« The Public Option's Last Stand, and the Public's | Robert Reich's Blog | Why the Gang of Six is Deciding Health Care for Three Hundred Million of Us »
How Tough is Our President?
Latest word from the White House is that the President still supports a public option but is also standing by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's remark last weekend that a public insurance plan is "not the essential element" of health-care reform. So where, exactly, is the White House on the public option? Just about where it is on the question of whether it agreed with Big Pharma to bar Medicare from using its bargaining clout to get lower drug prices -- or didn't. In other words, we don't know.
Universal health care is President Obama's biggest issue, and he needs strong public support if he's going to overcome the vested money interests in Washington. Which brings us to the question of where the people who voted for Obama stand on all this. As I just wrote in The American Prospect, my friend Fred voted for Obama and trusts him to do the right thing. "He's the brightest and most decent person who's occupied the Oval Office in my lifetime," Fred says. His trust for the man extends to Obama's agenda. "I don't have time to wade into the details of the economy or health care or climate change legislation or anything else, but I know he's got my interests at heart."
My friend Sally also voted for Obama and still likes him, but she's increasingly upset about his policies. "He's giving away the store," she complains, pointing to his penchant for compromise. "He gave Wall Street $600 billion in bailouts and doesn't even want to regulate it, gave big polluters 85 percent of the cap-and-trade permits, and has promised the American Medical Association, Big Pharma, and private insurers whatever they want in return for their support of universal health care." Sally says she voted for Obama because he promised to change American politics, but she thinks corporate interests are more powerful than ever.
Sally also doesn't see why Obama is so bent on bipartisanship.
"Republicans haven't helped him a bit so far, won't help him, and he doesn't need their votes, so why compromise with them?"
Fred and Sally offer a fairly good sampling of Obama voters at this juncture, almost nine months after Election Day. Fred represents the trusters; Sally, the cynics. Some cynicism is to be expected in the post-honeymoon phase of any presidency, once the idealism of a campaign has crashed into the realities of governing. What seems unusual this time is how popular the president remains even as many of his supporters become uneasy about what he's actually doing. The apparent paradox may be the byproduct of the very qualities that put him into office.
The President's centeredness, calm, and dignity inspire trust but also suggest a certain lack of combativeness, a reluctance to express indignation, and an unwillingness to identify enemies -- resulting in a tendency toward compromise even at the early stages of controversy.
Pollsters are fascinated that Obama's personal popularity endures -- his "favorables" have fallen a bit, but still hover over 50 percent -- even as support has declined for much of what he broadly endorses, notably universal health care.
Republican pollsters, alert to this discrepancy between person and policy, have advised the GOP accordingly: Trying to get the public to distrust Obama is more difficult than arousing distrust for the platoons of government bureaucrats they say his policies are unleashing.
Obama's political advisers are trying to do exactly the reverse -- using the president's personal popularity to sell policies, much as Madison Avenue uses trusted personalities to promote products. Obama's town meetings have been enormously successful; he's fielded questions well, and showed himself to be every bit as thoughtful and engaging as he was during the presidential campaign. But the politics of product endorsement aren't working terribly well nonetheless.
This is partly because Americans have sealed off the man from his agenda. For most Americans, the more they see of Obama (and the rest of his family) the more they like him. But likeability isn't rubbing off on specific policies. The longer universal health care hangs out there, for example, the more vulnerable it has become.
It's also because Obama hasn't yet taken full responsibility for detailed policies, such as the public option, or, on environmental legislation, whether cap-and-trade pollution permits should go to polluting industries free of charge. Keeping distance from the specifics has been a wise tactic -- both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter got too far into specifics and paid a high price on health care when Congress wrested back ownership. And it helps Obama to separate his own approval ratings from public worries about legislation. But it has also made his policies more vulnerable to scare tactics and caused the Sallies in the Democratic base to worry about Obama's willingness to fight. Obama may be temperamentally incapable of being more combative and identifying enemies. But surely he can state less equivocally what he does and does not want -- and, with regard to key matters such as the public option, what he'll sign and what he won't.
The widening gap between admiration for Obama and cynicism about his policies also reinforces passivity in Obama's base, which makes it even harder to advance a specific agenda. His presidential campaign strengthened the nation's political grass roots and spawned hope for a new era of public engagement, but Obama's reluctance to fight for any specifics is causing the base to lose interest. Neither the Freds who trust him nor the Sallies who have become cynical are motivated to do much of anything.
But their activism is crucial. If it comes to a choice between trust and cynicism, America will never achieve lasting change.
Universal health care is President Obama's biggest issue, and he needs strong public support if he's going to overcome the vested money interests in Washington. Which brings us to the question of where the people who voted for Obama stand on all this. As I just wrote in The American Prospect, my friend Fred voted for Obama and trusts him to do the right thing. "He's the brightest and most decent person who's occupied the Oval Office in my lifetime," Fred says. His trust for the man extends to Obama's agenda. "I don't have time to wade into the details of the economy or health care or climate change legislation or anything else, but I know he's got my interests at heart."
My friend Sally also voted for Obama and still likes him, but she's increasingly upset about his policies. "He's giving away the store," she complains, pointing to his penchant for compromise. "He gave Wall Street $600 billion in bailouts and doesn't even want to regulate it, gave big polluters 85 percent of the cap-and-trade permits, and has promised the American Medical Association, Big Pharma, and private insurers whatever they want in return for their support of universal health care." Sally says she voted for Obama because he promised to change American politics, but she thinks corporate interests are more powerful than ever.
Sally also doesn't see why Obama is so bent on bipartisanship.
"Republicans haven't helped him a bit so far, won't help him, and he doesn't need their votes, so why compromise with them?"
Fred and Sally offer a fairly good sampling of Obama voters at this juncture, almost nine months after Election Day. Fred represents the trusters; Sally, the cynics. Some cynicism is to be expected in the post-honeymoon phase of any presidency, once the idealism of a campaign has crashed into the realities of governing. What seems unusual this time is how popular the president remains even as many of his supporters become uneasy about what he's actually doing. The apparent paradox may be the byproduct of the very qualities that put him into office.
The President's centeredness, calm, and dignity inspire trust but also suggest a certain lack of combativeness, a reluctance to express indignation, and an unwillingness to identify enemies -- resulting in a tendency toward compromise even at the early stages of controversy.
Pollsters are fascinated that Obama's personal popularity endures -- his "favorables" have fallen a bit, but still hover over 50 percent -- even as support has declined for much of what he broadly endorses, notably universal health care.
