Presidents Have a Hard Time Moving Public Opinion
Brendan Nyhan observes that while you can probably see the impact of Obama’s health care speech in public opinion on the issue, what you’re seeing is a lack of any lasting impact:
This, however, isn’t some odd scenario. It’s exactly what normally happens:
I’m emphasizing this point because there’s a misperception among journalists that the president can easily move public opinion. As we’ve seen again and again over the years, it’s simply not true, but the lack of followup by the press means that the lesson is never learned. (At most, a failure to move poll numbers is blamed on some specific aspect of president’s message or strategy.) So we repeat the same cycle over and over again.
I think this is a pretty insidious aspect of our political culture. It’s not just that media commentary overemphasizing the president’s ability to shape opinion is inaccurate, it has a really detrimental impact on people’s ability to organize and effect political change. People are strongly encouraged to believe that the key to achieving policy change is to elect a president who’s friendly to their views. Then when that turns out to be insufficient they don’t move on and do additional organizing in House and Senate races. Instead, they tend to become frustrated with the president they worked to elect. But why blame the victim of congressional obstruction rather than the perpetrator? Well, people always seem to find a way to tell themselves, if only the president had fought harder he would have gotten it. He must have lost because he didn’t really care.
In the real world, presidential preference-intensity and arm-twisting and such does matter. Some. But it only matters some. And in particular, people grossly overestimate the ability of the president to unleash some kind of public opinion tidal wave that forces congress to act.
80 Responses to “Presidents Have a Hard Time Moving Public Opinion”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 6th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Nyhan has a bad habit of being contrarian for the sake of it. Slate should hire him. So I’m going to go with the commenter who points out the drift during the summer.
There’s a likelihood that the trend would have reversed after Crazy Teabagger August ended, but Obama’s speech helped to make the point that the action had moved back to Congress.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
This comment by Matthew is, in my opinion, bullshit.
It is not some aimless force of Nature which is strangling public option — it is the sister-in-law of Matthew’s boss, John Podesta, and the other “Rabbit Ragu” Democrats.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/opinion/04rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Rabbit%20Ragu%20Democrats&st=cse
Of course, if you take opportune Grand Tours of Europe, you can avert your eyes from all that.
That leaves you free to criticize David Broder’s moral shortcomings on your return.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Obama’s speech stopped the crazy wingnut August parade and allowed the press to move onto another topic. It was more a ‘nothing to see here, move along’ speech for the media and the weathervanes in the Senate Finance Committee. In that respect, it was a huge hit. Some kind of bill is moving forward and there was a non-zero chance in August that the process would be derailed.
The truth is public opinion counts on election day and that’s it. We have a republic, not direct democracy. Once in office, elected officials can and should act on their own without sticking their finger in the wind on every issue, which for Democrats of all stripes means voting for health care, which is what even Blue Dogs run on every two years.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
A somewhat weird-ass analogy… Occasionally, I see people who are trying to promote some film idea of theirs cut a trailer without source material – they’ll basically write and produce a trailer instead of a film. The reason for this is that consumers, they don’t recognize that the advertising is created at the end, and to producers it strikes them as ass-backwards.
When I read “enthusiastic amateur” political sites (like dKos), I tend to see a huge emphasis on dramatic gestures, as if the political process was based around Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Similarly, we’ve got the emphasis on popular protest – arguably the most theatrical and least effective way of producing legislative change. People get absorbed in the theatrics, the moments as it were, and want to write history in those moments. Conversely, political change is expensive, slow and takes an enormous amount of time and effort.
The presidency tends to become a disproportionate part of this because it’s a singular position. There’s only one of them, so they must be superhuman!
October 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Moving public opinion with PR is exactly what a party with big congressional majorites and the pres should not do.
If the Dem program is the embodiment of pure awesomeness and step toward eutopia that Dems say it is, all the Dems have to do is pass it, and the program itself will move public opinion the Dem’s way. Nothing is stopping them from passing health care, cap and trade, card check, or anything else they might want to pass. The whole PR thing is neither here nor there, if the Dem’s agenda really is good, they should just pass it.
October 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
1) We all saw the White House stay totally silent for six months while health insurance lobbyists and the Republicans mounted a massive propaganda war backed by lots of Astroturf.
2) Which left the Democratic grass roots leaderless and divided.
3) Of course, it doesn’t make sense to promote REAL healthcare reform when you have Rahm and Nancy Ann Deparle over chatting up Billy Tauzis. And ole Billy handing out $23 Million PR contracts to David Axelrod’s old firm.
But on the other hand, you can’t promote a Sellout when the lobbyists haven’t yet decided what sellout you are going to make.
So you’re kinda stuck, huh.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Why don’t we just call up Zell Miller and invite him back to Washington?
It’s not like there’s any standard to which we are holding members of the Democratic Caucus.
Well –except that they must never speak out against corruption. That’s a real career destroyer.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:03 am
how can Joe Public be in favor of HRC when large, important, parts of HRC are still undefined, and those parts which are defined are wonky, procedural, bureaucrat-bait ?
don’t ask people to rate something that isn’t even defined.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I’m more interested in those 20% of Americans who favor the public option but not health care reform.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The problem is the link between all those Blue Dog Democrats selected by the DCCC and Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
The wider long term issue is why politicians say one thing to get elected and then do the opposite? It’s especially true for Presidents.
Read my lips, there will be a government run public option.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
It is hilarious that Matthew continues with his policy of absolving Barack Obama for all responsibility for everything.
Shorter Matthew: Leave Obama Alone!
October 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am
how can Joe Public be in favor of HRC when large, important, parts of HRC are still undefined, and those parts which are defined are wonky, procedural, bureaucrat-bait ?
HRC? Hillary Rodham Clinton?
October 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
As Matt called it electing the president has limited influence on domestic policy.
I saw recently some impressive graphs that showed presidential popularity tracking the jobless figures. (Sorry not my area and I can’t find them.)
Of course the place where the Pres does matter is foreign policy. Let’s hope for better things there, eh.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Oh — and what happened to the “Don’t fight — We’ll fix everything in Reconcilation Conference” meme we kept hearing a few months ago?
THAT line seems to be fading out like the slow parts in a symphony. But then a pre-designed symphony is what we have been hearing for the past 8 months.
