One of the many fascinating dimensions of the health-care debate has been the strained diplomatic relations between President Obama and grassroots progressives, a precisely unknowable but undoubtedly significant percentage of whom have by now advanced, even, from strained relations to manifest hostilities.
Not that fascinating, you say? Well, it is when considering an additional dimension of this rift: moderate conservative voices, such as the NY Times' Ross Douthat, seem to sympathetically comprehend the political realities hovering over health-care reform better than many progressive voices, such as the NY Times' Paul Krugman. And in my opinion, that -- and not any real policy differences -- is one underlying cause of the Obama-progressive rift.
First things first, just to spare the time of his army of emailing zombie defenders, to borrow from his column last Sunday, "All the President's Zombies." I like Krugman. Nay, I adore Krugman. I invariably agree with Krugman; his objectives, anyway. Paul Krugman is a wonderful man, a real prince of a progressive and a brilliant economist. But he's also a stinker of a political tactician, whose awkward fastidiousness too often follows, then reinforces, then re-follows, grassroots progressive opinion.
His aforementioned column is Exhibit A and perhaps the only one needed for proper prosecution.
In it, Krugman quite reasonably blamed some of the difficulty behind health-care reform on those rivers of health-industry cash flowing into the campaign coffers of Senate Democratic conservatives such as Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Max Baucus, none of whom, correctly wrote Krugman, have any "coherent argument" against a public option -- the fundamental sticking point.
Krugman then went on to write that "some of the blame also must rest with President Obama, who famously praised Reagan during the Democratic primary" -- which is a staggering untruth, disprovable by a mere five seconds of video reviewing and unworthy of Krugman's polemical skills -- "and hasn’t used the bully pulpit to confront [Reagan's] government-is-bad fundamentalism," which, of course, has nastily flavored the public-option debate.
Krugman declined to assign proportions of guilt -- Congress' measure of responsibility vs. Obama's -- but the implication, I think it's fair to say, was that they're about 50-50. And that's where Prof. Krugman's lecture lost me. Same day, the Times' recent addition to its columnist page, former Atlantic senior editor and moderate conservative Ross Douthat, was just as befuddled, in "Don't Blame Obama."
After noting the left is "turning on him," that it now "doubts President Obama’s commitment" to real health-care reform -- "the administration’s fancy footwork on a public health care plan ... is just the latest example," avers the left, "of the president’s unseemly unwillingness to steamroll the opposition" -- Douthat emphasized that while "some of this is true ... some of it is overstated. And at its worst, it’s an example of the bipartisan derangement ... dubbed 'the cult of the presidency,' " to which Douthat's commentating colleague seems to oversubscribe.
"To the disciples of this cult," wrote Douthat, "the president is the government.... Anything that happens on his watch happens because of him. And just as important, anything that doesn’t happen can be pinned entirely on his mistakes." Krugman certainly doesn't venture that far, but in the health-care debate he does far enough, which is too far.
Douthat then posed what to many (most?) is the ruthlessly obvious -- which, again, is part of this debate's fascinating dimensions; how can a conservative columnist see this with such sympathetic clarity, while the progressive remains so blinkered?: "[T]he health care wrestling match is less a test of Mr. Obama’s political genius than it is a test of the Democratic Party’s ability to govern.... If the Congressional Democrats can’t get a health care package through, it won’t prove that President Obama is a sellout or an incompetent. It will prove that Congress’s liberal leaders are lousy tacticians ... [and] that the Democratic Party is institutionally incapable of delivering on its most significant promises."
In short, while Congress under the Bush Republicans was spectacularly dysfunctional in its utter lack of checking and balancing, under the Democrats it's spectacularly dysfunctional in its surfeit of those exercised powers, and for all the wrong reasons.
Look, if President Obama possessed dictatorial authority we would already have a single-payer bill. If he possessed the governing influence of an immensely powerful prime minister, we would have at least a strong public-option bill. But he possesses neither of these (which, by the way, progressives claimed to abhor just a few short months ago).
What does prevail is a stubbornly lackadaisical and offensively self-interested Congress that can spit in Obama's eye in part because it knows there's a massive reservoir of "presidential cultists" out there who, all along and in the end, will blame the president for Congress' failures.
The arch political pressure point to be clamped and manhandled by grassroots progressives and Pied Piper columnists isn't Obama; it's the lawmakers who -- surprise -- are making the law. Obama can't use his bully pulpit, as Krugman urged, to publicly insist on a public option, because if and when Congress then screws him on it, no matter how virtuous the remaining legislation Obama would be deemed to have suffered a crushing political loss.
That's the hardball political reality of it, which the White House comprehends and Paul Krugman & Friends either doesn't, or unfairly refuses to acknowledge.
Be careful yman. speak ill
Be careful yman. speak ill of the SL finger wagging parrot and your post will dissapear. The SL hole for a soul attacks however, will remain in perpetuity on this site. No one knows best but THE ONE, and SL of course. The term grasping for straws comes to mind. Now censor me and have done!
It's the damn filibuster rule.
There is an excellent piece in this week's The Nation by Thomas Geoghegan that convincingly argues that the failure of the Democrats to enact a progressive agenda can be blamed on the perverse, antidemocratic filibuster rule of the Senate. This holdover from the days of slavery and segregation gives effective veto power to a handful of conservative Democrats. God himself, let alone Obama, could not get anything worthwhile passed as long as this rule is in place. There will always be outliers within any party. They should not be the ones to determine the course of the whole nation. It is time to bust the filibuster.
No individual mandate
No individual mandate without a Public Option.
The unfortunately wretched comments of the PM Carpenter
Carpy says: 'If the Congressional Democrats can’t get a health care package through, it won’t prove that President Obama is a sellout or an incompetent. It will prove that Congress’s liberal leaders are lousy tacticians ... [and] that the Democratic Party is institutionally incapable of delivering on its most significant promises."'
WRONG! It will prove that, once again, the upper 1% plutocracy and their multi national corporations were successful at thwarting the will of the people by bribing enough members of Congress to give them more of our tax dollars.
Carpy also carps: 'Look, if President Obama possessed dictatorial authority we would already have a single-payer bill.'
Wrong again! If President Obama possessed scruples, he would have announced his intent to veto ANY healthcare bill without a single payer option. He would have also denounced the Republican Neocon-Fascist whores and Blue Dog DINO-Fascist whores in Congress for taking bribe money from the K Street lobbyist pimps.
But being a DINO-Fascist himself, Obama is quite content with bringing us change we can believe in that remains the same.
So how did presidents in the past get progressive legislation passed in Congress without "possessing dictatorial authority"? By being great leaders and protectors of the Constitution, which is quite the opposite of being dictators as Carpy so wrongly asserts.
Since Obama has proven on numerous occasions to not be a great protector of the Constitution, what is the solution?
End the unconstitutional "corporate personhood", and then end publically financed election campaigns. Our representatives in government should be beholded to WE THE PEOPLE, and not to a minority plutocracy bent on destroying what little democracy we have left in the U.S.
The Corporate Zorro strikes again
I dunno, P.M.--perhaps it is the fact that you choose to quote Ross Douthat at length to buttress your flimsy premise is what gives me pause. Or perhaps it is the fact that there is empirical evidence that Obama cut a deal with health care bigwigs months ago that sold out the public option and then played golf with them this very week. But you know us liberals, always playing the zombie, never looking at the facts or evidence. Your ability to provide built-in excuses for the president's failure to provide leadership on the public option almost beggars one's sense of reality. Almost. What it really says, though, is that you are a stubborn, elitist, corporatist who moonlights as a pragmatist in his spare time. You never saw a corporate compromise you didn't like. Here's another political reality for you--democrats will fail to provide a public option at their own political peril. You can call us zombies or whatever you wish, but this time YOU and your corpotate-elite buddies are going to have to compromise. Because we aren't giving up. We will have this because we demand it. And yes, Obama has been proven to be a sellout thus far--especially on civil liberties and the unitary executive. This is an empirical fact. You can call us zombies, but thse zombies live in the reality-based world and they look at facts and they've been watching this president closely. Zombies also raise money and they vote and they defend the president during scandals (or not). You want to talk political realities? Suck on that one. And keep the liberal-bashing columns coming. You aren't making a single convert. Take the corporate blinders off for once and see the light.
Another Reason Why The Senate Is Different
Here is another, probably the primary, reason the senate is different and such a problem.
The five least populous states (WY, ND, VT, AK, SD) control 10% of the senate votes but account for only 1.1% of the total population of the U.S.
The next five least populous states (DE, MT, RI, HI, MA) control another 10% of the senate votes but account for 1.8% of the total population of the U.S.
The third least five populous states (NH, ID, NB, WV, NM) control another 10% of the senate votes but account for a whopping 2.74% of the total population of the U.S.
So we have 15 states controlling 30% of the votes while representing only 5.6% of the total U.S. population. By my count, 9 of the 15 states are clearly red states, four are blue (RI, DE, VT, HI) and two are in between (WV, NM).
Generally speaking, these states not only have low populations, they have low population densities (except RI, DE, HI). That trend continues for at least the next ten least populous states - maybe more so as one gets into the states of the old South. So, what we are experiencing is a poltical war between the cities and farm country, as well as the last vestigages of the Civil War. Speaking from my own personal experience, there are reasons why some people move to the city and why others stay in farm country. For those in farm country, the cities and "big city ways" are foreign and ungodly. To them, a big city is "the Whore of Babylon" straight out of "Revelations".
Regardless of the causes, the reality is that the Right can stop the senate Democrats by controlling 42% of the votes in the senate. To my initial point, the Right does not have to represent even 42% of the population to to control 42% of the votes.
As has been pointed out in numerous articles on the net, it is much easier for outsiders (read that corporate intersts) to buy controlling influence in small states via campaign contributions. In those cases, both Republican and Democrats not only vote for corporate interests, they are habitually propagandizing there constituents with the corporate party. For example, Baucus is not only not voting for the public option, he is habitually talking it down to independents and Democrats. And as a Democrat chairman, his words reverberate through surrounding states like Nebraska.
This is why I, as a far left progressive, have a lot of sympathy for Obama and the senate Democrats, as does Mr. Carpenter. Unlike Mr. Carpenter, I conclude that this is all the more reason for progressives to coerce progressive Democrats in the senate to take agressive action to make it happen. As poor as the situation in the senate, it will not likely be any better for a long time.
That is called "General Consensus"
America is a republic, not a democracy. We don't just go with a simple majority of 50% of the vote plus one. We strive for inclusion of as many as possible.
The problem is, the K Street lobbyist pimps don't have to bribe as many Senators as they do Representatives to get their way.
Obama DIDN'T "praise Reagan", PM?
Uhhhhm, .... yes he did.
I understand your desire to continue to be an apologist for Obama, but at some point, it just gets ..... well, .......
embarrassing.
What about leadership?
Ken Lezin Marina del Rey, California
We've been "Cheneyed" by Obama - Greg Palast
Well, not me, but all you Obama-worshipping true progs out there who sold all the campaign lies.
We won't be fooled again
Just who did you back in the primaries, Yman? Was it Hillary, who is a worse DINO than Obama? Or were you a McSame/Falin' fan?
If you did not back Kucinich like I did, you have no room to criticize the progressives for Obama's betrayal of all Americans.
If the public option does not pass, get ready for progressives to wage a primary election battle against all Blue Dog Dino-Fascists next year. Plus, get ready for the political downfall of Obama, and the rise of President Kucinich. What the progressives give, can be taken away and given to someone else more worthy.
There's a reason why Kucinich was completely blacked out by the MSM, and censored during the Democratic Presidential Primary debates. His message resonates and his actions prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he is truly on the side of WE THE PEOPLE.
Actually, I like Kucinich
I really like his positions on most issues, but if you think that there's a snowball's chance in hell that he would be able to sell his platform on a national level, you must have slept through the last primary. "His message resonates"??? The reason he was largely ignored by the MSM and wasn't allowed to participate in the NH and SC debates was because he barely registered in the polls. He pulled out after failing to get more than 2% of the vote in any primary/caucus. So you can stomp your feet and dream all you want about the "rise of President Kucinich", but I wouldn't hold my breathe while waiting.
As far as the primaries, I didn't vote for Hillary or McCain ... I voted for Edwards. That being said, what makes you say that Hillary is a "worse DINO than Obama"? Their platforms were virtually identical. I don't remember Hillary promising to expand Bush's unitary executive powers. She also wasn't real big on backroom deals with big pharma and the health insurance companies either. Of course, she actually did oppose the FISA compromise when she said she would. The ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) gave her a 70% approval rating, not as high as Kucinich (95%), but a lot better than Obama (45%).
BTW - "If you did not back Kucinich like I did, you have no room to criticize the progressives for Obama's betrayal of all Americans." Really???
Sure I do, ....
... and I will.
BBTW - Who are you referring to when you say "we" won't be fooled again?
Some of us weren't fooled the first time.
Ah, but you were fooled, and more than once too.
Actually, you were fooled by Edwards, again. So that makes twice, not zero times you were fooled.
In 2004 he mysteriously gave up fighting only one day after the stolen election. His talents would have been useful in the ensuing court cases. But he cowardly gave up on WE THE PEOPLE and went into hiding with Kerry.
And you wanted to vote for him again? Talk about being fooled!
The only reason Kucinich did not get any traction was because of the fact he was completely blacked out and censored by the MSM, not to mention the primary debate hosts.
Of course no one voted for him. No one knew he was in the race!
Please pay attention next time before being fooled, yet again.
Ah, but you're wrong ..... again.
I was paying attention, and if you were paying attention, you would have noticed my post (and your own) was discussing the 2008 primary, as opposed to your second post where you attempted to switch the topic to the 2004 general election.
Yes, I also happened to vote for Kerry/Edwards in the 2004 GE, but so what??? The only choice at that point was to vote for Kerry or Bush, and I would have voted for pretty much anyone before voting for Bush. So what's your point? Beyond that, you say "In 2004 he mysteriously gave up fighting only one day after the stolen election. His talents would have been useful in the ensuing court cases. But he cowardly gave up on WE THE PEOPLE and went into hiding with Kerry." "Mysteriously"? .... What the hell is that supposed to mean? he was involved in some kind of conspiracy? Furthermore, by the "ensuing court cases", do you mean the voting fraud cases that went absolutely nowhere? Good for him, since doing so with the evidence that existed would have been political suicide. In terms of Edwards using his "talents" to contest the 2004 election, being a party to the case he would not have been involved any legal work in any lawsuit, even if his "talents" included appellate work, rather than as a trial attorney. Finally, as the VP nominee, the decision to contest the election results wasn't his. If you think that someone should have contested the results, maybe you should let John Kerry know.
As far as Kucinich not getting press coverage, guess he just isn't very good at it, but that's part of the job description. Sure the MSM has its biases, but a candidate has to figure out how to get their attention or raise enough money to buy ads if they want to have a chance. Kucinich got booted from the debates along with Carol Mosley-Braun and Al Sharpton because he was barely registering in the polls and had gotten so few actual votes.
Nice try Kevvy, but next time you want to claim "we" won't get fooled again, ...
... maybe you should just speak for yourself.
You attack me uncivilly, but can't post your name. Embarrassed?
The whole point of the stolen 2004 election, aided by Edwards silence, is exactly why you were fooled in 2008, again. Who in their right mind would vote for a traitor who can't stand up for himself one day after a stolen presidential election, yet expect him to stand up for WE THE PEOPLE after possibly winning a future election? This is exactly why Kerry never ran again. But that logic obviously escapes you.
The court cases went nowhere because Edwards and Kerry, who should have been at the front of the battle against the second stolen election, quickly conceded and then quickly disappeared, thus giving credibility to the stolen election. Is your memory that damaged?
Of course regardless of Kerry's treasonous behavior in not fighting the stolen election, as a VP candidate, Edwards had every right to contest the stolen election. There is no law preventing it. But instead, he too committed treason by not fighting the stolen election.
You can deny the obvious MSM complete blackout and obvious primary debate censoring of Kucinich, but that doesn't make you right, just deluded.
C'mon Kevvy, ....
... no need to get your panties in a bunch.
Edwards and Kerry are "traitors" for not contesting the election results? Really? Wow, ..... there must be tons of people clamoring for the heads of these "traitors", huh? I mean, their treachery is so obvious, there must be thousands (nay, millions) of people who want justice served to these treasonous 1% Plutocrats, right Kevvy? Or, ........
.... just you, with your ridiculous theory.
"Deluded"? LOL! Yes, indeed, ...
... only it's not me that's deluded. Speaking of which, care to place a little bet on your other delusion ..... "the rise of President Kucinich"? Tell ya what, I'll even wait until the public option goes down the drain, then I'll let you make the bet ... as much as you want. I'll even give you odds .... 3:1. For every dollar you bet, I'll pay you 3 when Kucinich is sworn in as POTUS, okay? Just let me know how much.
BTW - If you really must know my name, it's Jack.
carpenter a quizzling
according to you progresives should just stop fighting and accept whatever the republicans want.Why even vote,we can just elect the heads of the 3 biggest corporations and let them run America.this is what you conservative Democrats really want.Just for once in your miserable life tell the truth Mr. Carpenter,Obama is a conservative just like you,he wants to serve the corporations,just like you.Obama wants a corporate job when he gets out of the white house and you Mr. Carpenterreally want to work for fox.Please tell the truth for once,i guarentee it will make you feel better
OMG! PM - Thanks for the Truth and Sanity!
Prepare to be Crucified because you threaten the Progressive's Prime Passtime - whipping Obama!
But thanks. A deep, deep thanks.
I've just read you piece again -
BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO, BRAVO....
May a pax be on the houses of those "Progressives" that still will not see,
and may the resultant demise of America come to rest squarely on the
hole that should have been their Souls.
BUT MAY THEY INSTEAD BE AWAKEND BY YOUR TRUTH, AND COURAGE
TO RE-JOIN PRES. OBAMA IN COURAGEOUS, CONSTRUCTIVE ACTION.
Spoken like a true DINO-Fascist propagandizing parrot.
Just wondering when will you stop being the ironic antithesis of your name?
Give Me A Break
Absolute rubbish.
Stop being such an Obama apologist, it's getting embarrassing. Yes, Obama CAN take a stand. This was one of the central issues of his campaign.
If he can't take a stand on this, then he can't take a stand on anything. Stop blaming Congress, Obama should use the FULL POWER of his bully pulpit to push for a public option in health care reform.