Republican pollsters, alert to this discrepancy between person and policy, have advised the GOP accordingly: Trying to get the public to distrust Obama is more difficult than arousing distrust for the platoons of government bureaucrats they say his policies are unleashing.
Obama's political advisers are trying to do exactly the reverse -- using the president's personal popularity to sell policies, much as Madison Avenue uses trusted personalities to promote products. Obama's town meetings have been enormously successful; he's fielded questions well, and showed himself to be every bit as thoughtful and engaging as he was during the presidential campaign. But the politics of product endorsement aren't working terribly well nonetheless.
This is partly because Americans have sealed off the man from his agenda. For most Americans, the more they see of Obama (and the rest of his family) the more they like him. But likeability isn't rubbing off on specific policies. The longer universal health care hangs out there, for example, the more vulnerable it has become.
It's also because Obama hasn't yet taken full responsibility for detailed policies, such as the public option, or, on environmental legislation, whether cap-and-trade pollution permits should go to polluting industries free of charge. Keeping distance from the specifics has been a wise tactic -- both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter got too far into specifics and paid a high price on health care when Congress wrested back ownership. And it helps Obama to separate his own approval ratings from public worries about legislation. But it has also made his policies more vulnerable to scare tactics and caused the Sallies in the Democratic base to worry about Obama's willingness to fight. Obama may be temperamentally incapable of being more combative and identifying enemies. But surely he can state less equivocally what he does and does not want -- and, with regard to key matters such as the public option, what he'll sign and what he won't.
The widening gap between admiration for Obama and cynicism about his policies also reinforces passivity in Obama's base, which makes it even harder to advance a specific agenda. His presidential campaign strengthened the nation's political grass roots and spawned hope for a new era of public engagement, but Obama's reluctance to fight for any specifics is causing the base to lose interest. Neither the Freds who trust him nor the Sallies who have become cynical are motivated to do much of anything.
But their activism is crucial. If it comes to a choice between trust and cynicism, America will never achieve lasting change.
Advertisement
If people wanted combative, they'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. Obama's election was an explicit rejection of that kind of approach. He said during the campaign that he'd try for a bipartisan approach. I don't understand why everyone is suddenly surprised that he's doing what he said he'd do. Trying for bipartisanship is not necessarily giving away the store. It just means you stick to the core principles, but offer flexibility on how to get there. In the end it's a win-win situation. Either they play ball or they become obstructionist. In either case, he's the good guy.
Despite all the recent brouhaha, I think most people still see the issue pretty clearly. Once health care reform passes and the shitstorm dies down, it will be even more clear to people that this is something they want and they'll wonder what those who tried to obstruct it were thinking.
August 18, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm for combative.
I can't recall one thing that George W. Bush ever caved on. So let's also hammer out 8 years of unapologetic Democratic Policies and see what happens.
August 18, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If people wanted combative, they'd have voted for Hillary Clinton. Obama's election was an explicit rejection of that kind of approach.
Excellent point. I think you have succinctly summed up one of the few real differences between the two candidates. And especially in the case of health care reform, that was nearly guaranteed.
August 18, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I want combative, and I voted for Obama.
Reich's point is that the whole Fred/Sally debate is moot. He's right. Personally, I tend to think the Prez is doing okay, but I prefer to hear from people who are angry, because they help push us all in the right direction. The last 48 hours have been a good instance of this. It helps to have a loud, angry left complaining that the Dem leaders are selling out our agenda. In fact, the leaders *need* a loud angry left, in order to have credibly limited options when they sit down at the negotiating table.
The only thing is, we need to be expressing our anger in a forum where the media (and/or the members of the US Senate) can see it.
August 18, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about combative vs. bi-partisan, it's about having a sense of direction. At this point, I honestly don't know what the President believes in or is willing to stand firm on. I can wade through the 'birthers,' 'deathers,' and corporate interests to help reach key swing voters just fine. But I can't possibly be an effective activist if the leader of my party won't show the resolve necessary to ride out the storm of the shrieking minority.
Count me among the cynics.
August 18, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is so. Lots of Obama voters believed he would fight for the things he said he was for and thought him more electable than Hillary. Many thought the bipartisan stuff was just the usual political bs. Unfortunately for us all, he really believes that crap about bipartisanship and it is undermining everthing he is trying to do.
August 18, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
See tonight's article in the NYT. Bipartisanship is done with.
August 19, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And rather deftly, I believe.
August 19, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"think most people still see the issue pretty clearly. Once health care reform passes and the shitstorm dies down, it will be even more clear to people that this is something they want and they'll wonder what those who tried to obstruct it were thinking."
What will it look like IF it passes? A version that most likely looks closer to what Republicans want than what Democrats want. The reality in DC is bipartisanship is a fraudulent goal that can't be accomplished. While I am not ready to give up on Obama, the way this has played out is exactly why I wanted Hillary and Bill back in the White House and thought Obama was a bit naive and unproven when it comes to the way Washington works. Obama said change does not come from DC, change comes to DC. Well, it looks like DC changed him. How is a watered down health care bill change? This is a man that in 6 years has went from saying he would love a single payer system, to a man who said a public option is essential, to a man who will accept COOPs instead of a public plan. Change comes to DC? I am not so sure he has proven that.
August 19, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
In observing the debate so far, I believe that there are two story lines here:
1. Most people believe that the health care system needs to be overhauled
2. Most people have little to no faith in the government to do so responsibly
Almost everyone has a health care horror story, or personally knows someone who has. However, when the news prints a story about this deal with Big Pharma or that deal with private insurers, it reinforces the belief that the group that needs the overhaul the most--the people--are the least represented at the table.
If Obama wants to recapture the message, he has to address item #2 head on. Most people believe that health care needs to be changed, and they recognize that it will. They just don't believe that they will be the ones benefiting from it.
August 18, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Number 2 on your list is where the action is. It's always been a paradox. Government programs, expressed generically, are viewed by the public as something to avoid, even while most specific government programs are highly popular. Hence, you get people spouting nonsense like "Keep the government out of Medicare". This, I think, is part of the problem health care reform is facing. Without specifics, it's a generic government program, and people view it with skepticism. The task for Obama (one that he's been woefully deficient in) is explaining the specifics of the program and how it will help people. Connect it with things people already know and like. The "public option" thus becomes "offering Medicare-like coverage to everybody". Hardly anyone would view that as a bad thing.
The Republicans are winning the framing war (what's new?). The Democrats need to get their act together here.