The power of the President didn’t seem too weak when it came to blowing $Trillions of taxpayer dollars on paying Wall Street’s gambling debts.
So how’s that financial reform coming? Anybody indicted yet? Anybody even arrested?
Oh –but spend a few million to run a public option that would lower healthcare costs for those making less than $50,000 a year. THAT is JUST too hard.
Pathetic.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I don’t get it. Why does Obama have to move public opinion on health care reform? Three quarters of the country already support a public option. And rumor is that Obama supports it, too. He should be trying to sway Congress, not the public.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:12 am
> Similarly, we’ve got the emphasis on popular
> protest – arguably the most theatrical and
> least effective way of producing legislative change.
Only if the traditional media refuses to cover the protests, which it has for liberal actions since 1972. The teabaggers received tons of coverage, much of it laudatory, and as of this moment it appears that they managed to cut the heart out of health care reform.
While I don’t entirely disagree with Collins at 9:54, just once I would like to hear one of the “realists” who control the Democratic Party to admit that if you quit before you start playing that you are guaranteed to lose 100% of the time. “Quit” here can refer to physically, mentally, strategically, or organizationally. Because time after time we see preemptive surrender from the Democratic leadership with no acknowledgment that they are powerful actors with agency in the process.
Cranky
October 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
People aren’t permanently swayed by logical arguments, regardless of where they come from. You as a philosophy major should understand that people who are easily convinced by one side will be just as easily convinced by the other side the very next day.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Arm Twisting? The President doesn’t actually have the ability to twist the arms of the public at large. “Arm Twisting” against legislators is what people are actually talking about.
Yet another instance of the elite deliberately mis-representing their opponents arguments.
Come on, this lying prick is basically pretending that congress is dragging it’s feet based on public pressure when everyone knows that’s a load of horseshit. Congress is dragging it’s feet because the Congress and Obama are bought and paid for.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Michael, and when you read “professional” blogs written by people without psychological or political training you end up hearing retarded posts like this one that conflate public opinion with congressional action, misrepresent the term “arm-twisting” or declare that there’s nothing that can be done against conservatives … just because. There’s literally no argument as to why the left shouldn’t hold it’s breath just like conservatives do, you just end up with morons telling them not to. Given the very conservative nature of the people saying this, it ends up being very self-serving.
Matt doesn’t really have the background to understand politics either, and he has just enough access to buy in and sell out, but not enough to actually understand what’s going on. He is, to use Petey’s construction, a Trustfund scumbag who thinks he knows a whole hell of a lot more than he actually knows.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
In the case of the public option, we are not taking money from the SuperRich as taxes and giving it to the poor. We are merely having the government take action to serve a poor section of the population — take action to fix an obvious problem so that people don’t die before their time. You know –kinda like having a government that is putting out fires, arresting violent criminals or delivering the mail.
But because that hurts someone’s rice bowl, profiteering health insurance companies can protect $Billions in profits by spending a few million in the Democratic Caucus to ensure that –in the “Free Market” — the thumb stays firmly on the scale on their behalf.
So going into next year’s election, the defacto campaign slogan of the Democratic Party is “We are ALL Republicans Now.”
October 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Re the weak powers of the Presidency, we saw that early in George W’s Administration in 2001, didn’t we?
When the President decided to give $2 Trillion to the Superrich –and pay for it by stealing the money out of Social Security/Medicare’s Trust Funds.
Good thing the Democrats decided to use the Magical Power of the Filibuster to defeat THAT measure, huh?
Oh–wait.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Re the weak powers of the Presidency, we saw that early in George W’s Administration in 2001, didn’t we?
Before 9/11, actually, yes. Sen. Jeffords didn’t exactly volunteer to jump out of the lifeboat and back onto the Titanic.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Throw aside for a moment the question of whether Obama has or has not completely sold out to special interests in the health care debacle.
HE fucked up strategically.
One: He could have put single-payer up for a vote, right off the bat. The whole shebang would have been over in one month or less. Would he have got it? Who knows. It was a possibility. Either way, we could have moved to other serious matters that need desperate attention, and, AND, he would have made a clear statement to the American people, even if single-payer got crushed. I AM WITH YOU. Congress is the sellouts. But I will keep trying, America.
Two: He could have set exacting parameters about what he would and would not accept when a final bill reached his desk. HE DID NOT DO THIS! In fact, we don’t know what the fuck he did, aside from repeatedly and embarrassingly flip flop on the public option. On the table. Off the table. On the table. Off the table. He out Kerry-ied Kerry. By a mile. Hard to do!
Three: He could have done what he’s done, and let the whole debate slip away from him, to the point where he is nothing but a bit player, looking like a beggar when he pleads with American people to support HIS health care bill when we not only don’t have bill but it is clearly NOT HIS BILL to begin with. And, by following this course action, LOSE HIS BASE and SPLIT HIS PARTY, and produce a bill that could quite possibly be worse for America, and certainly his party, than the status quo.
October 6th, 2009 at 10:58 am
@23 dude, He ended the partisanship in Washington
October 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Davis, shouldn’t you go back to sucking Booman’s cock and crowing about how all of this proves some sort of 11th dimensional chess game?
Predictably, the Obamatons pivot from arguing that we HAVE TO SUPPORT THE BAUCAUS BILL!!1!!! to “THIS WAS OBAMA’S PLAN ALL ALONG!1!
It’s fucking pathetic, and it doesn’t give those of us who were actually fighting for a public option any credit.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I wonder if John Kerry goes to bed at night thinking about the way he left the Swift boat veterans smear him for weeks without saying anything at all, and agrees that President’s largely can’t swing public opinion. He wasn’t President, but there sure as hell were a lot of parallels between that and Obama’s ‘high road’ stance when the insanity regarding HCR started.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
The teabaggers received tons of coverage, much of it laudatory, and as of this moment it appears that they managed to cut the heart out of health care reform.
Protests outside healthcare CEOs, on the other hand, receive no coverage because they’re “staged”. And don’t involve crazy people packing heat in public gatherings.
One: He could have put single-payer up for a vote, right off the bat. The whole shebang would have been over in one month or less. Would he have got it? Who knows. It was a possibility.
I don’t see that possibility, to be frank. That’s partly on account of general Dem timidity towards single-payer, but also because there was an obvious strategic desire to avoid a repeat of the Clinton situation where Congress gets huffy at being dictated to.
