The health-care "debate" has dragged on so long and consumed so much political oxygen -- thank you, Congress -- we're becoming brain-damaged players in a vast stage management of vastly superfluous scripts. Worse, we are reaching the point of empty hype and hysteria over rational engagement.
Naturally I exclude the right from the "we" of that diagnosis, since they're beyond brain-damaged. They flatlined long ago, the poor dears, and now feature themselves in nothing but -- even for Roger Corman -- bad Roger Corman flicks. With pupils dilated and arms rigidly extended their call goes forth, "Must ... kill ... progress."
But what of the still-conscious actors? I'm not sure Congressfolks meet that description, either -- they've been on some sort of immovable autopilot for months; factions firmly in place with only their rhetoric spitting occasional droplets of thoughtfulness -- which, in the forefront of this drama, leaves us with the White House and progressives.
They're ensnarled in something of a hazy spat, with their squaring off and clawing at each other signifying very little but supplying "the action." Indeed, only one side is actually squaring off, while to the other it sounds more like a buzzing noise. The White House just needs a bill; the next three years or seven are hinged to that, so Act Two of its perfunctory stage management -- Wednesday's address to an incorrigible Congress -- is bound to disappoint if not enrage portions of the left.
And White House stage management, accompanied by a few hyperadvertised fireworks, is all it is. That, anyway, is my and several million others' educated guess.
Consider this. Yesterday the Washington Post assisted in the hype by reporting that President Obama "will use the speech to add more specifics to his vision for overhauling the nation's health system"; he will "[attempt] a difficult balancing act"; he will "[seek] to win moderate Senate Democrats to his cause without embracing compromises that would alienate liberal House Democrats"; he will be, in short, "much more prescriptive."
Yet what "specifics" have been left unsaid or unclear? The Congressional pillow-smothering of the public option is a virtual fait accompli, while it was weeks ago that the Washington Post catalogued, as Obama was just about to do, all his "specifics." I quote: No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions; No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays; No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care; No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill; No Gender Discrimination; No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage; Extended Coverage for Young Adults; Guaranteed Insurance Renewal.
Any unequivocal conjuring from the grave of the public option by Obama next Wednesday would be a truly journalistic Get me rewrite! moment. A conjuring accompanied by an insistence, that is. It just won't happen, because any such happening would be, well, otherworldly.
So what, rather perfunctorily as well, I can only guess, do some progressives do? Why of course; they invest what little cash they have and all their emotional effort in fantastically pressuring a decidedly unpressurable White House into grasping for the impossible and wrecking the future.
"If Obama doesn't stand firm on the public option, millions of people will lose hope," screams the Progressive Change Campaign Committee in a mass email, thereby thrusting into the public sphere a blindly misplaced and wholly unnecessary sense of loss, since it was the bill-writing Congress, not Obama, that lethally softened on the pubic option. PCCC's cri de coeur is scandalously misaimed; and the real hell of it is, the organization knows that. It must. No one's political awareness is that developmentally arrested. On the other hand, it's a nice fundraising angle.
Same from MoveOn: "During his campaign, President Obama often said that he believed that change had to come from the bottom up -- not from the top down" -- without once acknowledging that in Washington it's more like the bottom-of-the-barrel-up, meaning Congress.
The above is nothing short of political malpractice. If any progressive organization wishes to encourage thinking among the progressive rank and file -- something I always thought distinguished, at a minimum, the left from the right -- then goddammit it should do some thinking first. At the very least it should target the proper enemy. In some cases that may not be as sexy or profitable or emotionally gratifying, but it would possess the happy upside of being honorable.
Otherwise all one accomplishes is the onset of mass pupil-dilation and roaming rigor mortis. Come on, progressives are better than that, smarter than that. The culpable ones should cut the playacting, get real, and declare enough with the WH-progressive split already. For it is, profoundly, the wrong battle at the wrong time.
hahaha
Yeah! were all gonna bend over now and say "thank you sir","may I have another"! Doubt it but nice try. You can invent a million excuses for Obama and the dems, and more. You can chastise those here who represent a STRONG MAJORITY of the american people just like the shit for brains "news" media does. You can talk this crap all day but your not going to win hearts and minds with that chickenshit. People have had all the wimp out in the face of nutjobs crap their gonna take. There is no excuse for this sellout. None. Period. End of story. If the pres and congress dosnt come out against these nuts, and say what 70+ percent of americans want is what they are going to get, they cant expect any support from anyone who believes in anything progressive. To support that would be no better than the robotic wingnuts. Dont think so.
Man, are YOU gonna get letters.
And lookee below, you certainly have. Sorry, but by definition, it is Obama's fault. Don't like the word? then how about responsibility, as others have rightfully noted, to LEAD. Simple as this: Obama is a bipartisan-at-all-costs wimp.
"Specifics" and "balancing acts"
There's a clash between a "balancing act" and being specific. A balancing act, in the political context, implies not being too specific. But in the end, legislation has to include specifics, otherwise it doesn't mean anything and isn't enforceable.The problem is that Obama has not been specific enough. Eventually general principles and overarching goals just become hot air.