August 18, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and an even easier message to deliver would have been Medicare for Everybody. What is more, it would have cost less and been more successful than any hodgepodge they manage to nail together and slip past Senators Dee and Dum.
Trying to build a whole new system alongside the existing system, in order to "compete" with it, was probably the stupidest idea they could have ever come up with, had their goal actually been universal coverage.
August 18, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should have signed when he entered office a "temporary emergency" executive order allowing Medicare to sell insurance, at cost, to people who don't have insurance.
He could still do this.
It would fundamentally alter the bargaining power of the issue. For starters Republicans wouldn't want to drag out the issue.
Second, public option would be a done deal.
Third, Republicans would have to go on record as having taken away health insurance from those that have it.
This would be a ballsy move, but he needs to show that he's got some balls, and at the same time it would also be a very compationate move.
This would be taking a page from Bush's unitary exectuve doctrine.
This is possible because it is revenue neutral and so wouldn't require legislative action, and there are enough liberals in the legislature to block any move to try to halt this legislatively, and finally the Supreme Court wouldn't hear this because they view such issues as political questions.
This would put the onis on Congress to pass health care reform.
If I were President, this would have been my opening bid, or near opening bid. If Obama did it now he could say that he did it as a stop gap measure because congress was taking too long and real Americans are suffering, and dying everyday.
August 18, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being revenue neutral doesn't make it legal. It's not. The federal government has no legal authority to sell Medicare to anyone under age 65.
August 18, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, he could do it - get people signed up before anyone catches up with the legality question and then dare the Republicans to throw people out of the program. How heartless do you have to be throw a single mother working 2 or 3 jobs to the wolves?
August 18, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly the point.
I remember in high school, my history teacher telling us that Theodore Roosevelet wanted to send the White Fleet on a round the world tour, but congress passed only enough money to go half way, or so said my teacher, so Roosevelt sent the fleet half way around the world and figured it would be up to Congress to figure out how to get them back.
Bush did all kinds of things like that.
Obama can claim emergency conditions... etc... when the Pugs bark too loud, tell them to pass a bill and he'll rescind the order.
In my mind, the Federal Government has every legal right to sell insurance. Call it a volunteer tax, call it regulating trade, call it acting for the welfare of the public....
Chances are, no one but Mitch McConnell will take delight in stealing health insurance from working poor.
The thing is, in the process, everyone will find out what the price she pays is, and that will make the insurance companies look like the meat packeers in "The Jungle".
Politics is a contact sport. This is what hard ball looks like. Brushing the batter off the plate.
By the time the court hears the case, the balance of power will have changed in the battle for public option.
August 19, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And they need to stop fighting amongst themselves over this bi-partisan crap. The Republicans are on record as saying that they will never support anything the President and the Dems create, so why bother? I'm beginning to think Obama doesn't have what it takes to go for the juglar, when needed.
Obama needs to cut loose the Republicans, rally the Dems, and get the job done. Once the Republicans see that they aren't needed, maybe they'll come to their senses.
August 19, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
on the one hand, i agree. obama needs to spend his capital and use his influence. and some specificity is necessary.
but i also think it is telling that as obama seemed to back away from a public option to leave the door open for co-ops, republicans seem to be responding by coming out against... well, anything and everything.
the less specific obama gets about what he would support, the more specific the republicans have gotten about what they won't support. and the republicans' list only gets longer and longer.
if obama were to put his finger on specifics, republicans would need only confine themselves to opposing those elements. and spending all of their energy spreading misinformation about those specific elements. the more obama leaves on the table, the more the republicans are revealed for the craven obstructionists they are.
of course actually using the evidence of craven obstructionism against the republicans is where health care reform lives or dies.
August 18, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is clear that Obama and his team are thinking strategically and in a very deliberate manner.
I'm not sure whether his "bipartisanship" is a trap for him, or for his opponents. Thus far, they certainly have turned themselves into the Party of No. There's a Roadrunner-esque quality to hsi dealings with the GOP, where they end up looking pretty stingy and mean, he "above politics" and all.
As for his 'giveaways" to bipartisanship, in most cases, it was realism. For the stimulus, he needed and got 3 GOP Senators to sign on and pass it. Concessions to them were necessary for passage. In the healthcare debate, the WH is counting votes and callibrating.
And if you, Mr. Reich, have some ideas of how we get to 50 (or 60) votes in the Senate, we're all ears.
I don't like framing this as "toughness", by the way. In this case, one needs incredible political skill, savvy and persuasiveness most of all to pull of what certainly must be the hardest challenge in a generation.
(Even LBJ and Truman took the Medicare to route because they couldn't get nationalized health care done)
August 18, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, only if he heavily invested in health insurance stock.
August 18, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
AnswerFrog has hit the nail on the head which Prof Reich and his Sally seem to miss, and that is that Obama is not a dictator (despite the right-wing accusation of same), and not even a Franklin Roosevelt in terms of the support he enjoys in the public and Congress for his major policies.
Bipartisanship does not necessarily mean Democratic/Republican, but I think in Obama's mind and that of his political staff it also includes the wayward Democrats (Blue Dogs, Baucus, Lincoln, et al) who probably lean more Republican than Democratic on many of the key parts of controversial legislation. If Obama decided to be combative, he not only would lose whatever tiny sliver of the Republicans he might keep in the tent, but potentially a lot of very conservative Dems who come from states and districts that voted for McCain.
There also is an issue of timing. Quite obviously, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al. lost temporary control of the debate, and Obama has had to swing into action in the middle of the summer. Come September, however, I have to assume, he will put on more of a full-court press, twisting Congressional arms and most likely making a major televised address on health care.
All that said, there is a fine line between being felxible, strategic and keeping options open and "waffling;" and Obama has to be careful he is not perceived as being a waffler. We all saw what that did to Kerry.
August 18, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a heck of a fine line there. It's a monumental challenge, and you probably need a lot of luck as well as skill and strategy and execution.
It's anyone's guess if he can pull it off. I just have no idea how you turn around half a dozen votes in the senate on this issue.
August 18, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you have to frame for toughness. You have to speak the other guys language if you want to make a deal. When we negotiated detente with the Russians during the cold war, the agreement had to be worked out in both English and Russian. If the Republicans only understand something by being hit with a sledge hammer, plucking them with a tweezers won't due.