Who, exactly, in the Senate would have been behind “put[ting] single-payer up for a vote”? Bernie Sanders? That’s Green Lantern politics.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:14 am
But why blame the victim of congressional obstruction rather than the perpetrator?
Because Congress is complicated and hard to understand. There must be a simpler explanation! It’s all the president’s fault! If the president would just do X, everything would be fine. (If the president is already doing X, then he must be doing it wrong, of course. Presidential omnipotence cannot fail, it can only be failed.)
When the president wants to do what Congress wants to do, he can do it quickly, and when the president wants to do what Congress doesn’t want to do, he can do it slowly and painfully or, more often, not at all. The rational conclusion from this is that Congress matters. But that’s too much complexity for some people (including a few notorious regular commenters). If Congress puts up a fight, it can’t be because of a real conflict between two branches of the U.S. government; the president must just lack the will to steamroll them.
Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. But the president is expected to bowl it right over, otherwise it’s Proof! that he doesn’t really want to.
P.S. Being politically “left” in some sense doesn’t necessarily make you part of the reality-based community, or immune to the lure of truthiness. Green Lantern theories have a lot of truthiness, even though they are hardly ever true.
P.P.S. A related fallacy is that “the Democrats” are a monolithic group that takes orders from Obama, or that they would if he had the will to make them. In reality the Democrats are a broad coalition defined by sharing some (but not all) of their goals, and no single person can make them do anything unless they agree on it. The Republicans have more party unity partly because they have a narrower political tent, and partly because obedient conformity to the decisions of authority is part of their political identity (and anathema to the Democrats). Neither of those things can be imitated by the Democrats without committing political suicide in the process — regardless of how useful such unity would be in the short term.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Well, people always seem to find a way to tell themselves, if only the president had fought harder he would have gotten it. He must have lost because he didn’t really care.
Shorter Matthew: Leave Obama Alone!
Really, why is there this Obama defensiveness by the folks @ CAP? It’s getting repetitive and tiresome.
Congress is dragging it’s feet because the Congress and Obama are bought and paid for.
I wouldn’t go that far. It’s still unclear how this thing will turn out. If it’s a disaster for the base, then the Dem approval numbers will continue to drop among Dems, and the base won’t turn out for the 2010 midterms. That would not be good. There has been some shady dealings with Big Pharma and whatnot, but let’s see some outcomes before we start judging the means.
That said, MY seems to confuse the necessary and the sufficient. Would Obama’s rhetoric move public opinion? Maybe, maybe not. In the long term, his rhetoric would probably have more impact … but whatever the impact is, it sure couldn’t hurt to try.
Sometimes I wonder why we even cared about the ‘08 elections, since the president’s words mean nothing (see above), the president’s actions have no leverage over the Congress, and progressive action is blocked anyway by Senate procedure. Let’s just pack it up and go home; the game’s rigged anyway.
Except that sort of determinism shuts down action altogether. It’s sort of Libertarianish in the way it views government — always failing, so why try? Yes, it’s the long, hard slog that puts potentially responsive Presidents in power and 60 votes in the Senate. It’s immensely difficult to put pressure on these actors to enact good policy, and to convince our neighbors and friends that such policy is a desirable thing. To do all this requires … hope? Telling us over and over and over all the scary things that stop progressive policy from being enacted does huge damage.
Enacting sweeping social policy requires a sort of Pascal’s Wager, with the “bet” being that good policy can be created by our institutions by believing in what is possible. It does far more good to demand that our leaders also act as if good policy is possible than to constantly remind everyone why they should doubt their power to effect change.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:30 am
He could have set exacting parameters about what he would and would not accept when a final bill reached his desk.
And then when Congress passed a different bill in order to prove that he can’t push them around (or just because their agenda is actually different from his), he could either go back on his word to sign it and look ineffectual, or veto it, get nothing passed at all and look ineffectual *and* stupid. (In both cases Congress would successfully have proved that he could not, in fact, push them around.)
And yet his avoidance of this obvious blind alley is somehow evidence *against* him? Not setting himself up to fail and look like an idiot is a strategic mistake? Sheesh. You’re only looking at completely unrealistic best-case outcomes of the courses of action you’re suggesting for him, as compared to the *actual* outcome of letting the legislative branch legislate in order to avoid embarrassing himself proving that he can’t stop them.
The actual outcome of Obama’s actual actions may well include passing legislation that saves thousands of lives — and since a lot of the life-saving happens in the *non*-controversial parts of the bill (such as eliminating preexisting condition exclusions and rescissions and covering more of the poor), even if Obama ends up losing on the public option and insurance companies end up making more money, they will still have to save more people’s lives in order to get that money, which is a net win in my book compared to either the status quo, or any strategy likely to blow up in Obama’s face and perpetuate the status quo. Trying to dictate to Congress, for example.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:40 am
@29: You’re giving up when the number of important actors rises beyond one. The president doesn’t make legislation, BUT CONGRESS DOES. So we should care less about presidents and more about members of Congress.
Excessive focus on the president and the president’s actions and why isn’t the president waving his hand and making all the problems go away actually *hurts* the cause of getting legislation passed, which has to take place primarily in Congress. Matt has made that point repeatedly only to have people continue to complain in comments about what the president is doing wrong.
Shut up about the president already! This isn’t about him!
October 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
What Don Williams, Al, Cranky, and Max424 and others said.
How many ways can Matt say, “It’s not Obama’s fault, he’s really powerless before the forces of Congressional politics and public opinion. Please, you guys, give up on the public option already. The perfect is the enemy of the possible. Half a loaf…, etc, etc, ad nauseum.” And how many times can he say it?
OK, once more. Nobody is saying that Obama can wave his magic wand and create a perfect health care bill. What we are saying is that he isn’t even trying to get an acceptable start on one.
Pre-compromising by taking single-payer off the table was a strategic blunder of epic proportion, if you assume that ORahma actually wanted the broadest coverage at the lowest total cost. But ORahma really wanted to snuggle in front of the fire with pharma, for-profit hospitals, and big insurance.
While Snowe fell silently in the tranquil wilderness, blanketing the abrupt, rocky landscape with a smooth, soft blanket of bi-partisanship.
