Somebody Asked for Some Arm-Twisting?
For the last two months, I've been seeing people pissing and moaning about how Obama needs to "show some leadership" and "twist some arms" and "go LBJ" on the Senate to get the public option included in the legislation. And while I've pointed out that Obama doesn't have access either to the kinds of unlimited and unregulated campaign money LBJ could command nor can he engage in the kind of out and out blackmail and extortion that were part of Johnso's toolkit, I've failed to make another point.
That point is this: ninety percent of the stuff that became part of the Johnson arm-twisting legend was not public knowledge until after Johnson was gone. It was generally known that he was a powerhouse of pursuasion, but the specific things he did or said to specific legislators to get a specific bill done were not contemporaneously known, because That's Not How it Was Done. If Johnson gave you facts about what his bill would mean to your district, threatened to block your pet water project, promised you a secret stash of campaign bucks, hinted that he had pictures of you banging your secretary, all while escorting you to a press conference to announce your support that you didn't know was happening, you didn't go and tell that to the New York Times the next day or the next month. (Though It might, or might not, be alluded to in a story in "Look" or "Life" a year later, anonymously and in general terms.)
My point here is that people have been demanding something that doesn't happen--not now and not then. They've been demanding public arm-twisting, that the cajoling, threatening and distribution of carrots that is, by definition, a back-room, process occur in public, in real time, for breathless, instantenous transmission across the Internets, because they believe everything they read and don't believe that anything they don't read about is occurring (other than shadowy plots to sell us out to the Corporate Illuminati, of course).
Well, the arm-twisting is not happining in real time, but it has been and is happening.
At least, that's what the Chicago Tribune says.
WASHINGTON - -- Despite months of seeming ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched an intensifying behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea in the weeks just ahead.
President Barack Obama has long advocated a so-called public option, while at the same time repeatedly expressing openness to other ways to offer consumers a potentially more affordable alternative to health plans sold by private insurers.
But now, senior administration officials are holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring to the Senate floor later this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.
Read the whole thing because, for some reason, this story doesn't seem to be getting much play in the blogosphere.
The cynic in me suspects that might be because it runs counter to the entire "evil plot by Obama/Reid/Rahm Emmanual/Corporate illuminati to sell out all that is good and decent" narrative so many of them have worked themselves into over the last several months. And, more fundementally, it challenges the rather widespread notion among modern Internet news consumers that the only stuff that happens (aside from evil plots by the Illuminati) is the stuff that happens in public.
The mythologizing of LBJ in recent weeks has been something to behold. And much like the application of 1933 analogies to make demands on how Obama should behave today, it's been largely a creation of people trying to fit their expectations of a mythic ideal into the reality of getting things done.
The Corporate Illuminati conspiracy you're describing has seemed all the more absurd when one considers that the Obama team has acted exactly as you'd expect from rational actors trying to navigate a difficult situation. I haven't agreed with them all the time, and surely they've made missteps, but it's a mistake to impute motive to tactical decisions. We out here have been relying on almost useless news coverage to understand the state of the debate.
October 5, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, using the mythic past as a benchmark for present and future action is the hallmark of reactionary thinking. Who knew there was such a conservative element in progressivism?
October 5, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart comment. The cheap seats in the rafters always cry foul the loudest while the court-side fans can't understand what the fuss is about.
October 6, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't stop these Obama apologist blogs, I'm sending someone to cut off your ear(mark)s.
October 5, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is because of the antidisestablishmentarianism thing, isn't it?
October 5, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is far too solicitous of forces that do not have the average working American's best interest at heart, IMO. And I would like to hear him use his rhetorical gifts to offer a sustained and substantive critique the Reaganite paradigm I've lived under my entire adult life. God knows that if you can't make an effective case proving the failures of laissez faire and the excesses of the military-industrial-energy complex after George W. Bush, you're just not paying attention. But enough about the media.
But what annoys me about the Obama-haters is that we HAVEN'T EVEN GOT A FREAKING BILL YET. Work waffling Congresspeople, advocate for the public option, attend rallies in support, sure. But to be convinced that Obama's selling us all down the river to serve his corporate masters, and to denigrate him in the extreme fashion of so many in the blogosphere, well, it's just silly when it's not actually harming the political debate. This cynicism has only the most tenuous connection to reality, and tends to breed indifference to politics as it must be practiced in the current environment in which we live.
There's huge cohort on the lefty blogs that think an imperfect bill means that we have to go Nader the next chance we get. I am apparently in a minority that remembers the last time we decided "None of the Above" was the best option, and we may never recover from that decision.
October 5, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember.
October 5, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something else worth noting about LBJ. He had Everett McKinley Dirksen to work with on civil rights legislation, and not Mitch McConnell, whose idea of bipartisanship is buy partisanship at whatever the price.
http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm
Those conducting the filibuster were southern democrats (we call them Republicans now). Ev Dirksen would be disowned by his party today, except I think he would disown them first.
October 5, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know that is a good point professor. But remember, you could always lure Dirksen to your side of the table with some gooooooooood scotch. hahaah
October 6, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a promise to vote for the Marigold as the National Flower.
October 6, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This story has gotten some play... but you are a better writer and have more complete thoughts than I do...
Kudos to you.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/ickyma/2009/10/oil-and-water.php?ref=reccafe
October 5, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your premise may hold water, and then again it may not - only time will tell.. Specifically, what is included, or NOT INCLUDED in the bill, after the final conference, is what actually matters)...
That said, nothing articulated herein gives solace when PUBLIC COMMENTS, by the administration, are made, such as, "the public option is a 'mere sliver', in relation to the entire bill" or "we are open to any another 'alternative to the public option' that gives competition and choice" or "we have agreement on 80% of the bill"... Comments such as these lead most observers to conclude that "1/2 a loaf is better than none" is really the end goal of this administration...
Publically, the President has not voiced any "absolute commitment" to the "public option", but instead has consistently echoed the same old and tired theme of seeking "Bi-Partisanship" and/or "Compromise"...
Further, after the fiasco that has occurred in the Senate Finance Committee, whose legislative version appears to have been written entirely by the Health Insurance Lobby, coupled with continually missed deadlines, in an attempt to solely appease one or two Republican Senators, who will not for a bill that includes a "public option", does not lead one to conclude that the prospects of the "public option" appear bright... (Or, in the alternative, the end result becomes so water-downed that it would be ineffective)...
Additionally, the President is quite precise in the words he uses in his addresses and speeches. Indeed, he is a "word-smith" of the highest degree. Yet, a close examination of his stated goals of the Health Bill is actually mirrored in the Senate Finance Committee Bill, almost verbatim... That fact alone is quite worrisome, not to mention the "closed-door deals" with Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Industry, entered into BEFORE the introduction of the first committee bills in either the House and/or the Senate...
For someone as verbally skilled as the President, just a simple, public statement, that he fully and completely endorses the "public option" to be included in the final bill would eliminate this hand-wringing on the internet...
Yet, for some unfathomable reason, he is unable to do this, and instead goes out of his way to side-step the issue at every opportunity in public. (Even as recently as today, when speaking to a group of medical professionals, no mention of the necessity of a "public option" was made by the President) - Is that not an oddity, if the "public option" is CENTRAL to the reduction of costs of health insurance?
Please note that the premise of publically stating that he supports this "option" would in no way hinder the administration's ability to "work behind the scenes", as you so well have written...
I would hope that your perspective is correct and that I am in error; but I still have serious doubts about what this President is willing to actually fight for in this Health Insurance Bill. (In the back of my mind I still get the feeling that the President would be satisfied if he was able to sign ANY Health Insurance Bill, just as long as it makes it to his desk)...
I close by stating that President Obama campaigned on Reforming Health Care, instead what I see, to date, is solely an attempt at Health Insurance Reform...
These are just some of the issues that make observers think: "Hmmmm, what is really going on here"...
October 5, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, here's what people on the Internet don't get: tending to our emotional needs won't get the bill passed. Tending to the emotional needs of about 350 prima donnas in Congress will. Those two things are often mutually exclusive. Pick one.
October 6, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey ... Now now wow . . .
Don JD as an independent and voter for Obama apparently has entered the tent just recently.
It's hard to break the old GOP mentality of the leadership of someone like Bush and the Gang of Tom Delay who'd simply order, "Shit . . ." and the rest of the congressional GOP lemmings would dutifully ask, "Where?"