There's an old joke I heard a salesman tell about this: Three Bulls had the run of a heard of 100 cows. One day they heard a rumor that a new bull was being introduced to the heard. The three bulls huddled together and agreed to shun the new bull: "3 bulls, 100 cows, this is a good thing, let's not wreck it by introducing a new bull, there's no reason to share." Then the day came when a truck pulled up with the new bull. He was massive, huge, and super strong. The three bulls huddled together and agreed, four bulls, 100 cows, this is still a good thing. Then the new bull was let out into the heard. Immediately the smallest of the three bulls charged the new bull. He got in front of the new bull, snorting and huffing and pulling his leg back. The two other bulls said to each other,"what's he doing that bull will maul him to death" so they went and got him and dragged him away from the new bull, saying "what are you doing, don't you know that bull can tear you to mince meat?" The little bull said, "yeah, fellas, I know, I was just trying to make sure he knew I was a bull."
You've got to speak the other sides language if you want them to understand you. Right now, the other side doesn't even respect Obama.
August 18, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please god let the comments on this post not be another Fred/Sally cagematch.
The point of the article is in the last paragraph.
August 18, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The point of the article is in the last paragraph."
Must be. Cuz he sure never answered the question in the headline.
"Fred" here, btw.
August 18, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the problems is that everyone's acting as if we haven't been here before. After almost a century of trying to reform health care with government "takeover," it's easy to see what the people are up against. Have we been knocked on the head by corporate mouthpieces about government bureaucrats getting between us and our doctor (recently repeated by Obama) so many times that we've forgotten how "HillaryCare" was killed (hint: look at the name)? Hello? Harry and Louise are older now and shouting down elected officials at their own dog and pony shows. So what?
The only way HCR will happen is by drawing lines in the sand and taking a stand. Fight fire with fire. Obama threw out his hole card (single payer) before he even ante'd up. He's now giving away the store just to get something, anything, that can be called HRC with his name on it. Those who want real HCR have already compromised. If there's no Medicare-type public option, there'll be no real reform. Obama's smile ain't gonna get it done.
August 18, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama threw out his hole card (single payer) before he even ante'd up.
Word.
I wish the Freds of the world could wrap their brains around this.
August 20, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I for one don't believe that Obama has the "stones" to stand up to the members of Congress, especially, the Republicans.
Every day I have less belief in the Democrats. We elected them to "change" the way things are done and to change things period. If they persist in their gutless ways, I will be voting for anyone who will run against any incumbent.
Seems I remember Obama shouting "Enough" during his acceptance speech in Denver. Time to show us that he means it. (Don't think he does).
I'll just have to join George: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
August 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
by the way, the reason, I think, Bush stumbled on this, was because Karl Rove taught him to never, never, never, never, never, ever admit to making a mistake.
Half way through this, he realized that "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me..." meant admitting, in saying "shame on me" he made a mistake. It crossed hares with his programming and caused him a minor short out of the brain synapses. Actually his "you don't get fooled again" was a pretty good recovery for him from a rovian perspective, it got the point across without infering he could ever be fooled.
August 18, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If things keep going the way they are now we will be able to thank non-leader Obama for the loss of the White House in 2012.
August 18, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly believe that our government is bought and paid for by both foreign and domestic corporate interests. A lot of my enthusiasm for Obama was based on the idea that he may be different.
But I think the Wall Street fiasco disabused me of that notion. Obama is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs, and we will soon see his price tag for healthcare reform.
I'm not knocking on doors for him no more.
August 18, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter version: Obama's a weenie and so is his base.
This is the most aggressively critical (but still bend-over-backwards polite) Reich post I have ever seen. No wonder he supported Obama! ARRRGH!
He's not wrong, however. The crucial question is: How to get reform done when the default mode is conciliatory and passive? Damned if I know. That's not my style, professor. You tell us.
August 18, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not my style either....I wonder if Reich knows the definition of passive-aggressive. If not, I'd be happy to explain it to him.
August 18, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Obama,
But I have a dilemma.
I am aware that politics is a difficult business.
Do I criticize Obama, because I expect him to do more?
Or if I am not critical, do I give him the impression that I am satisfied with the job he is doing?
If only he would lead, we would follow.
August 18, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the trusters just don't pay attention as much as the cynics, they don't have as much knowledge. Like the Frank said they don't take the time to understand the specifics.
I don't see them as any different than the people who still approved of Bush at the end, the 25 percenters. They just want their team to win, and are happy to be part of the cult of personality. Their main concern is to be winning, not any actual policy goals, or outcomes. They are the political lightweights, the people who watch TV more than they read.
They are the folks who subscribe to People magazine, and cluck over how nice Michelle's dress looks, and how cute J-Lo's kids are.
Trusting politicians should be the very definition of stupid.
August 18, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like I'm in a time warp. Are you sure this paragraph wasn't written about Reagan circa 1983?
August 18, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that Obama has not done an adequate job of rallying public support for health care reform, especially in the form of a public insurance option. A myriad of legislative proposals have been rushed through in order to get them done by a specific timetable. It's time to back off a little and take the slower, more sustained approach (in football idiom, if the bomb isn't working you need to have a strong ground game).
Step 1 is to come up with a very concrete, and easy to understand, proposal. Then take the case to the public, coinciding Congressional hearings on the health care mess. The more horror stories of insurance industry malfeasance the better. The issue has to be thrashed out proactively, and firmly, with no major concessions on the fundamentals. This will demonstrate Obama's commitment, while also giving the Democrats to a better chance to control the narrative.
It may take a couple of years to generate the public support which will be necessary to drive the legislation, but if it will produce a truly universal -- and public -- health insurance program, then it will be worth the effort.
August 18, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama gets a health care reform bill passed and it includes a public option, then he's a genius, he's unstoppable, and I'll never doubt him again.
If he gets a health care reform bill passed, but it's watered down and doesn't get the insurance companies' mitts out of the till, I'll be disgusted and this will look like Bill Clinton's 3rd term. It doesn't matter to me that the president wins if his 'wins' are just an illusion that leave us stuck with crap like Clinton's Telecommunications bill.
If Obama doesn't get a health care reform bill passed, things will go to hell in a hot rod, because it will reinforce the Republican notion that you can win by telling the biggest, stupidest lies ever conceived. And, it will also reinforce the idea that a bunch of dumb fucking thugs can kill anything good that's ever attempted, just by shouting people down, making sure nobody hears the truth, and parading around with sidearms in public. It will also prove that greedy corporate interests can make dumb fucking thugs believe anything. If that's what happens to America, we're completely and utterly screwed.
It's win or lose. There is no compromise. Republicans don't believe in it. They've left us no alternative but to jam this sucker down their throats.