The WH empowered Baucus’s rogue gang-of-six hijack of the process, which brought delays, confusion, frustration and eventually led to the great August recess uprising. Covered faithfully by the slavering Village-driven media, who declared the PO DOA.
Rockefeller stands up and they try to knock him down. (What do you offer a guy with more $$ than he can count, who tears up remembering his VISTA connection to “the people?”) Progressives draw a line and they are threatened with banishment to the cold, barren, windblown wasteland. What’s with the new, improved kabuki dance with Cantwell? Can Baucus get enough Dems to get his bill out after shafting Wyden?
ONCE MORE, FOR EMPHASIS: THE PROBLEM ISN’T WHAT ORAHMA CAN’T DO. THE PROBLEM IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, ARE DOING, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO TO UNDERMINE PRIVATELY WHAT THEY COMMITTED TO AND APPEAR TO SUPPORT PUBLICLY.
Jeebus, Matt. I didn’t know they had KEWLAID in Sweden.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
A President can, if he so chooses, set parameters. He can say to Congress, I will accept X, but I will not accept Y. If you produce Y, I WILL VETO IT. Good luck trying to override my veto.
And if you decide to produce X, it had better be X, or we are in the same situation that we would have been if you had produced Y.
And could this Congress dictate to this President, we are going to produce legislation and if you veto it we will override you? No fucking chance. So who has the upper hand?
Obama had options. There were moves that could have been made to limit the ability of Congress to dictate to him. He did not make these moves. If Obama made any moves at all it was to undermine his own power, his ability to be THE major actor in the drama.
Obama, also, and more importantly in my estimation, can make a choice as President whether he should swing Left, Right, or attempt to stay were his is. Obama chose to swing Right, way Right, away from his base, to parlay ONLY with Republicans, Blue Dogs, and high powered special interests. At no time did this administration parlay with single-payer advocates, and only paid lip service to Liberal Democrats.
Obama has made choices. Fateful ones, I’m afraid.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
“But ORahma really wanted to snuggle in front of the fire with pharma, for-profit hospitals, and big insurance.”
Oh yeah. I’m going to take anything the guy just quoted says reeeeal seriously.
October 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“Obama chose to swing Right, way Right, away from his base, to parlay ONLY with Republicans, Blue Dogs, and high powered special interests. At no time did this administration parlay with single-payer advocates, and only paid lip service to Liberal Democrats.”
Yes. He should have negotiated only with the people that already agree with him, and demonize and marginalize his political opponents.
You do understand that he might be president today because he’s way, um, smarter than you are?
October 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Donny, Soulless, Adams,
Jesus Christ, what fucking planet are you guys on? I used to think it was a strategic blunder not to start with Single-payer and then seek a public-option compromise–then I lived through August. If the nut-jobs with the Obama=Hitler signs were already screaming that “a public option is just a stalking horse for a single-payer system” when no one had seriously proposed SP, what do you think they’d be like if he’d actually advocated for it?
The only chance we have in the current political climate to get a viable public option is to do everything possible to separate it from single-payer in the minds of congress and the electorate. Because, whatever fevered fantasies you harbor in your sick, little minds aside, neither a majority of the public, nor a majority of members of either house of Congress supports single-payer. Just because most readers of this site would favor it, doesn’t mean that it has majority support in society as a whole.
Wanna get something done? Quit whining about what Obama is or isn’t doing and engage personally with your Senators. If you feel that that doesn’t help, then give money to any of a number of left-wing lobbying/PAC groups currently working to advocate for meaningful reform. Because what you are currently doing–forming the traditional Democratic circular firing-squad–is making good reform less likely, not more.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Re brewmn at 35: “Yes. He should have negotiated only with the people that already agree with him, and demonize and marginalize his political opponents.
You do understand that he might be president today because he’s way, um, smarter than you are?”
—————-
Really? So how smart is it to fuck the Democratic base and ensure that they not only do not GOTV next fall, but they stay home and don’t vote. Or maybe even vote Republican. But there one thing worse than being fucked by your enemies is being betrayed by your own leaders.
Make NO mistake — the Democratic Caucus spent 12 years in the fucking wilderness -and they can be sent back there easily.
Just Ask Al Gore.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
@32 Adams: “While Snowe fell silently in the tranquil wilderness, blanketing the abrupt, rocky landscape with a smooth, soft blanket of bi-partisanship.”
Good one.
@30 Chris: “And then when Congress passed a different bill in order to prove that he can’t push them around (or just because their agenda is actually different from his), he could either go back on his word to sign it and look ineffectual, or veto it, get nothing passed at all and look ineffectual *and* stupid.”
That’s right, he can veto it. He can say in the beginning, to the America people, I have asked Congress to produce legislation with a Super Strong Public Option. He can go on the stump immediately after and sing SUPER STRONG PUBLIC OPTION at the top of lungs, every day, for months.
And if Congress doesn’t bow to this extreme pressure, and starts to swerve away from the Super Strong Public Option, Obama can call them out immediately. Say to them directly, and indirectly to the American people, DO NOT DO THAT OR I WILL VETO IT!
And if they continue in a direction he does not like, Obama can tell his people in Congress, because he certainly has enough of them, to shut it down. And if by some act of God they continue, and produce horseshit, then yes, by all means, he can veto it, and look strong, look like a man of his word.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The lesson that every member of the Democratic Caucus badly needs to learn is that when you tolerate the casual corruption of people like Max Baucus, Ben Nelson,etc YOU PERSONALLY will pay a price. FAR worse than anything Max or Ben or their buddies can do to you. The only question is: WHOSE balls are going to be pounded by the meat tenderizer: Max’s or yours.
We all know that Max , Ben etal STRONGLY depend upon the support of their fellow Members of COngress — and upon Obama — to maintain the standard of living in their states. So if the Democratic Caucus LETS ole Max fuck us, then ole Max ain’t gonna be the only one in the crosshairs.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
“”
He could veto such a bill, and maybe some would think he looked “strong…like a man of his word.” And over 40,000 Americans a year would continue to die from treatable illness because of lack of health care. Seriously, do you think before opening your mouth? Because, in my book, we have a word for people who support a quasi-monarchical executive and who put ideological purity before the practical needs of real people: Republicans.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Oops, that ” ” should contain the phrase “Max’s unitary-executive fantasy omitted because it really doesn’t bear repeating.” Sigh, one of these days, I’ll remember to use the preview button.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@35 brwemn: “You do understand that he might be president today because he’s way, um, smarter than you are?”
I believe he is. I consider Obama a brilliant man. But that is not why he is President and I am not. I don’t want to be President. I am in no way saying I ever stood the slightest chance even had I chosen early in life to pursue it. I don’t posses the strength, or the weakness, depending on how you look at it, to seek compromise with insane people.
I will, however, pronounce loud and clear, I am smarter than George W. Bush! And he was a President. At least according to my history book.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“So how smart is it to fuck the Democratic base and ensure that they not only do not GOTV next fall, but they stay home and don’t vote. Or maybe even vote Republican. But there one thing worse than being fucked by your enemies is being betrayed by your own leaders.”
First, the only support you have for your fevered certainty that we are being “fucked” is a selective reading of the available reporting on negotiations.
Second, if you liked George W. Bush as president, you’ll love Sarah Palin. That’ll sure show those damn dirty Democrats. People that share your perspective are willing to destroy the country because your feelings got hurt. That is, to put it politely, completely fucked up.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Don,
You seem to be implying that we should do things to intentionally punish the people of Montana/Nebraska because their senators are acting in bad faith. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that constitute collective punishment? If so, I hope you are aware that collective punishment is, by international law, considered a crime against humanity. It’s the major argument against Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, and it’s extremely disturbing to see it advocated towards one’s own people. Your moral compass seems to have been sitting on a large magnet for a while.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
@41 Sahu: “we have a word for people who support a quasi-monarchical executive and who put ideological purity before the practical needs of real people: Republicans.”
What the hell are you talking about? I’m talking about strategies for getting the best possible legislation passed, and you are talking about what? Kings?
What the FUCK does that have to do with ANYTHING?
I want the Republicans wiped off the map. Obama wants to parlay with them. STILL.
And you accuse me of being a Republican?
October 6th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“I will, however, pronounce loud and clear, I am smarter than George W. Bush! And he was a President. At least according to my history book.”
I’m sure you are. And he was. But having a Senator for a grandpappy and a former President for a pop can trump a whole lot of stupid.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
How much of a Progressive defection is needed to cause massive losses for the Democrats in next year’s election?
How much did Ralph Nader need to capture from Al Gore in 2000?
October 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Sahu at 44 gives a hilarious example of Democratic Sellout Sophistry. I almost suspect it is a parody.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Re Max424 at 45: “I want the Republicans wiped off the map.”
————–
I do to. Including the ones who call themselves Democrats.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Max,
Me thinks you doth protest too much. If it walks like a duck…
You just laid out a “legislative strategy” that only Karl Rove could love. Compromise is the essence of democratic governance. What you are proposing is government by executive fiat, with only a rubber-stamp legislature. Hence, my characterization of it as both quasi-monarchical (only slightly hyperbolic) and, more accurately, unitary executive in both its form and its substance. And I repeat, your “strategy” is at least as likely to fail, and thus perpetuate the status quo, as it is to effect meaningful change, thus condemning 40,000+ of your fellow citizens each year to early and unnecessary deaths.
Also, your rabid partisanship is disturbing. I don’t want the Republicans “wiped off the map,” and such eliminationist fantasizing only underscores your ideological kinship to the radical right.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Re Sahu at 50: “Also, your rabid partisanship is disturbing. I don’t want the Republicans “wiped off the map,” and such eliminationist fantasizing only underscores your ideological kinship to the radical right.”
————-
I myself think that betraying the people of this country in order to whore for Big Money is the real “ideological kinship to the radical right”.
As is sucking the cocks of the Republican caucus in a doomed attempt at a vague “bipartisanship” while telling the Progressives to lay back and enjoy the sodomizing they are about to get.
Nice to know who your friends are.
October 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@47 Don Williams: “How much did Ralph Nader need to capture from Al Gore in 2000?”
That is the point. The further you swing away from your base the more likely the whole structure of your party is likely to fracture. And that is happening. This is an undeniable fact for any person who reads this blog. We are fracturing.
To me, the health care debate was finished 5 months ago. I could wrong, maybe they can still get something worthwhile passed that doesn’t actually do the opposite, cause damage, especially to the Democratic Party. But even then, I don’t think it was worth it. The damage to this party might prove irrevocable.
Is Obama smart? Yes, he’s brilliant. But brilliant men make mistakes, and lesser men, on occasion, see this. And this lesser man thinks Obama needs to take care of his base pronto, if he want to stick around through 2016.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@50 Sahu: “Compromise is the essence of democratic governance.”
Compromise is the essence of all governments. Everybody must make comprises, even an all powerful King. Come on. Compromise. Too funny. Even God, clearly, makes compromises.
It is knowing exactly what your goals are, for your side, when you start the process of seeking compromise; that is the essence of great political leadership.
@50 Sahu: “Also, your rabid partisanship is disturbing. I don’t want the Republicans “wiped off the map,” and such eliminationist fantasizing only underscores your ideological kinship to the radical right.”
Good one. Kinship to the radical right. Fantasy of mass death. You got me.
Ok, I don’t want them wiped off the map. That implies that I want them lined up against the wall and mowed down. I don’t want that. I am, or I hope to be one day, a loving and forgiving Buddhist.
But I do want them eliminated from the American political map. How’s that. Voted out of office, at all levels, everywhere, for all time.
Better?
October 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@27 pseudonymous in nc: re: “That’s Green Lantern politics.”
No, it’s not. Not if you expect to lose, and by so losing, send clear messages in many directions.
It forces people out in the open. Identifies clearly, who are the opponents of “change” and forces them to explain themselves, to the people. Also, even though fails, it says to special interests, you are out, or, at the very least, we will seek to keep you out.
And you never know. Single-payer was a longshot, to be sure. But how long. 20 to 1, or 1,000 to 1? 20 to 1 is not that bad.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Max @53
Yes, that is somewhat better, although still not terribly realistic. As for your point about “knowing exactly what your goals are,” when beginning negotiations, I thought that was pretty clear from both Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his initial pitch to congress. The goals are expansion of coverage and prevention of any American going bankrupt from out-of-pocket health-care spending. It’s not even as if the Public Option was his plan originally–it was John Edwards’ and then Hillary’s before he adopted it. In light of those two stated goals, I think it’s fairly likely that he’ll get most of what he asked for, and that’s really the best that can be hoped for when dealing with a co-equal branch of government constituted of 500+ individual politicians, none of whose parochial interests line up exactly with either those of the White House, or with those of the American people at large. And that’s not even mentioning the vast corporate lobbying complex with which said branch of government is joined at the brain.
There have been plenty of issues where you and I have agreed in the past, Max, and there will be plenty of others to come–we’re both progressives, after all. On this one, however, you seem to me to be making a politically naive argument.
Oh, and for the record, Dictators like Stalin and Mao didn’t compromise. Absolute monarchs like Louis “l’etat c’est moi” XIV didn’t compromise. Compromise is only the essence of constitutional governance, and has never been the political norm until the modern era, and even now it is not without brutal exceptions such as Kim’s North Korea or the Burmese junta.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Sahu@36:
Thanks for the checklist.
…engage personally with your Senators. Done
…give money to …lobbying/PAC groups. Done
…quit whining. I call it like I see it.
…decide what planet you’re on. Do I have to?
Getting treatment for the “fevered fantasies” in my “sick little mind” is tougher, but I appreciate your empathy. Probably need medication. Any suggestions? Since you “used to think it was a strategic blunder not to start with Single-payer…” you must have done some space travel yourself. August must have been deeply traumatic; deepest sympathies. So glad you finally got your mind right. I bet nurse Ra(hm)ched was helpful.
But I digress. To the question at hand, “Does single payer have any public support?” or was it always a silly loser fantasy.
March, 2009. DESPITE HEAVY SUPPORT IN POLLS, SINGLE PAYER ADVOCATES BARRED FROM OBAMA HEALTH SUMMIT http://prorev.com/2009/03/despite-heavy-support-in-polls-single.html
ate
Poll, Survey, or Initiative
Highlight
Details
July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll
Do you favor or oppose, “Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for all?”
Favor 58%, Oppose 38%, NA/DK 3%
Link
July
2009 Time Magazine Would you favor or oppose a program that creates a national single-payer plan similar to Medicare for all, in which the government would provide healthcare insurance to all Americans?
Favor 49%, Oppose 46%, NA/DK 5%
Link
Feb.
2009
Grove Insight Opinion Research “When given a choice of the current system or one “like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers,” voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their emloyer.”
Link
Feb.
2009
New York Times/CBS News Poll Americans are more likely today to embrace the idea of the government providing health insurance than they were 30 years ago. 59% say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.
Link
Nov. 2008 Ballot initiative question in Massachusetts, “Should the representative from this district be instructed to support legislation creating a cost-effective single payer health insurance system that is available to all residents, and oppose laws penalizing those who fail to obtain health insurance?” “….local ballot initiatives supporting single payer and opposing individual mandates passed by landslide margins in all ten legislative districts where they appeared. With almost all precincts tallied, roughly 73 percent of 181,000 voters in the ten districts voted YES….”
Link
Apr. 2008 Quinnipiac Poll in PA, FL, OH
9. Do you think it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health-care, or don’t you think so?
In Pennsylvania; Yes 65%, No 31%, NA/DK 4%
Link
Apr. 2008 Annals of Internal Medicine, Study of Physician Support of National Health Insurance. (Includes a comparison of 2002 and 2007 surveys.) “…59 percent of them ’support government legislation to establish national health insurance,’ while 32 percent oppose it and 9 percent are neutral.”
Link
Dec.
2007
AP – Yahoo News Poll
Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?
Yes 54%, No 44%, Refused / Not Answered 2%
EOF
“…ecause, whatever fevered fantasies you harbor in your sick, little minds aside, neither a majority of the public, nor a majority of members of either house of Congress supports single-payer. Just because most readers of this site would favor it, doesn’t mean that it has majority support in society as a whole.”
…doesn’t mean it doesn’t either. Looks like the fantasies in my sick little mind are about as powerful as Orahma’s support for the public option. And your grasp of the polling data on single payer.
But imagine what might have happened had Orahma put the kind of single-minded political support behind single-payer that they used to twist arms on Iraq-AFPAK war funding.
October 26, 2004…”Increase in War Funding Sought. Bush to Request $70 Billion More,” Washington Post, …
Apr 9, 2009 … Obama could request this week that Congress approve an expected $75.5 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars, risking Democratic backlash.
Jun 2, 2009 … With new requests from the White House, a wartime spending bill could soon exceed $100 billion.
Nancy, Rahm, and Steny made war funding happen by twisting progressive arms.
Sorry this comment is so long. “Sick mind,…fevered fantisies…” you know.
Best regards.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“And you never know. Single-payer was a longshot, to be sure. But how long. 20 to 1, or 1,000 to 1? 20 to 1 is not that bad.”
Unless you are one of the 40,000+ people dying as we argue because they have no access. To them, betting on a 20-1 long shot when you’ve got an option to get them coverage that looks, for all the difficulties, like an odds-on favorite, or at worst a coin-flip, is intolerable political grandstanding. Until you can adequately address the reality of that human suffering, your rhetoric is as deadly to those people as the right’s “death panel” hysterical obstructionism.
October 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I don’t get it. Why does Obama have to move public opinion on health care reform? Three quarters of the country already support a public option. And rumor is that Obama supports it, too. He should be trying to sway Congress, not the public.
===========================================================
Can you read?
Pollster rolling average on health care reform: oppose 50.2, favor 44.3
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
October 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
But I like the meme – “Leave Obama Alone!”
October 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Adams,
Still waiting on your refutation of the more politically-salient half of my sentence where I noted that Single Payer lacks anything approaching majority support in either house of Congress. But please, keep it a bit shorter this time. You’ll also find that poll results are easily skewed by poll wording. Look at the Pollster.com graphs on the public option question and you’ll see outliers all over the place that can be cherry-picked to support either position, often taken over the exact same time frame. What that tells me is that the public is basically evenly split, which is a situation in which the side with the most money to spend on lobbying (and we all know which side that is) is almost invariably going to control the debate in Congress.
That’s the reality. Want to change it? Then after this debate is over, start seriously advocating for full public-funding of all political campaigns. No corporate contributions. No private donations. No PAC money or outside-group expenditures. Just our ideas versus their ideas, and may the best ideas win. But in the mean-time, let’s get something passed so that 40,000+ Americans aren’t dying needlessly every damn year.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Sahu,
Apparently we agree that people are being ground up and that’s not good.