Since he was inaugurated he has not let the public know how he will defend our interests against those of health care corporations. I didn't even know he had specified the list that Carpenter "quotes" above. It's hard to see how those criteria will be usefully enforced without a public insurance option, available to everyone, to provide real competition for the insurance industry.
All the big players - health insurance companies, big pharma etc etc etc have seats at the table and the public interest is left watching and listening as if behind glass. Senator Baucus threw single payer advocates out of "his" hearing and even had some arrested. They were being rowdy because that was the only way they got any attention at all.
The Senate does not "represent" the public at all and the Senate Finance Committee gang of 6 are a particularly extreme example. Just to start with, if 60 % of the senators are Democrats why are they even underrepresented on this subcommittee? (And never mind that the Democratic Senators, many from big states, represent well over 60% of the population.)
The jury is still out on this process. It's obvious that the Republicans are out to destroy Obama politically. You can't make nice with bullies. So will Obama stand up for the majority who voted for him or will he succumb to a different political reality and go with the big money corporate interests.\?
Just remember - $1.4 million per day, total now up around $294 million since January 20, being spent to make sure that the big guys (and gals) get to call the shots.
Carpenter, are you surprised that people are pissed off?
Colleen Clark Cambridge, MA
We Are The People - and we will NOT tone it down!
Despite the vituperation aimed at Mr. Carpenter (some of which I agree with), the message of this post misses the point. What we progressives and liberals are most disappointed about regarding Obama's performance is not that he has dropped the public option, but that he has not led. He has allowed the Congress to provide him cover instead of the reverse.
Allow me to repeat this a little louder for the hard-of-hearing: OBAMA HAS NOT LED.
I'm reminded of one of Obama's own statements made not so long ago, suggesting that - if we wanted to blame anyone for the failures of his administration - we were to look to him as the responsible party. Allow me to quote him directly: "Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742582093579655.html) Yes, in this case he was referring to AIG bonuses, but that statement should apply to everything he does. Truman's buck still stops at the Oval Office Desk of the President.
Following that directive, we are indeed taking him to task for not performing his task as he was so charged through our votes. He and his party are letting us down by not giving us something worthwhile in trade for the involuntary indentured economic servitude to the insurance companies - backed by the threat of a tax penalty to be imposed by the IRS should we refuse - that he thinks is going to provide all Americans with health insurance. This doesn't mean that all Americans will have useable health coverage! It will prove to be just some worthless insurance that the government will use as cover for shovelling even more of our increasingly scarce tax dollars into the massive maw of the SS Wallstreetanic.
We are not amused that he is being "so mayo" when it comes to our health and well-being. We are the People - and we will not tone it down!
Carpenter, ever-Sucking the Corporate Teat
If the president "desperately" wants a bill, he should jettison the backroom deals he made with Big Healthcare, drop all negotiations with republicans, and begin pressuring the bluedogs to side with the rest of the democratic caucas in favor of a public option and ram this baby through. Because, guess what, P.M. No amount of scolding from corporate hacks like you will dissuade me and other true progressives from demanding the public option. We have compromised away from single-payer and I will be goddamn if I support any further compromise. Right now, I don't give a shit if a bad bill goes down to defeat, and I don't care if Obama suffers from it. His (and your) brand of corporate politics is quickly driving me to the Green Party. Yeah, I know, we'll never win anything. Right on, asshole. But neither will your corporate democrats and I'll sleep well at night knowing I stuck by my principles. Go ahead and keep shitting on liberals and you and Obama are going to get exactly the party you want--a party full of psuedo-progressive corporate whores. That's a party I will gladly walk away from.
This is hyperbolic and apologist spin.
Huh?
I have read no apologist statements as you assert.
Spot On
Spot On, P.M.!
I will put my progressive credentials up against anyone. Further, I am not now nor ever have been a Obama fanatic, much less an apologist. I am sick and tired of so-called real progressives (often Clintonites for God's sake) blame all this on Obama.
The real problem is the make-up of the congressional Democrats. Does anyone here honestly believe that Obama would not welcome signing in to law a public option or even a single-payer system. Grassroot Democrats in the South and West nominate and help elect the likes Max Baucus and Jim Cooper. If all you intend to do is piss and moan about Obama, while refusing to engage in nominating progressives during the primaries and electing them in the general election, you are more of the problem than Obama. And No, not living in those states is not an excuse for not contribting time and money.
But then I guess it is good that you are not even in the fight if you don't have enough sense to know whom to shoot.
Double-edged sword
The "true-progs" are the problem? In a way, ...... but on the other hand, they're the same ones who put Obama over the top in the primaries in the first place. Obama's campaign wooed the true progs and progressive blogosphere with vague promises of "Hope" and "Change", and they fell for it ..... utterly and completely. So now that he's backtacked on so many campaign promises, they're a little upset about being duped. Moreover, he was the one who sold himself as the candidate who could appeal to independents and even reach across party lines to get support from moderate Republicans (remember "Democrat for a Day"? Guess that was to be interpreted literally).