Reminds me of that "progessive conservative" ol' Mister Bluster Butt . . .
~OGD~
October 6, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct, Mr. OldenGoldenDecoy, in your assessment that I have a problem comprehending how certain Democrats cannot hold to their own most basic Party Platform tenants, in this case, regarding REAL health insurance reform and universal coverage...
As Reich has repeatedly articulated, "the Republicans are a Party of Discipline, and the Democrats are the Party of Ideas"...
If I were to reverse the current situation with Republicans wanting to reform health insurance, it would have already been done and signed by the President and they would have rolled over the Democratic Minority without blinking an eyelid.
Why the Democrats, with a huge majority in the House, a hefty majority in the Senate, and with the Office of President in hand, are unable to come to a consensus of what is in the best interests of the common man, amazes me... Why the Democratic Party seeks "bi-partisanship" in an atmosphere of extreme hostility amazes me.
Just imagine what could be accomplished if the Democratic Party had the same discipline as the Republicans. Just imagine if a "Tom-Delay-Type" was the LEADER of the Senate for the Democrats.
Yes sir, you are correct, it is hard to break the former GOP mentality, because I keep asking myself: "Why cannot the Democratic Party ACT IN UNISON"????
October 7, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not actually that concerned with Obama's behavior over the public option. Whether or not he does or does not sell out certain "liberal" advocacy groups that helped back his candidacy on this issue is not my primary focus.
The focus is: 47-59% of the public supports national health insurance. In the House, 20% of representatives have cosponsored HR 676. To my knowledge, a total of four senators verbally support single payer health care, with one actually sponsoring a bill.
This is the real story. The public option is window dressing.
October 6, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wish I had your sunny faith here, Steve. What's coming out of the Finance committee doesn't even adequately regulate the insurance exchanges, much less include a public option. If present moves are signs of the efficacy of Obama's arm-twisting, I'm not feeling good about it.
Don't know the LBJ stories, but there is a point to not publicizing the beating of heads as you're doing it. Which is why those stories came out well after, I suppose. Pressure is ineffective if you make people look like they're caving to it. Which makes me wonder why Obama's making such a public showing of it. Just niggling my nabobs of negativity, here....
October 6, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check the sourcing of the story. It came from Congressional sources, not executive.
October 6, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it's not about "my sunny faith," one way or another. It's about a story that's not penetrating into some blogs that purport to report news. And, to some extent, it's about my suspicion that that's not happening because those bloggers have locked themselves into a grand theory about what's "really" going on and this story is inconsistent with that theory and, thus, discounted.
Personally, to go with a platonic allusion, I start with the assumption that all political reporting, including this story, is a shadow projected onto the wall, not the reality. You look at the shadow, try to guess what its the shadow of and then you look at the clues regarding who's projecting the shadow and try to reason out why they want you to see it. To me, that's the only way to try to understand the news in this age of debased journalism served up by witless stenographers.
If you do that, you'll be wrong a lot because you'll frequently have too little information to make that judgment. But better to be wrong that way than to foolishly assume that the shadow is reality, particularly when you're doing so because it conforms to your pre-conceived notions. The latter is what far too many people in the blogosphere do.
October 6, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
No diss intended with the 'sunny' bit.
The whole game of 'who's talking and why?' is mostly played by people trying to confirm their own bias (whether upbeat or downbeat): there are too few constraints on making of it what you want. So why are congressional aides playing up the Obama involvement in talks? Beats the hell out of me.
As for actual events, it's hard to argue they fit into a pattern indicating a strong senate bill. At this point they're even fighting for the insurance exchange. It's just not good news.
October 6, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The correct term for the people running the "conspiracy" is Lucrescenti. (I know, 'cuz I invented it!)
Seriously, it doesn't have to be a deep dark direct conspiracy in order to be a big problem. For years, we've allowed corporations some of the rights of persons without specifically requiring ethical or moral actions. (The individuals running, working for and investing in the corporations are supposed to apply their individual ethics to their actions but we all know this isn't the way it actually works.) The military has the same problem, which it has solved to some extent by specifically requiring that soldiers act ethically. Obviously, the results are mixed but at least the army isn't entirely overrun by the same "bad is good" nonsense that has allowed legitimate commerce to become a--hole capitalism over the years.
