.
August 24, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can get hung up on labels and the "purity tests" generally lead to ineffective politics. Obama's explicit goals for health reform -- expand coverage, make it more affordable, restrain system costs -- are consistent with progressive values.
August 24, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
His goals are good. No argument. But how is reform with without public option going to expand coverage, make it more affordable, restrain system costs? This is the still the sticky point. Obama insists on being vague about the public option. No wonder we are going wee-wee or wobbly as you put it.
August 24, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not the liberal/progressive YOU thought he was, maybe.
August 24, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome DCDanny. Finally, a voice of reason. As for Lalo, people receiving government-sponsored healthcare (i.e., Medicare) are generally pretty pleased with their plans. Too many of them don't seem to want others to have those same benefits--the "Greatest Generation" has morphed into "All Mine Generation." I am a few years shy of Medicare and if we don't have health insurance options for everyone by the time I am eligible I will be very ashamed.
August 24, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smart post. "Progressives" have always been a bit wobbly when it comes to strategy, though they excel at reflexive tactics independent of larger goals or deep thought. I am leaning toward a different definition altogether. The Looking Glass Left have co-opted its use too liberally given their own inability to break out of dogmatic responses to complex debates and policy discussion.
Shouting slogans, on the left and right, is not progress to me, though I continue to read very progressive arguments come from the "centrists" of both parties at TPM.
I believe Obama is doing a pretty good job delivering on what he campaigned for - a restoration of checks & balances amongst the branches of government and a visionary policy agenda that would spin out over his first term. I am not happy with all of the implementation to date and think artificial deadlines have been his biggest learning-curve error so fat, but I think he is probably the most progressive president we have had in decades.
That doesn't mean the president is a liberal. As articulated in Audacity of Hope, he sees our path right now as being evolutionary in nature. I think he is hanging health care reform around the necks of both parties in Congress. The incumbents will need to answer to their moderates come the 2010 primaries because those are the only people of either party who vote. The bill that seems ready to emerge from Congress is pretty moderate and represents a great first step in evolving the system we have rather than replacing it with something that already doesn't work and only covers a third as many people. I think allowing Baucus and company to piss off the liberal left while crafting a bill that can get bipartisan support was a master stroke. A bill that is perceived as a compromise by the public will get 70%-plus approval ratings.
A super-duper liberal bill was always going to piss half the country off, but something that gets the country moving in the right direction without a huge amount of new debt - much of the current reforms are revenue neutral for the government - and stop insurance companies from killing people is likely to gain wide support at the grassroots which will lead to a united democratic party that can pick up enough republican votes for a "bipartisan" passage of the final bill.
That would be a huge win for all involved, even if the remaining public option is a nonprofit coop that would become one of the largest insurers behind Medicare/Medicaid.
August 24, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink