Obama has bungled health care and the left is pissed. Many heavy-hitting, left-leaning pundits—including Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and our own Luvh Rakhe—have all voiced strong and reasoned reservations about Obama’s handling of health care, and have even gone so far as to float the idea that other like-minded lefties should contemplate open revolt against the feel-good, faux-reform, bipartisan-at-any-cost presidency. But this rash abandonment of Obama, or even just a loss of faith in him, would be a big mistake.
I never imagined I would find myself on Obama’s side of this particular debate. After all, I was one of the original Obama skeptics back in the primaries when it was already apparent that he wanted to please all peoples, all of the time, and was willing to sacrifice his principles to do so. And I certainly do not want to defend Obama’s pathetic political strategy for health care reform. I whole-heartedly agree that deferring to Congress and seeking bipartisanship was a big mistake. He should have been out front on the issue and using his rhetorical skills to their fullest potential.
But I do want to defend Obama’s presidency more generally, forgive him his political failings, and try to put the political jockeying around health care in the proper perspective.
Frankly, I’m puzzled that the left has decided to place almost all of the blame for the watering down of health care reform on the shoulders of Obama. Why not blame Congress!? While Congress is packed to the gills with spineless, clueless, compromise-obsessed Neanderthals, it’s clear to me that Obama’s heart is in the right place. Obama’s failure is not one of intention, but one of execution, which is a much lesser transgression.
And the left’s expectation that real universal health care reform was within reach because of big Democratic majorities in Congress was always a little pie-in-the-sky. The U.S. government is an inherently conservative body--not in terms of ideology, but in terms of its ability to legislate sweeping changes. The game is essentially rigged against radical reform, and always has been. The idea of universal health care has been around since the original Progressive Era; and back then it was stymied by the same forces Obama is struggling with today—a do-nothing Congress that is beholden to special interests and beholden to local, parochial constituents.
Teddy Roosevelt, the “radical reform” president of that Progressive Era, was able to pass a number of important reforms (including strong regulation of the then-powerful railroads, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and strong environmental protection policies), but could do so only in his second term after much of the conservative opposition within his own party had been neutralized (sound familiar?). And even in that second term, he was unable to pass other reforms that would have created an eight-hour workday, inheritance and income taxes, and would have regulated the stock market. In short, Obama’s difficulties with instituting sweeping reform are to be expected, and any reforms that are hard-hitting enough to satisfy today’s progressives will likely come in a second term—if Obama gets one.
We should also recognize that, when it comes to foreign policy, a political arena in which Congress has very little sway, Obama is delivering the goods (with the notable exception of Afghanistan). The fact that he has stumbled out of the gate on the domestic front is no reason to abandon him. Liberals should, instead, rally around him, recognize that Rome wasn’t built in a day, make sure he gets re-elected (especially because the likely alternative to an Obama second term is too horrifying to even contemplate), and then make a big push for more radical reform in 2012 and beyond.
UPDATE: Ross Douthat has an interesting piece that places blame for the bungling of health care on the Democratic Party's "inability to govern." I blame Congress more generally (the special interests, that power is skewed towards non-populous states, etc.--and after all, it's not just the Democratic Party that has shown an inabilty to govern!); but he is right that it makes no sense for Obama to take all the heat for a failure that is not entirely of his making.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I particularly appreciate this commentary on the Obama Health Care situation. I have always been on the side of intelligent intention even if it brings lackluster returns.
The CNN polls regarding Americas approval of the president, beg for a negative skew. I would bet most of the responders are answering to the question of "Approval of the President" as if asked about "Approval of the current situation in Washington." I mean, if anyone else can think of a more qualified person who would try harder to get this job done than Obama, please speak up. Otherwise what are we criticizing? That he and his learned circle "should've known better?"
I'm sure any blundering of his efforts are as obvious to him as they are to everyone else waiting on the sidelines to point out how bad things are going. But, I wish overall we were a nation of "Alright, what can we do now." instead of a nation of "He should've done this, he should've done that- he's an idiot."
Obama hasn't surprised me. He's performed mostly along the lines of the man I voted for. Even exceeded my expectations in many regards. If anything, he has exposed to me, the many assholes out there who try to block progress through sensationalism and dramatization. I doubt many of the opposing politicians believe their own propaganda they're peddling to thwart Obama's health care bill. Let me also say I respect all of the "healthy debate" Obama himself has asked for. But we don't see much of that. We seem to have a voracious appetite for emotional outbursts that vent our personal aggressions while we starve to death for quiet, calm resolve that could feed real progress. Good ol' USofA-holes.
Post a Comment