August 18, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you have 60 Democrats in the Senate, and a big majority in the House, plus a Democratic President, it isn't a matter of jamming anything down anyone's throat. It is now called governing. I'm still waiting to see if Obama is interested in that part of his job. I see nothing to indicate that he is yet, but he may change.
August 18, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The moment Obama becomes combative is the moment I know that he has lost control and no longer able to handle the job. Obama has been consistent in the way he behaves and treats people.
I don't want combative. I'm not looking for someone who's going to bust out with yo' mama jokes and start calling out people he might need down the road. Anyone heard of burning your bridges?
August 18, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A former boss of Robert Reich once responded to a question with this statement:
I hope I'll be forgiven if I run a trope on that with Mr. Reich.
It's quite amazing to me how a person's knowledge of what to do is inversely proportional to his/her responsibility to do anything.
I guess Mr. Reich has to give Barack Obama his sage wisdom here because its cheaper than paying for a long distance call and in the name of frugality the White House refuses to accept reversing the charges.
August 18, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's quite amazing to me how a person's knowledge of what to do is inversely proportional to his/her responsibility to do anything."
So you must be a genius.
Care to address any specifics of Reich's post or does tha make it too difficult to be clever?
August 18, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I'm a genius... but then I don't tell Mr. Reich what to tell Mr. Obama to do, so I'm excused from the terrible responsibility of being confessor to the pope.
August 19, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a walk down memory lane. What Dem presidents in the last century acccomplished the most reforms? That would be LBJ and FDR. Besides being known by their initials, these guys were tenacious fighters both behind the scenes and to the public (Yes, FDR had a friendly public face but he argued for his programs).
August 18, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
F.D.R. also did precisely the opposite of what promised on the campaign trail and in the party platform. I'm rather glad he did. The best thing F.D.R. had going for him was a 90% drop in the stock market, unemployment roughly triple what it is today, and a society which went so far as to call the tent cities of the homeless "Hoovervilles".
LBJ was able to use the springboard of public shock at the first assassination of an American President since McKinley to enact the Civil Rights Legislation, Medicare, and other great programs as a testimonial to the vision of the New Frontier. But all the jawboning, reasoning together, and arm twisting couldn't hold the public to his foreign policy--VietNam. We tend to look at LBJ's power and forget he was a one term President.
I'm not panicky yet, but I'm weary trying to cheerlead and morale-boost those who are. And for some reason, Robert Reich especially rubs me the wrong way. So apologies if my crankiness at him looks like its causing collateral damage.
FDR said we only have to fear fear. My nightmare is implosion on the left, culminating in a circular firing squad.
August 18, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's true, Professor, but you have to admit that those programs had some powerful resistance against them and lesser men, unlike the pugnacious fighters LBJ or FDR, would not have been able to push them through.
I understand your weariness. I imagine you sort of assess politicians in both long and short term frames at the same time. I haven't really been able to cheer-lead for a candidate or disguise my, let's call it a cautionary outlook (as opposed to a hardened cynicism), since working for the McGovern campaign when I just turned voting age.
But is criticism from the left really detrimental? In a way, isn't that what Obama has called for all along? I doubt the WH would be back out front today insisting that the public option is still part of the program were it not for the furor, especially in the blogosphere yesterday.
August 18, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really thoughtful and when I get to my air conditioned office I'll think about it even more. I guess I'm of the same generation you are, more or less. I was "Clean for Gene" and I still have my "Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern button" in my drawer someplace. (About 1973 someone wrote that if everyone who claimed to have voted for McGovern actually voted for McGovern he would have won by a landslide).
And you're right, I do look at things with time bifocals--long range and short range. The trouble is that looking at now long range isn't very easy: 20/20 hindsight, and all that. So what we do is try, emphasis try, to look forward from the perspective of the past. Sometimes we do fine, sometimes we don't.
So now I ask myself how the country might have been different if Hubert Horatio Humphrey had been elected in 1968...a civil rights fighter since the 1940s, a scrapper for union rights, an orator of epic abilities, who just happened to have accepted the Vice-Presidential nomination from Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Suppose the Chicago Riots had never happened. Suppose that Richard J. Daily hadn't called the cops down on the dirty nasty hippies, or suppose that the left had looked back to Humphrey's career since the days when he was Mayor of Minneapolis and thought "the real Humphrey was the man who wasn't residing in LBJ's shadow...the man who stood silent instead of opposing the President's foreign policy because that's what Vice Presidents have always done since Presidents and Vice-Presidents ran on the same ticket. I'm going to support him with my whole heart?"
Supposing all that:
Would the Vietnam war have dragged on for over four more years?
Would Cambodia been bombed?
Would Nixon have discovered the Southern Strategy?
Would that strategy, appealing to the worst in the Nation's psyche, have ruined the moderate wing of the Republican Party, leaving us with the current situation?
Would Reagan have kept selling refrigerators?
I don't know, of course. History doesn't reveal its alternatives.
For those whose only memory of Hubie is as Veep, here's his speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nwIdIUVFm4
The southerners took a walk, became Dixiecrats, and ultimately turned Republican -- maybe nobody remembers Strom Thurmond, either.
But I look at today through the eyes of a person shaped by the sixties and early seventies, and I say to myself I hope my party doesn't implode again.
The audacity of hope, huh? I look at the responses above me write this comment--Obama "ain't fit to spit shine LBJ's shoes." Not fit to be a shoeshine boy huh? Then I realize how audacious my hope really is.
August 19, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great questions. I think our world view is so shaped by our environment and all of the dynamics at play, especially in our formative youth, that we don’t even realize how much we rationalize our “rational” views of politics, culture, even self (I’ll see your Strom Thurmond and raise you a George Wallace). We project that onto our leaders and those we admire, but they have to play the hand they're dealt.
I was just becoming politically aware around ’68 (coincidentally, I just mentioned this to you on your post) and torn between my mother’s populist FDR democratic government of, for by and even including, the people and my peers and older sibling’s mash up the establishment oppressors (and a dash of my father’s ’30 socialism). My mother loved Humphrey and so I was likewise impressed, but he seemed to have given up or out at some point (maybe more a reflection of my changes).
I think those in my bracket were also intensely impressed, psychically and perhaps unconsciously, by the assassinations (I still get a mental shiver when I think about it). I was barely aware of "America" until JFK's national wake. Nixon’s win seemed somehow a continuation of all that.
