The Road Not Taken
Adam Green is cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee which “is organizing Obama campaign staffers, volunteers, donors, and voters to push Obama to fight at www.YesWeStillCan.org.” He shared with me his thoughts on what an aggressive White House effort to secure 60 votes for a public option would have looked like:
Since you asked, “What exactly should they be doing?” here is the list of what it would have looked like if Obama was willing to exert leverage and actually fight.
— Threaten to veto any bill without public option.
— Barnstorm Connecticut before Lieberman dug in his heels (Connecticut, where Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006, and where voters want the public option by 3 to 1).
— Barnstorm across Maine (where voters want the public option 2 to 1, Independents 3 to 1, and where only 24% of voters like Snowe’s trigger). Instead, Emanuel met behind-closed-doors with a senator out of touch with her own constituents and tried to cut a deal for a trigger nobody wants.
— Publicly leak that Obama is furious that he went to bat for Lieberman’s chairmanship, and Lieberman is threatening to filibuster reform.
— Publicly leaking that reconciliation is on the table — and will be used to push an even stronger public option if Senate Dems don’t get in line.
Bonus:
— For Reid…threating Lieberman’s committee chairmanship, and reconciliation with stronger public option.
— For Pelosi…drawing a line in the sand now. Saying a bad reform bill simply won’t be brought up for a vote…forcing 30 million people to give money to insurance companies is not reform.
— For progressives in the senate like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Roland Burris, and Sherrod Brown…saying publicly that this bill is unacceptable and they will not support cloture.
That’s what leverage looks like. Supposedly pro-reform Democrats have failed to exert any real leverage in this fight. You can’t not fight and then expect the public to compromise…doesn’t work like that.
(cc photo by sun dazed)
We’ll call this the road not taken. It might have worked. And if you genuinely believe that no bill would be better than a bill with no public option, but that a bill with a level-playing field public option would be worth supporting, I think this would have been a smart idea.
But it’s a high-risk strategy. There’s a very good chance that if you say “no bill without a public option” that you get no bill. Green has no proposal here to get Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu and there’s no guarantee this would have worked on Snowe, Collins, and Lieberman. But by bringing hardball to bear on the latter three you’d be risking blowing up any prospect of a deal on climate change.
I agree, however, that a credible threat of reconciliation would have done a lot of good. This has been, I think, the major tactical problem with the health reform push. But people sometimes write about this as if there are 57 Senate Democrats itching to do a health care reconciliation bill, being held back by Barack Obama and Harry Reid. As best I can tell, though, the reason the Senate leadership keeps taking reconciliation “off the table” is that there’s very little support for it among the caucus. For starters, Kent Conrad, who’d be in charge of a reconciliation bill, seems to be against it. For another thing, there are doubtless many Senators who are much more comfortable being one vote out of 60 or 61 for a bill than they are of being one vote out of 50 for a bill that “Republicans and moderate Democrats” oppose.
But I certainly agree with Green that the lack of support among senators for majoritarian procedures is a problem. I’ve been blogging myself hoarse about this for over a year. I think it’s naïve, however, to think of the Senate as composed of 58 die-hards plus Lieberman and Nelson. The rot runs deep in terms of getting more serious about the interests of the American people than individual members’ countermajoritarian perks.
68 Responses to “The Road Not Taken”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 15th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
There was never support for reconciliation. No one would have taken a veto threat seriously. This would have blown up the bill. The problem is the U.S. Senate, not Barack Obama.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
It’s okay to act like you won.
Purity tests are supposed to be for winners not for losers. Democrats are acting like losers and Republicans are acting like insane losers.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I really doubt that much electoral pressure can be applied to Lieberman even in the best of worlds. Lieberman won in 2006 because of Republicans, and if he can manage to win in 2012, (and I’m not sure he can) it will because of Republicans. He has burned his bridges pretty well with the Democrats. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a state as blue as Connecticut even the Republicans want health care reform, but they’re still Republicans which means they’re willing to tolerate a bit of conservatism.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
In the road not taken, Obama says what he wants, garner’s support, leads a movement, and when the bill comes up short, he can say, “we tried hard, and this is what we got.” And that actually gives people a better impression of the Democrats because they stood up for something they believed in and were willing to face down Republicans and other holdouts over the issue, rather than running around begging, begging, begging.
A lot of voters are thinking, “If Obama can’t stand up to Joe Lieberman, how can he stand up to Osama Bin Laden?”