So now, when he makes backroom deals with the pharma/insurance lobbies, when he doesn't even make a show of considering single-payer, when it appears he's throwing even a watered-down public option under the bus, when he can't even manage to keep his own party together (let alone gather any independent/bipartisan support) they're supposed to blame the Senate instead of him?
I don't think so.
Progressive Malpractice
So you think I should support the Democrats and Obama in spite of their treachery? I seem to remember Obama saying he was going to "fight" for healthcare. I haven't seen it.
All the talk of bipartisanship is bullshit. Fucking bullshit. Just like your advice to progressives. If the public option is forsaken then what's the point? Insurance companies kill and maim people daily. CEOs live high on the hog because of it. "The proper enemy"? Anybody who does not support single payer or at least the Public Option is the fucking enemy, including Obama or any goddam dem or rethug. I don't care if the insurance companies go out of business. Why should I? They don't care if people die when they don't get treatment. They should have never been allowed to get in the healthcare business in the first place.
78% support should mean something but these goddam politicians are bought and paid for whores. So progressives should just sit down and shut up and support whatever crap comes from the "Gang of Shit" committee? Because the WH needs a bill, any bill? Bullshit. People need healthcare more than any goddam pol needs a victory. I usually love your columns but today you are so full of shit I feel like I just read Jonah Goldberg.
"Any unequivocal conjuring
"Any unequivocal conjuring from the grave of the public option by Obama next Wednesday would be a truly journalistic Get me rewrite! moment. A conjuring accompanied by an insistence, that is. It just won't happen, because any such happening would be, well, otherworldly."
What kind of cheap dodge is this? That's how you shrive the sins of your fetish-president? By saying that his doing the smart, honorable, and courageous thing would be "otherworldly", and therefore impossible? What a pathetic viiew of particaptory democracy.
"Political Malpractice" that's a good one P.M.
Let's see. We "Progressives" worked our butts off to elect a President who promised "Hope and Change."
We got him elected. And, we also gave him a majority in both houses of Congress.
For reasons totally unclear, he began work on health care legislation, just before everybody decided to take a month's vacation from doing the people's business. Do any of you, in your jobs -- get a month's paid vacation? I never did.
When the cat was away --- the opposition mice certainly DID PLAY. They stacked the decks at town hall meetings, (with the money and other resources from the health care industry) and monopolized teevee and radio talk shows to spout their opposition to "socialism", which most of us call Medicare --- a.k.a. "The Public Option."
The President of the United States a.k.a. the Leader of the Democratic Party, stood on Martha's Vineyard -- and watched the show.
Much, much too late in the process .... he held a series of town hall meetings of his own. To the surprise of no one at all. --- They were totally fruitless... because the message was so convoluted and twisted. "I want a public option." "A public option is just a sliver." "A public option is not the total of health care reform." "Health Care Reform" became "Insurance Industry Reform."
Damn.... I listened to all that, just as closely as I could.... and even I lost track of the message. What did he say? Noboby really knows!
Meanwhile, before they left for their month off.... The House of Representatives......a.k.a. The People's House.... did the work they had been asked to do. The required committees wrote the legislation they had been charged with writing.
The Senate of the United States: a.k.a. as The Millionaires Club.... another story altogeter. Six people.... a.k.a. as "The Gang" dragged their collective, bipartisan feet.
What we know from all this.... is what we have always known. The people want a "Public Option." The House listened to, and heard, the people. The Senate listened to, and only heard the corporations.
If we can believe, what we are NOW hearing from The President, he also only hears the corporations.
And, you want to blame Progresssives for this mess???
Put the blame squarely where it belongs. The President of The United States. The buck stops there. Literally, and Figuratively.
PM - BRAVO. However...
"The culpable ones should cut the playacting, get real, and declare enough with the WH-progressive split already. For it is, profoundly, the wrong battle at the wrong time." I'm not sure I much followed the rest, exept you obviously had a good time writing it. But BRAVO this last line. HOWEVER, I'll add this. WE are the owners of this place called America. And we suck. Congress and the WH are OUR HIRES. It is not from lack of oxygen they suffer. It is from Clinically Abusive, Criminally bad management by we Progressives. After a long, expensive interview and hiring process we've 1. Deprived them of a budget (Political Capital - our competent, committed, ACTIVE support), 2. We psychologically, Clinically Abuse them all - giving them the back of our hands without a second thought - making Slave Owners blush from their graves. PTSD is what we are witnessing, and WE are the cause. SHAME on US.
Speak for
Speak for yourself.
But even then; Obama's failures are not your fault - just as they are not my fault. They are the result of some weakness in his character. He could have done anything, had he come out swinging in the Spring, but his allegience to big-money has clearly won out.
He may really surprise me in his address to the joint session - he might start with a huge belly-laugh and say he's just been kidding, and start railing against the "malefactors of great wealth" and the "economic royalists holding the reins of power". But he won't. Those demographics are his friends and advisors. He is their servant, and for all he cares we can sit here sucking rear-end wind.