If the prima donnas in commerce could admit to the thrall in which they are held, it would be a lot easier to get a few things done.
I wanted to wait until this post went below the fold to say this because I'm not very good at describing it yet and did not want to hijack the thread but would be curious to hear your thoughts.
October 6, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that, if the Democrats pass a bill with an expensive mandate, inadequate subsidies, and toothless regulation of the insurance industry, that would be worse than passing no bill at all. The end result would be a policy disaster and resounding electoral defeat in 2010.
What I'm guessing is that the leaders of the Democratic Party know this as well. And if they think that they will continue to enjoy broad electoral support after passing such a bill, then they deserve to be driven from office in droves and for eternity. While I don't think Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, or anybody from Arkansas not named Clinton is particularly bright, I just don't think they're quite that stupid.
October 6, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the idea is that they pass a bill giving a trillion dollars to the HC industry starting in 2013, at which time people will have forgotten who is responsible for the almighty mess they start seeing.
It's not politically dumb, it's just corrupt.
October 6, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this post. Am so tired of man on the street know it alls and armchair warriors, I could puke.
Civil Rights was an idea whose moment had come and you had leaders who lined up on the side of what they thought was simply decent and right. And nobody was going to lose money on the deal. Get that straight. Corporate interests didn't conflict, only the interests of bigots. Not the case here. Not the case on most of what Obama needs to do.
Seems like everybody's forgotten just how loud money talks, and how hard it fights.
October 6, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Confirmation bias.
And the Internet has fired up that tendency to the nth degree. The story in question isn't getting play because it's not consistent with what people believe.
For the same reason, the SNL skit gets lots of attention, because that's consistent with what those on the left, and the right, believe.*
I guess at this stage, I'm still surprised Obama's ratings are where they are, given the unending concern trolling that goes on in new media and old media.
*I think Fred Armisen's portrayal of Obama is dreadful: not funny, and not insightful.
October 6, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think this article doesn't quite say what you claim it says...
first of all, i am suspicious reading it in a chicago publication. i presume, it is coming from an obama supporter from a friendly town... i wouldn't be surprised if the topic was suggested to him...
in any case, that doesn't matter. the article states right up front that for months the administration dithered on the public option. they certainly weren't advocating for it. and then there's that secret deal they cut with pharma and hospitals. plenty of reason to be suspicious now.
now we see an article describing all this behind the scene action by the administration on behalf of "some form" of a public option. i don't doubt that without progressives, public option would not be as close to realization as it is now and that's nice to hear, but, i'm not the only one that thinks obama's given a lot of great speeches but fallen short in the execution.
we need to keep the pressure up. obama has waffled on DOMA, DADT, state secrets, torture investigations, FISA and so on... don't get me wrong, i voted for him. i like him. hell, i think he Wants to do the right thing. and i agree that people may be overlooking some things that obama is doing to get a public option, but, this is no time to let up on the pressure OR the suspicion.
i'll be a lot more happy with obama when he actually does some of the things he was elected to do. just not offer up the ol' college try with the net result at our expense...
October 6, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
“The White House presence in the merger will be huge, and it has to be,” a senior Democratic Senate aide said Monday. “President Obama will have to weigh in on the most difficult issues.”…
Democratic sources say Obama is going to have to make the final call on the controversial issues, including whether to push for the public insurance option.
With the public option still polling well, no Dems want to be blamed for its demise, and Senate Dems — mindful that they’ll take it on the chin if it’s not included — are handing some responsibility to the White House to signal the way forward.
In a curious twist, Harry Reid is more heavily identified than the White House is right now with the push for the public option. While Reid is publicly insisting that some form of it will survive, Robert Gibbs couldn’t bring himself to say at yesterday’s press briefing that the administration is pushing for its inclusion. He said only that Obama continues to want a bill that “ensures choice and competition.”
So Senate Dems are in effect saying to Obama: “Tell us what to do. It’s your call.” Which, of course, it is, though it’s also Harry’s call, and depending on the outcome, he’ll get a fair amount of credit — or blame.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/senate-dems-to-obama-please-tell-us-what-to-do-on-public-option/
we'll see. It'll be interesting
October 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink