« Late Pass | Main | YCY HYCKYY »
December 17, 2009
On Health Care
Maybe you know this as a politics blog, though it's really a polyglot. In fact, most of you who know it as a politics blog have probably stopped coming round, since it's been relatively quiet on that front post-election. But even though I've stopped writing about politics here sure as hell doesn't mean I've stopped thinking and reading about politics. Ask Finny or my mom.
El stence cofounder Dusk is another person who certainly hasn't stopped thinking about politics and the art of the possible. He's in San Francisco now, reloading, and here's his typically smart take on health care, prompted by my sending him this John Aravosis post, which asks a good question: "How was George Bush so effective in passing legislation during his presidency when he never had more than 55 Republicans in the Senate?"
Here's Dusk:
regarding the post below, i think it was frum that pointed out how smart the dems were to get involved in bush's agenda and make a lot of those bills far more progressive then they would have been without their support. and i think it was mostly from old hands, particularly teddy kennedy who discovered after his bitter fights with nixon in the 70s that if he had only played the game back then we would have single-payer today, that the strategy of participation and influence rather than bitter opposition and gridlock derived. i think what discolors a more positive view of that participation was the iraq war vote where many demz (with the notable exception of teddy) caved to the fear-mongering (and subsequently lost their bids for prez in 2008). the tax cuts are a different matter. the first one was an easy concession, but i believe the second passed through reconciliation with only 50 votes (plus cheney). passing (reckless and politically motivated) tax cuts through reconciliation is an easy bet--they are one vote bills entirely concerning the budget (unlike say much of health care) and the five-year horizon is no danger to the purpose of what were meant to be temporary cuts (for immediate votes).
i think the other part of this is that the repubs think they are going to have a lot more power soon, so it's easier for them to stay completely out of the picture and powerless and hope their strategy forces the dems to implode (and leads to failure and more votes or at least lack of dem voter participation). their strategy is going to change if the dems can hold it together and have some success (and don't get clobbered in 2010). the problem isn't the compromises the dems are making but rather the way that the democratic base is reacting to them. i think there's a poll out later this evening that shows health care at around 30% support with most of the defection coming from disaffected liberals. there was a kos poll that showed that a lot of dems are playing to sit out 2010. and the grass roots is encouraging this. dean and kos are actually calling for health care to get scrapped. the only result will be a huge republican triumph. obama will either lose 2012 or have to make a clintonian comporomise (dick morris 2! who will it be?). if health care ever comes up again it will be a republican bill and the demoralized dems will have to make much worse compromises or risk even worse disaster. obviously, the critics are seeing something that i can't see. some whopping progressive wave that replaces conservadems in nebraska and arkansas with liberal soldiers and creates even more democratic senators than our current 60 with renewed optimism to slog out progressive dream bag of legislation the likes of which we haven't seen since the new deal (when socialism was considered a vibrant philosophy of government and not the failed and tyrannical ideology on the losing end of the cold war). yes, it's a painful process, and i've had my revenge dreams against lieberman and baucus and nelson and all the others. i mean crazy anger. but then you sit back and realize what's at stake and see the big picture. get something passed. avoid failure. it will be a huge (if somewhat disappointing) step forward. then pivot towards more populist legislation. jobs and financial regulation. mitigate disaster in 2010 and put the repubs in the hot seat--participation or complete irrelevance as the economy hopefully recovers and people start giving the dems a little political capital to improve these things and march forward. we'll see.
He speaks for me, too - and Bill Clinton.
Last but not least, here's Marc Ambinder asking - and answering in the negative - how the White House feels about liberals. Read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt:
The two arguments are these: the White House contends that the bill is a foundation -- and will meaningfully improve the lives of 30 million people without insurance -- and represents the greatest advance for American health care since LBJ and Medicare. The activist left, broadly, has come to the view that the Senate (and the White House) are held hostage by the forces to whom we've outsourced our health care: the insurance industry, who've just received a massive subsidy in exchange for minimal sacrifices.
The truth, of course, is that both of these arguments are valid. Which one you accept is a matter of taste, preference, mental furniture, ideological commitment, geography.
Beyond this, though, it's a matter of respect: liberals aren't feeling the love. They feel taken for granted. They feel as if the President hasn't done enough to bring them into his coalition. They projected a lot onto candidate Obama, and -- for a variety of reasons, some valid -- don't see the same guy. It is as if Obama's approach to governing assumes that the only influential audiences are the ones he has to court.
The White House interprets the discontent by saying that liberals REALLY don't like Congress, and the Senate, with its hard-to-govern rules... and that they're associating Obama with Congress because of the health care debate... and that once the economy begins to improve...liberals will retrospectively judge this first year of his presidency with more appreciation.
Ok. More soon. Thanks, as ever, for reading.
Posted by caps at December 17, 2009 05:27 PM