Look, Reagan raised taxes on the middle class and compromised with Gorbachev. But everyone “knew” where he stood on the issues of cutting taxes and confronting the Soviet Union.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Bingo. Which is why you won’t see many base lefties slink away as they’re expected to and accept that they’re all nice people doing hard work and we got the best we can. This is has been a farce and the base will not gladly accept it. (But, yes, we still realize the bulk of the blame lies with recalcitrant assholes in congress, that still doesn’t make the admin’s faults in this right.)
Furthermore, what is left may reasonably be called “reform”, but we’re long past time where we can keep talking about it in lofty, epochal terms. This is no longer the major reform hoped for. It’s just another tune up like we’ve been doing for decades.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
While I think this is true, why do you think there’s so little support for at least SOME procedure more closely linking one’s position within the party to one’s support for the party’s ideological and political goals?
As it is the senators from the states with the most Democratic votes are currently the most likely to be played for chumps. And that is true for Republicans too. A counter-majoritarian system sidelines the members most in touch with the median party voters. It also leads to a feeling of political powerlessness, as the vast majority of a party’s national supporters are totally isolated from the Senators that become the pivotal votes on most legislation.
While I don’t think we could ever get to true majoritarian governance in the Senate, perhaps we could achieve a “no confidence” vote type system in which the party caucus could call a snap vote on majority leader and committee assignments. There just needs to be a much closer alignment in incentives between marginal Senators and the greater portion of their party.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I honestly think the only way one could possibly think this way is either a) not understanding how pointless the “level-playing field” public options on the table are, or b) seeing things through the myopic eyes of a political operative. On the policy merits, there just doesn’t seem to be a shred of argument to me.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“The Rot Runs Deep” isn’t quite as hopeful as “Yes We Can” but it appears to be more accurate.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
So, okay, I kind of like the Senate bill. I think.
But now Howard Dean is coming out and calling for the Senate bill to be killed.
Is this a game-changer, or is it not? Discuss.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “The rot runs deep in terms of getting more serious about the interests of the American people than individual members’ countermajoritarian perks.”
That’s going to be fixed.
You’ll know it when you see it.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Forcing 30 million people to buy crappy health insurance is not reform. Without a robust public option available on day one, we’re better off with no bill.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
It would be easier to accept the administration playing nice with health care if they would at least play hardball with something. I thought Nate Silver was making sense here–pick another issue which has more public support, like financial regulation, and stage a showdown over that.
If 2010 is like 2009–where Lieberman and Nelson just get whatever they want–then Dems just aren’t going to bother showing up in November.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Many progressives don’t seem to realize how weak the house/senate public options were. Both would be closed to most people, and because they would attract sicker people, they could have more expensive premiums than private insurance. Removing it changes almost nothing. A truly robust public option would have had rates tied to Medicare and been available for everyone. Since that was never an option, we have lost very little.
This seems to be turning into an ideological issue for many people. From a policy standpoint, the house/senate bill public option was never that important. The effects of this bill are almost identical to the effects of the public option version of this bill.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
@rmwarnick:
Not even the House could pass a “robust public option”. If Nancy Pelosi couldn’t even get the votes for a public option tied to Medicare rates then I don’t see what you’d expect to get in the Senate.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Why not pass the Healthcare bill and then pass the Public Option thru reconciliation? If you have 51 angry votes now, wouldn’t you have 51 angry votes later?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
The House bill minus the public option would be an OK bill, provided that reconciliation legislation for a public plan is announced the next day.
That said, it’s a shitty bill that won’t really do a whole lot. There’s nothing at all to prevent insurers from raising rates as high as they want, which will cost the government loads of money–money which can be better spent on goodies.
I mean, hooray for it. Hooray for SCHIP. This won’t have a large impact on the health care system, though.
Obama didn’t do this because he didn’t want a public option. He was lying about that, just like he was lying about torture.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Forcing 30 million people to buy crappy health insurance is not reform
This incorrect claim has been repeated many times. The article cited above makes this claim also. The bill would not have put the 30-45 million uninsured Americans into the public option. It would have put them into the exchanges to buy pooled insurance from private companies. Only 5-10 million people would have ended up in the public option. The exchanges are the center of the bill, and they survive. Had it not been for the public option, the exchanges may have been the source of the ideological fight.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Obama is the President first and a Democrat second. He is President for the next three years and has more objectives than just engaging in a scorched earth political battle for one plank in the overall Health Care Bill that in the end would have only benefitted a small minority and burned up all his political capital in the process. The President has to be an adult, take what he can get, and then move on. He doesn’t get the option of acting like child when he doesn’t get everything he wants on an issue. If he did, he wouldn’t have been the person for whom I voted.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
But now Howard Dean is coming out and calling for the Senate bill to be killed.
Is this a game-changer, or is it not? Discuss.
Um…no. It means exactly nothing, just as the 30 billion screeching posts on DKos (and here) the past couple days collectively mean. Rockefeller and Sherrod Brown, two of the three big public option Senate advocates, have both come out in favor of the bill as it now stands, and Sanders isn’t an idiot.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Why not pass the Healthcare bill and then pass the Public Option thru reconciliation? If you have 51 angry votes now, wouldn’t you have 51 angry votes later?
You can absolutely do that, as Ezra pointed out today. However, you have to wait for next year’s budget to do so. But if you have 51 Senators willing to use reconciliation for this (and I’m not sure that you do now or ever did, or ever will), then it’s definitely doable.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Only 5-10 million people would have ended up in the public option.
4 million actually, and the costs would have been higher than plans on the exchange. It was more or less worthless already, which is why it’s so hilarious to hear everyone whining about it now. The time to threaten to kill the bill was when House Blue Dogs were telling Pelosi they couldn’t vote for a robust public option. Now, people just look like they never actually had any idea what was going on or what the bill was about.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
He is President for the next three years and has more objectives than just engaging in a scorched earth political battle for one plank in the overall Health Care Bill that in the end would have only benefitted a small minority and burned up all his political capital in the process.
I heard a quote yesterday about Lieberman that I liked: do democrats want a scapegoat or a bill?
Opposing the whole bill because of the removal of the weak public option has no basis in policy. The only reason for opposing it is to make an ideological statement (or vent anger).
December 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those scared and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. (Theodore Roosevelt)
Obama is a meek and timid soul or he is a traitorous fascist who his getting exactly what he bargained for in secrecy last summer. Either way. It is Obama’s fault. I’m tired of these self-congratulating poseurs (B+ my butt he’s an F if there ever was one). What a disgusting disappointment he is.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The rot runs deep:
Baucus
Bayh
Conrad
Landrieu
Lieberman
the Nelson brothers (FL & NE)
Senators from the WalMart state
The White House revealed their stance when Rahm Emanuel threatened progressive groups running ads against rotting corpora-crats.
Now that the bill’s watered down, Obama is pushing for unity. Who will hold out for goodies for their state?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Yep, you can likely add a public option, Medicare option, or both through reconciliation whenever you’ve got 50 votes to do it and are considering a budget. Maybe the Wyden plan too (which in my view is just as crucial, if not moreso, at this stage of the game).
Oh, and the only thing on the Obama list that even sounds plausible is appealing directly to the voters in Maine. And that is assuming one of the ladies in Maine is basically ready to pull a Specter, because they can’t stay Republicans and let a Democratic President come into their state and dictate votes to them.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
HOWARD DEAN: KILL THE BILL
From http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/15-6 (and on Daily Kos –for those looking for a progressive blog)
“In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.
Dean said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview, which is set to air at 5:50 PM today on Vermont Public Radio, political reporter Bob Kinzel confirms to me.
The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respsected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal. In an excerpt Kinzel gave me, Dean says:
“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”
Kinzel added that Dean essentially said that if Democratic leaders cave into Joe Lieberman right now they’ll be left with a bill that’s not worth supporting.
Dean had previously endorsed the Medicare buy-in compromise without a public option, saying that the key question should be whether the bill contains enough “real reform” to be worthy of progressives’ support. Dean has apparently concluded that the “real reform” has been removed at Lieberman’s behest — which won’t make it easier for liberals to swallow the emerging compromise.”
December 15th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The point is that there was no movement led by Obama to build public support for a health care reform bill of the progressive variety. If he were to have “barnstormed” as Adam put it, he could have built the kind of public support necessary to encourage Nelson, Landrieux etc. to support the effort. The only reason they are “hesitant” now is because health care reform became toxic on the right and the tea party folks drug the reform numbers into the toilet in the month of August. If the overall support for HCR was stronger and reform was not so darned “controversial” then the conservadems would be on board. The Public option became controversial because the Administration stood idly by while the tea party folks barnstormed the nation with lies. After all, this was Obama’s theory of change put forth in the campaign. Use your list and your salesmanship to build a movement of public support for ideas that ordinarily are framed as too liberal to fly. Leverage that popular support into legislation. No one can argue that Obama did that with HCR. He cut deals with PHRMA that dropped the most progressive elements at the beginning to defang some portion of the opposition and then sat on his ass while the Baucus gang hashed out the details of the deal. That is the exact opposite of the Obama theory of change. Cut secret deals with interest groups and slide reform in the back door was not part of the deal with Obama. Campaigning hard for the progressive elements of the bill was part of the deal. That it didn’t happen is a woeful failure of leadership.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
How do you pressure Lieberman? He’s probably not going to be reelected, that’s the whole reason he’s able to go rogue like this.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“You can absolutely do that, as Ezra pointed out today. However, you have to wait for next year’s budget to do so. But if you have 51 Senators willing to use reconciliation for this (and I’m not sure that you do now or ever did, or ever will), then it’s definitely doable.”
Obama was in the Senate and knows how it works. I’m surprised he’d threaten going the reconciliation route – which he did in the early summer – and not have the votes. Out of the 50 votes, who isn’t on board? Conrad?
Matt
“For another thing, there are doubtless many Senators who are much more comfortable being one vote out of 60 or 61 for a bill than they are of being one vote out of 50 for a bill that “Republicans and moderate Democrats” oppose.”
Really? Even though I don’t believe the support is extensive as the nominally-progressive doomsayers assert – and the opposition much stronger than they assert – I think it’s there.
Are these Senators afraid of the “special interests”? What about supporting their President?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/rep-capuano-tells-fellow_n_392685.html
“When House Democrats gathered on Friday for their end-of-the week caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol, caucus chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) told the group he wanted them to hear first from Rep. Michael Capuano, who’d just returned from a primary campaign for the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy.
Larson asked Capuano, who finished in second place, to share the wisdom he learned on the campaign trail.
Capuano took to the microphone, looked out at his colleagues and condensed what he’d learned into two words.
“You’re screwed,”
December 15th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Let me count the number of things removed from the bill that could have either placed downward pressure on premiums or protected consumers from predatory health insurance practices:
1) Employer mandate for every business.
2) Public option tied to medicare rates.
3) Public option that could compete alongside private plans in the proposed exchange.
4) A public option with significant subsidies for middle class families.
5) A medicare buy-in option for those 55 and over.
6) Capping health insurance overhead to no more than 15% of total costs. (Not included in the Senate bill.)
7) Removing the health insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption. (Not included in Senate bill.)
8)Capping premiums.
9) Allowing drug importation (re-importation).
10) Allowing an independent panel of experts to review Medicare billing practices and reduce fraud, abuse, and other wasteful practices.
11) A public option with a trigger.
12) A public option with an opt-in mechanism.
You tell the critics to grow up and recognize that we weren’t being given anything to begin with so why should we whine about losing what little we have? I tell that you we lost everything we wanted and got nothing. I specifically voted for Obama over Clinton because he told us during the primary that he didn’t support mandates. Now I’m told there will be little attempt to reduce the premiums on my privately provided insurance and that you’ll even TAX some of my benefits. I negotiated fucking HARD for those benefits!
Don’t you people recognize a political disaster when you see it!
December 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Alan: Fun fact, you just listed nine senators. Throw just two more Democratic senators onto the pile of “rot” (Kay Hagan and Arlen Specter, perhaps?) and it turns out we only have 49 non-rotten Senators. Which is worth keeping in mind.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Threatening to veto any bill without a public option would have been recognized as an obvious bluff, and would have served no purpose other than possibly backing the administration into an uncomfortable corner. There’s zero chance that Obama will veto any remotely palatable bill that the Democratic Congress produces, and everybody knows that.
None of those “things Obama could have done” sounds at all promising to me, and several of them seem likely to not only fail, but to backfire.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
There was never support for reconciliation. No one would have taken a veto threat seriously. This would have blown up the bill.
Affirming the consequent…….
December 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
This is not true. The basis in policy (and still more, in politics) is that the mandates are still there, and now there is no alternative to being forced to buy overpriced crap from the insurance companies. I don’t think the House can, or should, pass a bill like that, and if they do the Republicans will successfully beat Democrats over the head with mandates all next year.
I’m starting to thing the only way forward at this point is further retrenchment. What should be passed now is a “clean” insurance regulation bill, no mandates to piss off voters, no subsidies (very regrettably) to extend coverage but give phony fiscal conservatives an excuse to filibuster (or a place to hang Stupak language).
The insurance companies will hate it, of course, since it will cut into their profits without compensating them out of our pockets. But if their opposition prevents Democrats from passing something that simple and that broadly popular, we’re doomed.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The problem is that they didn’t try any of those things. We can’t credibly say that they gave it their best efforts.
Progressives look weak, and they feel like Obama does not have their backs. We’re eleven months out from an election, and the base just feels like it got stabbed in the back– even agreeing with you that this bill does more good than harm. This from a president and a congress they haven’t really trusted for months.
If you want them to turn out in 2010, you’re going to need to give progressives at least two or three high profile wins in succession here– DADT, DOMA, Cap/Trade off the top of my head. Given the experience of the past year, that seems increasingly unlikely.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
If he were to have “barnstormed” as Adam put it, he could have built the kind of public support necessary to encourage Nelson, Landrieux etc. to support the effort.
Look, Obama couldn’t build enough public support in their states to get himself those state’s electoral votes, in an election he was otherwise winning handily nationwide. I just don’t get the idea that if he personalized the issue in those states, thereby making it all about himself, he would somehow HELP the cause in those states.
The only way to make this work is to allow Democratic Senators from red states to maintain some semblance of independence from Obama. Most of these ideas for what Obama could have done are therefore simply counterproductive.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
DTM, I don’t think it’s a matter of targeting specific states and senators. It’s about the overall popularity of the effort and the degree to which it became so “controversial.” The more energy that conservative opposition to the plan had, the more likely the conservative Dems were to oppose the effort. So more active involvement to bolster support for the bill could have made a difference.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
@36 Look weak? Progressives are weak. If Progressives were strong Lamont would be the Senator from Connecticut instead of Lieberman. If Progressives were strong, they would have been able to get a single payer plan, what Progressives really wanted, through both houses. If Progressives were strong they wouldn’t hide behind the name Progressive when what they really are is traditional Liberals.
You know who’s strong? Independents and moderates who sway in the breeze and base most of their political decisions on a irrational beliefs, slogans, and perceptions. The only way to win anything is to swing that collection of irrational malcontents to support your positions. They are getting exactly what they want or, at least, they are getting exactly what they voted for.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Boy, you are hard to convince. I think you are living in a particular little bubble of time. People do not have to behave like this, because they didn’t before, and the animal hasn’t really changed.
Obama could have done much more than he did. What would have fit his style best is the big speech. I know people are criticizing that now as his only weapon, but if he had addressed the American people directly the way that he can, I believe he could have convinced them.
Perhaps he doesn’t really believe in universal health care, and he is getting what he wanted.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
DTM, I don’t think it’s a matter of targeting specific states and senators.
It is to those Senators. Making the bill more popular nationally means nothing to them if it becomes less popular among their voters.
So more active involvement to bolster support for the bill could have made a difference.
Of course Obama did give speeches, send out e-mails, and so on. I think what people are asking for is precisely a very personal level of involvement targeted at specific Senators–and that really makes no sense, given where these Senators come from.
Seriously–people need to think through the idea that what Senator Nelson from NEBRASKA needed to become more helpful was just for Obama to become really visible and uncompromising on this issue.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Don Williams:
“we’re screwed”.
Read that link and you’ll know why the buzzer sounded on health care. At a time when voters really cared about the economy, Democrats, to their credit, spent a bunch of time and capital on health care reform because it is a long term priority. I’d add a potential misfire is that as others have noted, this bill should have been passed much much earlier. Hopefully, the process helped defined the limits of what is possible.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Don’t forget the red shoes..that’s an essential part. He’d give a national address, put on the red shoes, then click together the heels three times. Then we would have won and the troops would have come home for the Middle East, Gitmo (and the prisoners) would disappear, CO2 levels would drop, and unemployment would drop below 5%. Most important of all, there would be a public Health Care plan for about 1% of the total population that probably would be more expensive than the private plans.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Which is reason to blame the caucus.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party, far from being an instrument to achieve reform, is in fact an obstacle.
Given the fiscal disarray of the government, the various deficits, the lobbyists, and so forth; it is becoming increasingly obvious that the federal government is good for killing Muslims or bailing out bankers – but not for much else. Given current trends in global finance and projected advances in guerrilla warfare techniques, it won’t even be good for that much longer.
The healthcare debacle makes clear that progressives need to find other venues to advance their goals.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party, far from being an instrument to achieve reform, is in fact an obstacle.
I hate to be the one to say it, but….
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/stopme/chapter02.html
December 15th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Re Duncan at 44: “It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party, far from being an instrument to achieve reform, is in fact an obstacle.”
Er.. “obstacle” suggests a honesty which I don’t think applies here.
If your fellow soldier waits until you are heavily engaged in battle with the enemy and then shoots you in the back from behind, he is not an “obstacle”.
If, while you are away from home, someone knocks on your door soliciting for a charity — and then ties up your wife and rapes her once admitted, that person is not an “obstacle”.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Matt, I agree with your point that there aren’t 58 senators who want to do strong health reform. But the simple point being made is that no one did these kind of things to credibly pressure those who are not supporters. You agree that these suggestions are good ones. It follows, then, that they should have been done. It doesn’t follow that this would have worked, but without these efforts, even less was possible. Concede gracefully that this is correct, and THEN go back on the jihad about the fact that four or six senators are complete wimps and what a bummer that is. You’re right about that, too.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Actually, it just hit me. This is what the Democrats should have done: propose a bill which creates a single-payer insurance system, on the condition that once a year every member of the caucus has to deliver a speech from the floor about how much they love terrorists and hate freedom. In their underwear.
Democrats get meaningful health-care reform. Republicans get to humiliate Democrats. Win-fucking-win.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“If he were to have “barnstormed” as Adam put it, he could have built the kind of public support necessary to encourage Nelson, Landrieux etc. to support the effort. The only reason they are “hesitant” now is because health care reform became toxic on the right and the tea party folks drug the reform numbers into the toilet in the month of August.”
This is total conjecture, except the part about the teabaggers sending support for the bill into the toilet, which is simply wrong:
“Amid the mercurial American public, support for healthcare reform may have slid over the summer (blame it on the doldrums perhaps, if not individual performances), but now it’s fall — and the support seems to be ticking back up.
In August, 53% of Americans said they wanted healthcare change; in September, 57% were behind it. In August, 42% thought the nation couldn’t afford to tackle the issue at the moment; in September, that number had ebbed to 39%.
These numbers are found in a new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/09/poll-american-health-reform.html
December 15th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The healthcare debacle makes clear that progressives need to find other venues to advance their goals.
What venues? The Green Party? The Natural Law Party? If you want to lose what little influence you have, that’s a great strategy.
Maybe progressives should consider changing their goals to something a bit more realistic.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Progressives need a nationally funded sub-party that only operates in primaries. They have the beginnings of this with the small donor funding infrastructure; the next step is to direct those donations in a more organized way.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Look, as long as the plan was premised on respecting the Senate’s insane rules, the plan was going to suck. Obama should have been laying the groundwork since the beginning of his Presidency to restore majority rule to the Senate. And contrary to what some have claimed, that doesn’t take a supermajority to accomplish. The Republicans had it figured out back in 2005. As described in the Wikipedia article on the Nuclear Option:
In other words, all we need is 50 Senators plus VP Joe Biden. The problem is that both Obama and Reid (and probably Emanuel as well) actually believe in the Senate rules, rather than seeing them as the deadliest threat to progressive reform. “Collegiality” on Capitol Hill is one of our biggest problems. Our legislators should hate their enemies, not socialize with them. If soldiers acted on the battlefield the way that Senators do in Washington, they’d be court-martialed in an instant.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Sigh. Could you please explain the logical connection between a state populace willing to support one persons’ candidacy and a the support of a populace for a policy? I could have sworn that several states that went for Gore nevertheless had their representatives vote for Bush’s AUMF, but maybe I’m wrong. I’m also sure that you did your research and you found these representatives constituencies opposed a strong public option by a definitive margin. Could you post this research?
I won’t comment on the difference between a President actively lobbying the public for one of his proposals – what was originally said – and your rephrasing this as “making it all about himself”.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:09 am
In other words, all we need is 50 Senators plus VP Joe Biden. The problem is that both Obama and Reid (and probably Emanuel as well) actually believe in the Senate rules . . .
You might consider the possibility that the problem is actually that there aren’t 50 Senators willing to change the rules. And it isn’t a mystery why that might be the case: if Senator #50 is sometimes also going to be Senator #51, then Senator #50 might prefer keeping rules in place that give Senator #51 more power.
Could you please explain the logical connection between a state populace willing to support one persons’ candidacy and a the support of a populace for a policy?
You realize you are making my point for me, right?
There is no such necessary connection, which is part of why it is even plausible that Senators from states that didn’t vote for Obama could nonetheless support his policy agenda, even on compromised terms. But what many people are de facto advocating is that Obama should have personalized the health care debate, such that it would have become a referendum on him, not the policy. That would forge the connection that we apparently agree need not be, and that would have been counterproductive because Obama needs the willing support of people who represent states and districts where he is not personally popular.
So yes, there is no necessary tight connection between Obama’s personal popularity and public sentiment on various items on his agenda. And Obama was smart not to create such a tight connection, because that would be a losing strategy. And yet that is what many people are de facto insisting he should have done.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:18 am
I won’t comment on the difference between a President actively lobbying the public for one of his proposals – what was originally said – and your rephrasing this as “making it all about himself”.
Sorry, I should have addressed this:
This is simply not a topic you can avoid. Obama did in fact lobby the public in favor of his health care proposal, many times (as an aside, my favorite is the people who claim he should have made a speech–he did, and it was on TV and everything).
But typically what people who claim Obama personally should have done more are really asking for would amount to Obama personalizing the debate. That is what “barnstorming” states is all about. That is what threatening to veto bills that didn’t meet his exact specifications would have been all about. In the end all that would have made the public debate about whether or not people wanted to support Obama.
Which might have been fine if he was trying to win a national popular vote on the subject. But it makes no sense when in fact he needs the votes of representatives from states and districts which don’t particularly like him.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:30 am
You do realize that your response is either completely insane or a deliberate lie, right? You were the one who said that it’s not rational to try to get public support for a policy if there was not enough public support for the man to be elected President.
Your words, no one else’s – I quoted you on it up above.
But you said just the opposite above!?!?!? Are you drinking, by any chance?
Oh, so now it’s “de facto” advocating. No, no one said that Obama should have ‘personalized’ the debate or that it should be “all about him”. Of course, you can’t quote where anyone actually said that, which is why you have to go with “de facto”, isn’t it?
And also of course, you have absolutely no idea about the level of support these particular policies enjoy in these problematic states represented by these problematic Congress critters. You just made that one up out of whole cloth. Next time: post some actual research about what people actually think in these particular states before asininely commenting on the subject with no regard for the actual facts on the ground.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:02 am
I thought I made myself clear. I do not mean forming a new party; I mean developing non-federal solutions. While these could also be state, local, or international, I personally instead prefer networked organizations that would be either transnational or local.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:03 am
To comment #5 Tyro: A lot of people are asking that? really? Complete nonsense. talk to real people and they will look at you crosseyed over that statement.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
You were the one who said that it’s not rational to try to get public support for a policy if there was not enough public support for the man to be elected President.
Um, no. Talk about putting words into someone’s mouth inaccurately.
It was fine for Obama to give a big televised speech to Congress in favor of health care reform, to use his webchats to support health care reform, to use his e-mail list to support health care reform, and so on. In their various ways those efforts end up having Obama speaking to audiences that are least potentially persuadable by Obama. What would be stupid would be for him to try to barnstorm states where he isn’t popular, or otherwise try to persuade red-state Senators to support his agenda by personalizing these issues in every possible way. That shouldn’t be a tough distinction to grasp–unless perhaps you are drinking, or aren’t inclined to criticial thinking about your own propositions.
No, no one said that Obama should have ‘personalized’ the debate or that it should be “all about him”.
That would be the outcome of what these people are suggesting Obama should have done. Sure, they don’t want to admit that explicitly, because doing so would make it clear why their suggestions are bad ideas. But that is indeed what would have happened if Obama had followed their suggested strategies.
And also of course, you have absolutely no idea about the level of support these particular policies enjoy in these problematic states represented by these problematic Congress critters.
This is simply nonresponsive to the point I am making. I’ll try this one more time, slowly, in case you are still drinking.
It is true that some of these policies are potentially popular in states where Obama himself is not popular (and yes, I can document how unpopular Obama himself is in these states if you would like me to). So think about that situation for a second, even if through your alcoholic haze: the policy itself is potentially popular, but Obama himself is not.
Have you thought about it? Thought seriously about it? OK, good. Now how would you go about trying to promote those policies in such states?
For example, having thought seriously about the fact that Obama himself is not popular in those states, do you think it would be a great idea to have Obama always be your chief spokesperson, giving weekly speeches, leading big rallies, barnstorming those states, threatening vetoes when he didn’t like some detail of the process of Congress, otherwise publicly threatening Senators when he didn’t like their behavior in the process, and on and on?