I see the “me decade” withdrawal coinciding more with the post-Watergate, Reagan Democrats era than the ‘60s as so often portrayed (self-indulgent youth, yes, but altruistic and idealistic, too). Regardless of generation gaps, civil rights "sides" and silent majorities, America has never seemed as communal as it was back in the day.
August 19, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The audacity of hope, huh? I look at the responses above me write this comment--Obama "ain't fit to spit shine LBJ's shoes." Not fit to be a shoeshine boy huh? Then I realize how audacious my hope really is.
Perhaps your points would be more credible if they could be made without strawmen, putting words in people's mouths, and thinly-veiled accusations of racism.
The comments you refer to, of course, refer to the documented records of LBJ and FDR, the history of their actions, legislative and oratorical, and so on. It's dirty pool to reduce those discussions to the simplistic straw man of "he ain't fit to be a shoeshine boy" for LBJ or anyone else.
August 20, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS Someone a while back was posting pics of “Bushvilles” that have been sprouting up across the country (I wish I could remember who). I’ve said liberals always have a tougher battle n politics. We’re not just fighting the opposing party but the media. It will take a Herculean battle. But, if we can cut through the noise machine, informed people will know where their interests lie. What’s happening in the HC debate is there isn’t one. The Dems go on and on about bipartisanship and what they’d like to do but can’t, really, while the opposition repeats its propaganda over and over. The people only hear the propaganda, and half of them believe it, no matter how outrageous.
August 18, 2009 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that you never address is a fundamental difference between FDR and Obama. FDR was willing to oppose entrenched power; Obama seems to think he can somehow cleverly work with or around it. You dislike Reich; based on our last interchange it seems to be based on his tone and persona. I am infinitely cynical of politicians so I am willing to be convinced of the fault of any or all. But Reich at least speaks of confronting the entrenched power in this country. Obama does not. In my historical researches I have never found significant real change for the masses of the population without a direct battle with the entrenched power. How does adopting most of the Bush foreign policy, the giveaway to the bank to preserve the value of the worthless TARP assets, and the pre-emptive surrender of a government role in health care insurance reform amount to confronting entrenched political and economic power?
August 19, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think my response here is not so far off track that I I'm guilty of thread-stealing, and I apolotize for the length.
First I think you're spot on about the TARP program. Here's what I'd like to have you consider just a little more.
I think this partly depends on how one defines entrenched powers. F. D. R. may have been willing to take on the "malefactors of great wealth"--I know that's William Jennings Bryan's phrase--but he was more than willing to strike bargains with other entrenched powers in the name of the greater good. Here's my example:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArooseveltF.htmWe tend to forget that particular entrenched power thanks to Harry S Truman and Hubert Humphrey who refused to turn their backs on civil rights. The Dixiecrats took a walk in 1948, Truman won anyhow, and the southern power over the Democratic Party was weakened if not broken from that time forward.
Thanks for reading.
p.s. It's worth clicking through the link to take a peek at the Berryman Cartoon showing a standing (not wheelchair bound--he never let himself be portrayed that way) Roosevelt with all his programs, his "children" dancing around him. All of the kiddies are white.
August 19, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The base isn't motivated because President Obama isn't motivating us. If he said "I will settle for nothing less than a single payer" on health care we'd be out there fighting right along with him. But the president won't draw a line in the sand and say "I'm willing to compromise up to a certain point but...". As Mr. Reich and many commentors said the president is a compromiser. He takes pride in being able to craft a deal. But anyone with one shred of common sense should realize by now that the R's have no, nil, zero, zilch, nada interest in compromising on anything. In a perfect world compromise is a good way to get things done...but the world of politics is far from perfect 95% of the time. So at this point the man with the bully pulpit should ask himself "What would Teddy have done in this case?"
Big stick time...
August 18, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to recall this question being asked several times during the campaign when the media asked if Obama's cool demeanor would serve him well against first the Clinton machinery and then McCain's pit bull like campaign strategy. I think he proved us all wrong on November 4th.
August 18, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that Obama is either gullible or soft has been disproven several times.
August 18, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine then he doesn't need our help then. He must have it all under control, right? I guess the plan was to have a massive giveaway to Big Pharma all along while keeping our current health care system basically intact? If so the plan is going swimmingly. The man is zen-like...
August 18, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was David Simon when he was on Bill Moyers who put on the national stage exactly what I have been feeling--in so many words he said that
bureaucrats only exist to NOT make any decisions and they in fact work to make sure other bureaucrats don't ever make a decision yet they float along in their positions in some weird
place of "political safety" while society is collapsing at their feet. They parse. They calculate. But most disturbing is there may be nothing they are resisting in their own souls because they are in fact, like the walking dead.
To say courage is lacking in Obama and our "leaders" is an understatement. Safe in the
womb of political paralysis they curl.
The world right now is screaming for leaders. Every time we think we have found the right one, in the guise of a "Democrat" they let us down.
Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, and go ahead and add the next one to the list.
Are there no brave political soldiers who regardless of the consequences have the fortitude and capacity to fight for our dear nation? For our nation? Or has our dear nation so been taken over by corporations that we cannot even recognize it anymore as a nation but more like a corporate nation state?
Where by God is the political courage we need at a time like this?
August 18, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sally is no cynic. She is a realist who believes what she sees and hears for herself.
August 18, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it... maybe I'm not smart enough.
Seems to me that this entire mess boils down to the recalcitrance of a few conservative Democratic Senators.
If they vote with the party, we'll have a health care bill. If they don't vote with the party, we won't.
Winning this will require the application of a great deal of pressure on a few key backsides.
Oh, for the days when a President could simply walk down to J. Edgar Hoover's office, grovel for a bit, and then return with a manila folder chock full of persuasion.
We'll see what happens, I guess.
August 18, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect that Obama is doing what needs to be done, and I expect that the result will be a healthcare reform bill that signals a transformative moment for the better in American society. It may or may not include a public option. If it does, that would be highly desirable. If it doesn't, it will still be an extraordinarily valuable achievement, particularly if a strong non-profit cooperative mechanism is included instead of a public option.
As many have pointed out, Obama is not a dictator. His strength resides in persuading the public, particularly middle-of-the-road voters, that his agenda is in their interest, and a dramatic shift in his personality would be counterproductive. I believe he realizes that he needs to be more vocal and assertive, without sounding angry, and he is making that correction. He is handicapped by the fact that it is hard to emphasize the specifics of a reform bill when there are already several different ones floating around that disagree with each other, but that should straighten itself out over the coming weeks.