Sorry I missed your salience. Got caught in the ad hominem. My point was never that single payer would pass, but rather, like you, that taking it off the table pre-emptively weakened the fight for the best that could be gotten on coverage and cost containment. I agree single payer had 50% support, maybe a little more, maybe a little less and depending, as always, on how the question was asked. That’s not a bad starting point for a strong, pro-active, focused political effort. IMO, that’s not what we got.
It seems to me that both those objectives (cost & coverage) would preclude cozy deals with the entities who are driving costs, recission, and denial. And insider dealing with Congressional whores who are their wholly owned subsidiaries. IMO, that’s what we got.
I’m on AF-PAK surge(ry) and human rights after this. Looks like McKrystal is opening a fifth branch of government. And Obama on state secrets has been grim. But good luck on election financing reform. Getting Dawn Johnsen approved for OLC might be a start if you’re also interested in voter rights issues.
Regards
October 6th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Presidents have enormous power over administrative agencies, which is where a lot of the real legal action happens. Bush was only moderately successful at passing his legislative agenda (thank goodness!) but the damage he did with EPA, DOJ, Interior, Army Corps, and the rest more than make up for it.
And of course presidents are virtually the only authority over our military and intelligence agencies these days. Congress barely even knows what’s going on with those half the time, and it’s virtually never willing to actually exercise oversight (see the Iraq War or Dianne Feinstein’s crusade to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act).
Most importantly, the Executive is one of an ever-shrinking group of public officials that is actually accountable to most voters. You can’t exercise control over Senators or Reps outside your district, meaning that legislation rarely reflects the median voter. And even your own representatives stop caring about your opinion after their first re-election, when incumbency fueled by industry donations gets a lot easier than riding public opinion.
October 6th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
#38 expresses the Fantasy Superman President idea more clearly than I could possibly have done.
Note, especially, the lack of attention to the consequences of the FSP’s actions. The power struggle is a universe unto itself, existing in a vacuum. The FSP dictates what he wants in the bill. Congress writes some other bill. The FSP vetoes it. And this makes the FSP look SO AWESOME!!! End of story.
Except, as Sahu points out, it’s not the end of the story. Legislation can become a pissing contest, but that’s not *all* it is. Back here in the real world, the outcome of that story is… that no bill passed. Although some people thought the president looked “strong, like a man of his word”, others thought he looked like an arrogant fool. Pundits told each other how it was a repetition of Clinton’s mistakes by someone who just hadn’t been in Washington long enough to understand how it worked. Most likely the president’s party lost ground in the next election (even though he looked so strong at the vetoing ceremony!) making a bill even less likely to pass in the future (and cementing the arrogant fool narrative). And since in this particular case the bill was about health care and people were dying from lack of access to health care, they went on dying.
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not Obama ends up looking “strong, like a man of his word”. I don’t even care if he *is* those things. I care what (if any) legislation actually passes Congress and is signed into law. And I hope Obama shares those priorities. Results, dammit.
P.S. Of course, it’s theoretically possible that when the Fantasy Superman President tells Congress exactly what he wants in legislation, they will respond “Whatever you say, Sir!” and write it exactly to specifications. (I presume clicking their heels and saluting is optional.) But anyone who knows anything about Congress is already bursting out laughing at this idea, so Obama would have to be a great fool to base his strategy on it.
October 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
GUYS PLEASE
he’s not “superman!” therefore, he can do nothing but make deals with big pharma!
LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!
October 6th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Re Sahu at 57: “Unless you are one of the 40,000+ people dying as we argue because they have no access. To them, betting on a 20-1 long shot when you’ve got an option to get them coverage that looks, for all the difficulties, like an odds-on favorite, or at worst a coin-flip, is intolerable political grandstanding. Until you can adequately address the reality of that human suffering, your rhetoric is as deadly to those people as the right’s “death panel” hysterical obstructionism.”
————
Oh horseshit. Millions more are going to die in the future because of the support alleged Democrats give to “give them a few crumbs and they will be satisfied”.
We have limited resources to provide healthcare , Medicare is in the fucking hole by $32 TRILLION when it comes to caring for the huge cohort of baby boomers entering retirement, and yet we are defining “Healthcare Reform” as letting Max Baucus steal $500 BILLION out of Medicare to pay for the inflated rates the insurance companies want to charge MILLIONS of new, compulsory customers.
The only hope the poor have in the longer term is that the waste, fraud and inefficiency in the Insurance Company -Designed healthcare system is removed by a rational , government-designed system. Public Option is the start of that system — which is why Big Insurance has paid Max Baucus $3 Million to strangle it in the crib. God knows what Big Insurance has paid Rahm.
We will see what sorts out — but I’m not hearing jackshit about the OTHER Democratic Senate Plan –from the HELP Committee. WHY is that?
And if we Leave Obama Along it looks like we will ended up with the People getting fucked the same way the Republicans would have fucked them — excepting only that the Democratic Caucus will feed the need to toss out some two-faced sophistry re how they actually seized the Moral High Ground.
October 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
ladies & gentlemen: OK, you win. No more piling on Orahma. But Matt is still fair game. Deal?
October 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Correction for 65: I should have said
“and yet we are defining “Healthcare Reform” as letting Max Baucus steal $500 Billion out of Medicare to PARTIALLY pay for the inflated rates the insurance companies want to charge millions of new, compulsory customers.”
Also know as the “Rob Peter to make a Token Gesture of Support to Paul” approach.
October 6th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
[...] frequent, and much more local, Congressional elections. As Matthew Yglesias points out, it’s really hard for Presidents to push public opinion (and thus dictate policy). The take-away for people frustrated with Obama is not to get frustrated [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
[...] Obama sycophants think they do him a favor by arguing FOR his irrelevancy, even when his party controls the Congress. Kevin Drum pushes back and reminds us when the [...]
October 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I don’t see how anyone on the left can defend Obama at this point. SNL gets it exactly right. The definition of leadership in the Democratic Party is being the first one to sell out your ideals.
October 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Adams Says:
October 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
ladies & gentlemen: OK, you win. No more piling on Orahma. But Matt is still fair game. Deal?
===========================================================
LEAVE OBAMA ALONE! But you can bitchslap Matt
October 6th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Just thinking about the LEAVE OBAMA ALONE! meme, it occurred to me that Yglesias hasn’t used the TWO MINUTES HATE theme so much lately
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_C992KPzKs
October 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
SOUNDS LIKE A DEAL, GUYS
HE COULD THEN JUST LINK TO IT WHEN HE FEELS THE ITCH TO WRITE THESE KINDS OF POSTS … WAY WAY FASTER
October 6th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
ladies & gentelmen,
I like the video idea. How about an endless loop with an automatic link at the top of every post. Maybe a bobblehead?
October 6th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
We should probably hold back on picking on Matthew.
It’s kinda sad when a blogger has to lurk in his own comments section.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:41 am
@55 Sahu: “Dictators like Stalin and Mao didn’t compromise.”
I hope you’re kidding. Both of those bad boys made thousands of comprises in their political life -even after they reached the top. That’s how they stayed in power so long. For instance, a major reason the Soviet’s were able to turn things around in WW II is that Stalin, over and over again, made major compromises, especially in dealings with his very powerful Marshalls.
@57 Sahu: “Until you can adequately address the reality of that human suffering, your rhetoric is as deadly to those people as the right’s “death panel” hysterical obstructionis”
Knock it off. Jesus. I’m a goddamn Buddhist, remember? I don’t want suffering. I want smart strategies for getting things done. And we don’t need a SuperDuper Flying Spaghetti President. Just a politically savvy one, or, at the very least, one who doesn’t prefer powerful special interests to his base.
Each of the four (or five) bills coming down the pipe leave tens of millions uninsured. No matter how they tie the four bills into one final bill, there are going to be tens of millions that remain uninsured, and there is going to be continued suffering and death as a result.
And speaking of odds, there is a 100% chance the final bill will help the insurance industry, at least for the first five or six years of its inception, before incrementalism -HOPEFULLY- kicks in and saves us all.
One last point, an important one about parameters that seems to have been completely ignored. Obama did in fact demand a parameter, which is allowed, believe it or not, in our Democracy. ONE PARAMETER. He demanded from the various subcommittees -each working on their own unique versions of non-universal health care- that their final plans must all be budget neutral. Which means, as you know, Obama’s first compromise was to accept that tens of thousands of Americans will be fated to die, every year, for lack of funding.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:05 am
Don, we pick on Matt because we love him. Really. Seriously. No, no…honestly.
Look, Matt is brilliant. The range and volume of his output is astounding. Bicycles, foreign/military policy, media, public parks, building codes, AUMF, politics, pop culture, basketball, etc. And he’s so young. And wonky. And frequently wrong.
Philosophy is one possible platform from which to launch one’s trajectory. It may even be necessary. But it is not sufficient. History. Economics. More lenses. It would surprise me if Matt has read Barbara Tuchman. Or Paul Kennedy. But that’s just the intellectual. There’s nothing new going on here. Perspective, Remy, perspective. “Why do they call it ratatouille? Sounds like rat patootie.”
I’m pounding on Matt because he’s the hope for the future. But being a renowned blogger and big media star ends up an anchor. Matt doesn’t need fellowships, or sponsored trips to Europe. Or a PhD, at this point. He needs to chuck it all, buy a backpack and start hitchhiking. USA. Europe. Latin America. Africa. Far East. Not five weeks. Five years. No five star hotels. No conferences. No self referential blogging on “my third-world experience.” Risk and learn.
Or buy a roofing hammer and tool belt and go to some contracter and say, “I’ll work for free until you think I’m worth paying.” Learn to speak Spanish. Drink beer with his crew. When the first week is over and his hands are bleeding, his muscles are aching, and his skin is blistering, and he has almost passed out from the heat and exertion, he’ll know things that no philosopher can teach. Not even Eric Hoffer. It’s gotta come in through the pores.
Goddamit he’s good. I have a feeling that he could be great. If he stops hanging with the brat pack.
Lurk on that.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:37 am
@77 Adams “It’s gotta come in through the pores.”
It does indeed.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
there is going to be continued suffering and death
Wow, talk about ambitious goalpost placement. The president should just demand a bill that abolishes suffering and death, and then we would get one! It’s so obvious, why doesn’t he do that?
This is the endpoint of saying “you can do anything if you try hard enough” — people start actually believing it. I have an impulse to toss Max off a tall building to find out if he really, truly wants to land safely, but sadly, he wouldn’t actually learn anything from the experience.
Just a politically savvy one, or, at the very least, one who doesn’t prefer powerful special interests to his base.
The idea of a pseudonymous blog commenter criticizing the president’s lack of political savvy is a little ridiculous. Have you achieved a tenth as much in politics as Obama has? Maybe based on his political experience, Obama thinks that ignoring powerful special interests and pretending they’ll go away awed by your superior willpower isn’t as much of a winning strategy as you think it is?
We will see what sorts out — but I’m not hearing jackshit about the OTHER Democratic Senate Plan –from the HELP Committee. WHY is that?
Uh… because its passage is not in doubt? There’s quite a bit of attention being paid to the upcoming attempts to combine the various bills, but since those haven’t actually started yet, there’s not much substantive to say. The Finance Committee is getting attention (both from the media and from the White House) because it’s an obstacle to reform. Reform has to overcome that obstacle, and someone who wants it to pass, like the president, has to work on the obstacle. HELP didn’t need its hand held, so Obama reasonably didn’t spend time holding its hand.
…Come to think of it, isn’t this the Iran negotiation debate all over again? Obama’s time is not a cookie to be handed out only to the good children. He uses his influence (such as it is) to achieve a result, and he hasn’t spent much time with HELP because he trusted them to do their job, and they did. And you’re complaining that he’s spending his time “preferring” the Finance Committee. Obama is not Congress’s daddy and the HELP committee does not need him to pat them on the head. If anything, they need him to help make their work relevant by getting it through the whole Congress.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease *because the other wheels don’t need any grease*, not because of some kind of sentimental preference. It’s a completely pragmatic, results-oriented decision.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
[...] Foreign Relations has a story on this question. Matt Yglesias explains how Americans are prone to placing too much stock in the President’s problem-solving ability and giving too little attention to the rest of the political [...]