Try thinking seriously about how that would have affected the way the debate was covered in the media, the way that people would have talked about the debate among themselves, and so on. Have you thought about it? Thought really seriously about it?
Here is another idea. Suppose instead that for longish periods, Obama personally took more of a background role, and let the public debate be carried out mostly among members of Congress. This would in turn lead to politicians who have been elected in the relevant states taking a more prominent role in promoting those policies (to be sure as part of a compromise process, but nonetheless they would be part of the overall effort to promote the central policy). Can you see any possible merit in that approach? Are you still thinking seriously about the fact that even if these policies are potentially popular in those politicians’ states, Obama himself is not?
All this should really not be that hard grasp. People who think Obama should have made himself the constant focus of the public debate–and yes, that is what they are asking for amounts to, whether they want to admit it or not–clearly aren’t thinking the situation through, because that would have backfired in many states and districts whose representatives he needed to be willing participants in the process. Instead, he HAD to give those representatives themselves a central role to play in promoting the policy, which in turn required him to step back from the focus of the debate for long periods. It doesn’t work otherwise.
Oh well. The bottomline is that people are starting with the conclusion that they want to reach–that Obama MUST have been able to do more!–and then coming up with not particularly plausible theories about what he should have done in order to support this pre-formed conclusion. But since there is no way to definitively test their counterfactuals, and since these people are not inclined to critical analysis of their own reasoning, it is going to be impossible to get them to consider that maybe asking Obama personally to do a lot more is not particularly smart.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Um, yes:
Give it up. You’ve just said that no members of Congress that went for Gore in 2000 voted for AUMF.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Sigh. More word salad. Would you use words the way they are actually defined and commonly accepted? And would you at long last produce your research showing the unpopularity of the public option in those states with wavering senators who did not go for Obama, and by what margin?
Stringing words together at random and making fact-free assertions is no way to convince anybody.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Get yourself a dictionary.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Strong leadership is not a high risk strategy. Adam is right, Obama should have stood out in front, used his popularity, and made people afraid to oppose him.
Now, with his popularity around 50%, it probably is too late. He is widely viewed as weak now, and recovering what has now been lost likely is impossible. Obama likely has crippled himself by failing to lead.
If only Obama had done come out of the gate fighting. If only Obama had done what we elected him to do.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I think Lieberman believes, along with Yogi Berra, that when you come to a fork in the road, take it.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
[...] Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There’s no guarantee that it would have worked – Obama is not [...]
December 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
What about just traditional carrot/stick dynamic that both Obama and Reid have at their disposal? There’s a thousand ways a senator may want a favor from Obama, the most obvious being anything that has to do with the entire executive branch, which includes important regulatory agencies, the military, foreign policy. Every Senator has his important friends who seek high level appointments, ambassadorships, who need favorable regulatory treatment; every senator has military bases in his state, etc, has unique immigrant communities with their own pet foreign policy issues (ie, Iranians, Cypriots, Greeks, Armenians, Turks). Obama can offer the “carrot” (”send me a wish list Mary/Joe/Ben and we’ll see what I can do. And I known I can count on you for that cloture vote, right?) Obama can also give them the “stick” and instruct all his cabinet ministers and subordinates in the executive to make life exceedingly difficult whenever that Senator wants something done.
Reid has all sorts of carrots, big and small at his disposal, from discretion over “pork”, when their “pet” legislation will be dealt with by the overall Senate and committee assignments, to petty things that matter a lot to Senators like staff size and which offices they get.
Insiders know this stuff back and forth, its basically what they deal with all day and night. Its their job. Rahm could probably write a book on all the carrots and sticks he has at his disposal, not to mention I’m sure the dirt he has on each one of these people. If he wants to get really nasty, he can throw Obama’s donor network/political strategists to meet with potential primary opponents. Obama and Reid are making calculations that they’d rather not fight, that’s easier to lean on progressives (who have less power, still) than to squeeze the conservatives in their caucus using these tactics.
My recommendation: all progressive institutions, not just the netroots need to de-couple from traditional party institutions. MOney needs to flow through progressive institutions toward progressive candidates and other progressive institutions. I think that’s already in progress, but to the extent it isn’t official policy yet, it should be.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
[...] Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There’s no guarantee that it would have worked – Obama is not [...]
December 18th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
[...] Senators to support the public option and Medicare buy-in, or taking any of the other steps outlined here by Adam Green? There’s no guarantee that it would have worked – Obama is not [...]