It's also important to realize that resorting to angry denunciations in public is not the same thing as being tough. The latter requires a voice that's strong but calm. Privately, Obama must deal with individual legislators, particularly conservative Democrats, in a manner that's as tough as he can manage with the tools available. I don't know whether he's doing that but I hope he is, and in any case, that would be exactly what should remain private for best effect.
Having suggested that an angry public voice would not be Obama's best weapon, it would indeed be an effective tool of those members of the public advocating a strong reform package, including a public option. However, the anger must not be misdirected. It should inform Obama and the Senators that we are angry that reform is not being advanced to the extent desired. It should tell them we are expecting more than we have received. It should not accuse them of "selling out" or "caving in" or being "the tools of the insurance industry", because that type of childish temper tantrum undermines the effort to make anger work in favor of what we want. It's also unequivocally false about the President, and I'm skeptical it's fully true about anyone else, although I'll leave that to the mind readers.
At this point, the right kind of public anger can arm President Obama with a useful weapon, while the wrong type will simply fortify his opponents.
August 18, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK...here is the $64,000 question. What is Obama's plan on health care? What should we be rallying behind? What I see is a man of high intellect deferring to hundreds of millions of other people, the louder mouths in the vast majority mostly with lesser intellects who are easily swayed from logic by their emotions, to make the decision for him on what reforms should be implemented. I think it is fairly obvious to me that Obama's support is slipping on the issue not because the loud mouths are carrying the day but because people who want real change will not support anything, or anybody, that doesn't represent tranformative change.
August 18, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama's health care plan is whatever kind of sausage the legislative branch manages to grind up, as long as it meets some fairly broad criteria. You can find those criteria at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/
If the President were to approach this issue from a technocratic angle he'd be making a huge mistake, in my opinion. If he didn't do anything to placate big Pharma and big Insurance he'd be a fool. If he didn't at least try to seem open to Republican input he'd be betraying his brand. Everybody has to have a slice of pie right now to keep them in the game, even if they're marked for a shiv in the back later.
If this gets done we're talking about the kind of change that happens maybe once every couple of generations. Huge. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ kind of change.
Support is slipping because the Republicans have gone full bore crazy, the media is dysfunctional, progressives have lost patience, and people are frightened and tired of listening. They want to see the President smile a lot, exude confidence, reassure them that he won't let the government kill grandma, and tell them that great things are waiting for them just around the bend.
He needs to do more of that.
August 19, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well in this case I don't think traditional sausage making will work, lol. Too many and too much ingredients for the machine to handle. If tried the sausage maker will break down. This is gonna take someone to take the lead and make the tough choices or nothing of meaning will get done.
I do agree with your last paragraph. The only thing I would be tempted to add is he also forcefully and clearly make the case for change to the American people. Not through a press conference where reporters ask him to comment on a specific individuals arrest but through a live address from the Oval Office...prime time...carried by all the networks.
I think part of the problem is the perception that Obama doesn't have a plan and all that is happening represents "business as usual (aka...sausage making) in DC".
August 19, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. I mostly agree -- but I don't see how this happens if Congress doesn't decide they own it. It's an uneasy majority, and a timid one -- and they're going to have to find their feet to get this done.
August 19, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I think you're right about this. When we have the Democrats in the majority we want them to morph into acting like Republicans and voting yassah yassah all the time; and we want the President to morph into the Unitary Executive and rule with an iron fist...as long as that iron fist is governed by a brain we control.
August 19, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether Obama would get on the mat for crucial Progressive reforms like national health insurance, was my biggest question on him in '08 (along with him looking the other way on Wright's hate speech for 15 years). I had no such concerns about Hillary.
I have to say, Obama has indeed gone to the mat for health reform that gets everyone covered. You should have known from his record he is a pragmatist. He cuts deals.
I don't want kicking, screaming FoxNews dupes prevailing on anything in this legislation. But as a Bill supporter and campaign worker in the '90's, I said in 1994 that he needed to take Hillary's plan out into town hall forums and get into campaign mode until it passed. We knew then what was aligned against it in blood-money special interests. His delegating it all to a bought Congress, was a critical procedural error that wrecked our chances.
So I have to credit the Obama effort relative to the weak showing from Bill. Nonetheless, is he gonna hold on Public Option? Very skeptical on that.
And yes we don't have jack in terms of real reform, without a government insurer involved. However, remember where we are with respect to dire needs at the moment. We have 100 million un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. If we get some hijacked bill that funnels a lot of wasteful spending into private insurers hands in subsidies, at least those people can (presumably) go out and finally buy a policy.
I will take that over nothing, presuming the other regulations prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions and arbitrary cancellations, somehow make it through with the subsidies. We re-elect Obama and next push for an expansion of Medicare to say 50+ years old, working one piece at a time, to an eventual single-payer system.
August 18, 2009 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you give up on Obama, think back on the election. He plays a long game and he plays for keeps. Health care reform has been at the top of the legislative agenda for only a few weeks. How many times over the course of the primaries between Iowa and the convention did he get written off for anything from Jeremiah Wright to his bowling skills? Keep putting the pressure on, keep advocating for the public option or single payer, make your voice heard, but don't assume Obama has a losing hand just because he plays his cards close to his chest. This guy is still an extraordinary politician, and he's in this to win.
August 19, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Reich has been quoted today on Politico as calling for a pro-reform March on Washington. There is a petition started via the Twitter account CoverAmericans. URL ; http://www.tiny.cc/GHZ7b
August 19, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Signed it. Thanks.
August 19, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
With LBJ and FDR you had a muscular party and I ain't talking about the military. I hate to say this because I had so much literally "hope" for Obama. Now I find out he ain't fit to spit shine LBJ's shoes. So far, an utter disappointment. A bigger disappointment than WJC at the end of 6 yrs. I wasn't even an ObamaBot. Sigh.
August 19, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
How tough? Perhaps better said "how timid?" "How ready to lead?"
"How experienced?"
August 19, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But surely he can state less equivocally what he does and does not want -- and, with regard to key matters such as the public option, what he'll sign and what he won't."
Not sure here - he HAS stated unequivocally that the public option is NOT KEY. What is so hard to understand?
August 19, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
How odd, then, that it's actually part of the 2008 Democratic Party platform. Weird.
August 20, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Re-posted because I spent some time on this. I have also corrected the typos.)
Dear Mr. President:
I write this to you as a friend and a supporter. I cannot tell you how thrilling it was when you emerged as a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. By then Bush and the Republicans had already trampled the Constitution, denied global climate change, ignored our oppressive and wasteful health care system, initiated and prosecuted a war of choice sold under false pretenses, kept us dangerously addicted to fossil fuels, cynically used religion and moral values to drive wedges between Americans, and undermined our standing and respect in the world. And by the time you became the nominee, our economy was in near collapse after Bush and the Republicans, under the guise of free marketeering, let the country’s big business oligarchy artificially pump up the economy just to drain all the false profits from the system. The country was ripe for dramatic change and you tapped into that wellspring. Bush had been a dunce. You were intelligent. Bush could barely communicate. You were a master orator. The country was fed up with stupidity and cynicism. Real change was in the air. So you were decisively elected president and your party secured overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. The Dark Years were past. The country would be reborn and emerge into the twenty-first century as an enlightened polity worthy of the name: United States of America.
Once you were sworn in, you chose not to challenge any of the abuses heaped upon the nation by the Bush Administration and I defended you -- but not because those abuses don’t deserve investigation and, most likely, criminal prosecutions. You didn’t press for gay civil rights and I defended you – but not because yours was the correct path. You let Congress write and then you signed an economic stimulus bill that was stuffed with pork and waste and I defended you – but not because I agreed with the legislation. You slowed the withdrawal from Iraq and you stalled and feinted on the GITMO detainees – and yet again I defended you, giving you the benefit of the doubt. You let the Wall Street tycoons, the very ones whose insatiable greed had nearly precipitated the second Great Depression, gorge on taxpayer money, only to witness those same greedheads immediately begin siphoning the money – our money -- into their own pockets. And, yet again, I defended you.
I defended you in each instance with this refrain: Obama knows what the true priorities are. Obama knows that the United States must be transformed and must be transformed now, at this moment in history. After the Bush Dark Age America’s greatness was in grave jeopardy and you, I was convinced, knew this is your heart and in your soul. You were determined to accomplish the grand changes and you would not be distracted or deterred. So you let these other matters slip by, saving your energy and strength for the titanic battles to come. It was, I thought, a matter of priorities and I was certain that you and I agreed on those priorities.
First, the health care system had to be re-structured because it was a civil rights abomination and an anchor slowing and choking our economy. You knew that the government could almost certainly run health care more fairly, more economically, and more efficiently that the health care industrial complex with its ever-reaching grasp for profits. You were smart enough to realize, however, that the country – as battered and insecure as it was – would not accept a national single payer system; so you devised a brilliant solution: Let the government compete against the health care companies in the form of a public option. It would be a grand experiment and it could not fail. If – as you and I fully expected -- the government plan surpassed the for-profits, then the public option would eventually become universal. If, on the other hand, private enterprise indeed delivered health care more effectively, the public option would wither. In either case, the American people would win. Immediately after that victory you would move to the second great challenge confronting America: energy and climate change. That, I was convinced, was your plan of action. And I fully endorsed it.
But if you allow your own party to eliminate the public option – the critical feature of health care reform – then you will have failed. You will be relegated from then on to passing Republican-lite measures. You won’t stand a chance against the oil companies. Worse, you will have squandered the trust and the hope Americans placed in you. That would be unforgivable. It will be a disaster for the nation and a betrayal of all those who have supported and defended you in the hope and expectation that you did indeed know what had to be done and believed – this is what is now in doubt – that you had the resolve and the audacity to do it.
It is not too late. Declare it now: Because a robust public option is the cornerstone of real reform I will not sign a health care bill that does not include a public option. Let those who have worked so hard for you do even more because we will if you lead. Declare yourself and challenge the Blue Dogs in your party to sabotage their president in his first year. We will fight them tooth and nail. But it is very difficult to fight for a leader who will neither lead nor fight.
Mr. President, the nation is counting on you.
August 19, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've tangled with wbgonne a number of times in these comment threads, and we've begun to mend fences (see replies to wbgonne's identical comment to Robert's post "The Public Option's Last Stand"). I'll say again to wbgonne that I truly appreciate that.
Now here's the thing: In our scuffles, I've been Sally (in spades) to wbgonne's Fred (ditto, if I've interpreted wbgonne correctly). For wbgonne to be edging over into Sally territory, even slightly, or even glancing sidewise at that side of the fence, should tell Obama (who isn't reading these comment threads, but really ought to have one staffer doing so) and the Freds on these pages that something is beginning to go very seriously amiss. I mean that as no slam at wbgonne; just an acknowledgment, echoing wbgonne's own, that s/he (I try not to assume gender) has been an extremely fervent Obama supporter, so far. If that support is starting to waver, and if such a supporter is ready to tell Obama that his administration and agenda risk becoming toast, then it's time for Obama and the rest of the Freds to take notice. Skybolt's words directly downthread, as well as Don Key's comments upthread, deserve a lot more serious attention than they're probably gonna get.
August 20, 2009 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this talk about pragmatism and the "long game" is crap. Thus far Obama's method has been to propose half or less of what is needed, let the Senate and House leadership screw it up for a while, then "go to the people," and get some bill passed that is even worse than the original proposal. Then a bunch of supporters talk about how smart and tactical he is and say that he got a lot accomplished given the weakness of Harry Reid or the stupidity of Ben Nelson or whatever.
But in fact, no one, including Obama, knows what can be passed before the final vote is taken. On the stimulus, and now on health care, he has failed to state initial support for legislation that is adequate to the problem, instead opting to support weak legislation that cannot do what we need it to do.
On the stimulus, he should have argued for a $1.5 trillion dollar package from the beginning, all going to to state aid, the poor, and the unemployed, and opposed the inclusion of any tax cuts at all. Instead, he began with a bill of half or less the required size, with the spending malapportioned and money wasted on tax cuts. It was inevitable, having started with a weak bill, that the final bill would be weaker.
It's the same thing with health care. He should have started out supporting Medicare for all, if not the socialization of the entire system. Once the Republicans and DINOs were done with it, we might still have had a decent bill. Instead, he started off supporting crap so that the insurance lobby and the Republicans would be happy, and what we are going to wind up with is even crappier than what we started with.
It is not entirely Obama's fault if he can't get the perfect bill passed. It is his fault if he won't even try to get the perfect bill passed, or say one thing in favor of what should actually be done.
August 19, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans have A.D.D. about everything. The President is a marathon runner - not a sprinter. Reforming something as huge as health care takes a little TIME. I think he knows this. As we get closer to needing to pass something - I think you'll see his pace, focus, and direction pick up. Remember this?
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-barack-obama-chill-out-got-this.jpg
August 21, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink