President Obama's speech in Manhattan yesterday, on the nation's economic troubles and needed Wall Street reforms, was, like pretty much everything else these days, also about health care.
Though pointedly delivered on the one-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers' explosive collapse and intended to spur regulatory reform, the president's purpose was, as well, to allay heightening public fears that the federal government's intervention in, and ownership of, the economy is unbounded -- fears gleefully stoked and exploited by anti-health-care-reform elements, which, in turn, have led in part to the Washington Post's latest poll findings: that "President Obama continues to face significant public resistance to his drive to initiate far-reaching changes to the country's health-care system."
A singular passage from yesterday's NY Times, which I quote in extenso, somewhat jarringly illustrated the circuitous route from Wall Street's past stupidities to Main Street's future and overall fears:
[G]overnment spending [now] accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy -- 26 percent -- than at any time since World War II. The government is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States. If you buy a car from General Motors, you are buying from a company that is 60 percent owned by the government. If you take out a car loan or run up your credit card, the chances are good that the government is financing both your debt and that of your bank. And if you buy life insurance from the American International Group, you will be buying from a company that is almost 80 percent federally owned.
The irony, of course, is that it was free-market advocates who got us to this point. Not quite as ironically funny, however, is that our present Congress is so imbued by that easy, come-hither look toward its corporate Sugar Daddies, I imagine the latter feel the urge for a cigarette after every encounter -- which is merely another way of saying that Obama can probably kiss real regulatory reform goodbye.
For it is, or so this Congress will disingenuously tell the people, just too much government, just as a "public option" would have been. And because folks are already (conveniently) terrified of the Leviathan -- a terror falsely induced, yes, but a palpable terror nevertheless -- that made this perhaps the worst possible time for Obama to have attempted comprehensive, and that means governmental, health-care reform, however much his effort was unavoidable.
As the Post reported on its poll findings: "After a summer of angry debate and protests" -- against which I once expected a substantial backlash, but it failed to materialize; see above -- "opposition to the [health-care reform] effort has eased somewhat," although it still edges out support, 48 percent to 46. And as we move farther in time from Obama's speech to Congress last week, you can count on a re-expansion of that slight gap.
As for the public's support of mandates, the next political battleground ripe for demagoguery, it "divides about evenly -- 51 percent in favor, 47 percent against," yet heretofore, as we all know, "it is the public option that has become the major point of contention."
And on that, I would add, has come the one major point of a rather pleasant surprise.
You no doubt recall much of the recent -- and, especially, blogospheric -- chatter about an inevitable divide among liberals if and when the public option gets harpooned, which, as you also know by now, has decidedly occurred. I myself wrote and speculated about it, as did many. Yet if current polling is any indication, there will be, after all, no divide of any real consequence.
Again, from the Post, I quote: "The decision to back away from the provision might hurt Obama among his base, but not dramatically so, as 88 percent of liberal Democrats support the reform plan as is, 81 percent without the public option."
That, to say the least, is huge, and just about the only good news I could find anywhere in the Post's polling. One can, of course, argue the advisability of liberals' tangible unity, but any coming divide, it appears, shall remain theoretical. In short, a minor civil war has been averted.
How did this come about? Hard to say. Some speculate that it's because liberals are as protective of their own private health-care plans as are independents and conservatives. Others would say the public option was always more of a media creature than a substantive fix, hence true flames of liberal passion burned lightly.
Yet others -- and this would be my take -- would argue that liberals merely saw the political handwriting on the wall and decided, in a Kennedyesque way, to seize whatever is legislatively possible now, and live to fight another day (when all things health carewise become even worse, as, in the absence of single-payer or even its poor stepsister of a public option, they most assuredly will).
But whatever the reasons, it seems that a significant progressive split has been avoided. In the much larger fog of war, a little good news.
The Left Has Not Yet Begun To Fight!
While it has taken too long due to self-delusion on the part of liberal Congressional Democrats, they are beginning to realize that they will be had - played for fools - if they vote for any bill without a public option. There is still time for these "visionaries" to reverse course while under pressure yet again, but the more it looks like the Baucus version of reform is to be the basis for the final bill, the more likely the opposition will throw up the barricades.
Really??
I can't see where the Left has even begun to fight. All I see from you "real progressives" is venting on blogs. Where is the organized and funded push for the public option or single payer? You can laugh at the Tea Baggers in August, but at least they showed up.
PM's headline is ironic
(and he does write his own headlines, does he not? this isn't some big establishment paper where someone's entire job is to do that for all the articles?) the war which he declares dead before it started is occurring right here.
DINO Carpenter's progressive support? It seems to have fizzled
Why is Blue Dog DINO-Fascist Carpenter still allowed to post his crap on Buzzflash?
Nothing like rooting for the other side, again.
Of course, Buzzflash contridicts Carpy in today's headlines:
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) predicts Congress will approve a health care reform bill this fall that includes a public option, saying a "silent majority" of Americans favor such an overhaul. 9/16
AFL-CIO to Push for Overhaul With Public Option 9/16
Here's another one:
Lines are beginning to be more sharply drawn in the Senate on healthcare reform, as the progressive Senators are breaking through with their message, and the Senate moves more and more toward the inevitable conclusion: real reform is going to require reconciliation. Chuck Schumer has been very effectively making that argument, as he does in an interview with The American Prospect
Howard Dean reinforced that point, that reconciliation was viable prospect for getting some of the better parts of the bill passed, and emphasizing that the majority of Democratic Senators does indeed support a stronger bill--enough of them to pass a public option through reconciliation. And one of those Democratic Senators, Jay Rockefeller, reinforces why it has to be a robust public option and not fake version like a co-op.
...it's conveniently forgotten by most of the beltway establishment, but there's another Senate committee besides the Baucus debacle that has a say in healthcare reform. Sen. Kennedy's HELP Committee now has a new chair, Tom Harkin, and Tom Harkin sounds pretty determined.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/14/781939/-Senate-Support-for-Public-Option-Becoming-more-Visible
And here is a site where people can actively support the nonfizzled progressives and the public option:
'Progressives this week are fighting to accumulate the votes needed to stop any health care bill that doesn’t have a public option. Hopefull they can stop this PhRMA payoff as well. If you’ve got a phone, call your congressman and give him/her hell about this…'
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/09/14/phrmas-big-bribe-comes-in/#more-770
I just want to know from where Carpy is stenographing his propaganda, the Blue Dog Dino-Fascist Rahm or the Neocon-Fascist Rove? It's so hard to tell them apart!
What the hell?
What the hell? The writer thinks the progressives have decided to be allies with the fascists on health insurance?
lol.
still full of baloney
I can always tell by a headline which article is crafted by PM Carpenter,if it sounds hateful to the progressives I know PMCarpenter has crafted that article.Unlike you,PM Carpenter who wants no real reform in America we real progressives do.From reading all the progressive blogs and seeing progressive Democrats which i was beginning to doubt existed now fighting for a public option I know your article is pure horse manure,progressives are not giving up the fight against a conservative Democratic congress and president,if there is no action on the public option we will see how the Democratic party fares in the next few elections.I for 1 will after 40 years of voting Democrat not be voting again.Each victory for the corporate state whether Republican or Democrat just makes them stronger and I do not support facism by either party as you do
Progressive circle jerk continues
Progressive War - that is an oxymoron. Progressives pontificate, whine, scapegoat, crucify, rock throw, armchair quarterback, monday morning quarterback....
But War? Um, that involves risk, responsibility, commitment - PROGRESSIVES DON'T DO THAT. Not among themselves and CERTAINLY NOT with the GOP Pod People.
Take my county! Take my children. Take my environment.... BUT DON'T WAKE ME!
1930 Germany all over again.
A bunch of do-nothings.
Good for nothing.
Pitiful.
Read your posts again
See if you can spot the irony.
The WaPo has spoken
The neocon coporate-loving WaPo delivers a poll that Carpenter likes and he eats the results whole because it confirms his own bias--the liberals will love Obama no matter what. What a surprise.
A poll is a snapshot, P.M.--full of sound and fury signifying nothing. It may or may not be right, but remember, the Dems have yet to execute their full Baucusonian corporate cave-in on the jettisoning of the public option. The true fury of that cave and realization of a corporate-dominated HC bill for most liberals has yet to be experienced. And the young--most of whom are healthy and Obama supporters (and many poor)--have yet to receive their first bills for the junk plans they will be forced to purchase from private insurers.
But yeah, I will concede, if history is judge the liberals will cave and then forgive and forget--this is their DNA. But I read a myriad of liberal websites (do you?) and the civil war over the Obama presidency already exists. The willing jettison of the public option and protection of the insurance companies will not be his 1st campaign flipflop or corporate sellout in his short 8-month presidency--it is only one among a growing list. The anger and disillusionsment by movement liberals continues to grow as it becomes apparent that Obama is either impotent or complicet in his lack of desire to fight special interests.
The only conclusion we can draw from the poll you refer to is that a significant segment of self-ascribed liberals are Obamabots first and movement progressives 2nd. And this is certainly the dynamic that Obama is counting on and the one that could save his bacon. But it still leaves many movement progressives in the cold without real representation. Do not expect them to continue to cheer the president on if he continues to renege on the real change he promised and instead provides a boatload of beautiful rhetoric and a large bucket of corporate bilge on most every issue he tackles.
"Yet others -- and this
"Yet others -- and this would be my take -- would argue that liberals merely saw the political handwriting on the wall and decided, in a Kennedyesque way, to seize whatever is legislatively possible now, and live to fight another day"
"Seize"? "fight"? Don't make me laugh; in that raspy, sardonic way that is the sound of my heart ripping out its own heart.
There is no "seizing" here - there is only congress and the white house taking the money left on the dresser by a morally criminal industry as the gratuity for a seamy, smelly, degrading interlude behind closed doors.
"Fight"? I don't even know how to address the utter intellectual innocence revealed by such a ridiculous fancy. Go play with some toy soldiers or something and quit bothering us.
War? well of course not
Your central hyperbolic strawman "progressive civil war" is of course not going to happen. However, I note you don't make mention of Rep Conyers, Weiner, etc who, with a large of block of the progressive house caucus have pledged to vote against any bill not containing a "robust" public option. This pledge is not "warfare"; its representation of the interests of one's constituents (aka "representative democracy") over the compromised interests of one's cash-bloated party - and it does not seem to have gone away.
I do not support the passage of a bill that embraces the concerns of a predatory industry. Better nothing than a band-aid which will do nothing but obscure a festering sore for two more decades.
Good News Indeed
A few months back, I commented on Obama's apparent "modus operandi". He lays out big, broad initiatives with concise criteria. He takes to the field to promote his initiative, whle letting congress take the lead in developing legislation. Near the end of the process, he sizes up the situation, takes what he can get, closes the deal, declares victory and then goes on to the next big thing. Obama seems to be intent on reversing a lot of conservative policies. That means a lot of big initiatives in a realively rapid sequence. This precludes holding up everything else to get 100% of perfection on a single initiative. Love it, like it or hate it, this does seem to be his MO.
And that is not bad.
Obama has already teed up big initiative for energy, financial industry regulations, and securities regulations. Soon to follow will be allowing the lapse of the Bush tax cuts, which is another way of saying tax increases with increased progessivity. None of these initiatives will go as far as I think they should, but each will leave in a significntly different situation than the ones bequeathed to us by 28 year of Republican and DLC rule. Collectively, they will represent a huge, if imperfect, sea change for the body politic.
This is good news indeed.
I think the problem is ....
.... not so much that Obama compromises when he has to (all politicians do that), but that he starts the discussion from already compromising position (no pun intended) and bargains backwards from there. He takes a fairly centrist stance from the gate, then slowly cedes ground to the Blue Dogs, and finally to the Republicans. Plus, he's just blatantly backtracked on so many campaign promises that he's lost the trust of those who were really wooed by those promises (i.e. filibustering the FISA/telecom immunity deal, holding the Bush administration accountable, renegotiating NAFTA, etc.)
The other problem is that the "true progressives" convinced themselves that Obama was really one of them, (as opposed to the evil, DLC/Republican-lite Clintons) but was just taking moderate positions and pushing post-partisan unity as a means of getting elected. They convinced themselves that the real Obama (an FDR liberal who would fight the Republicans) would come out after the election.
Oops.
BTW - Is there something in Obama's record that would lead you to believe he is not a centrist/DLC Democrat? (no pejorative connotation intended).
Thanks For The Comment
Well first of all, Obama initiated the public option and has promoted it. When it couldn't get traction, he walked away. Similarly, his stimulus package proposal was much more liberal than what congress passed. The energy package is very progressive. The DLC of the 90s would have never countenanced the proposed regulations on banks and securities.
I have criticized his tactics in dealing with the senate. We can all argue about how hard and well he fought, but my take (and I think this has been PM's take) is that what we have seen come out of congress is pretty much reflective of where the Democrat Party is, also including the checks within the senate. Pelosi pushed the House to left until it began to break. There simply are not 60 votes in the senate for the public option.
That's sorta my point
I wouldn't say Obama has entirely walked away from the public option, but he certainly hasn't pushed it, and he let it be known that he was willing to sign legislation without it (maybe that's what you meant?). That's sort of what I meant. By telling the GOP he would sign legislation that didn't include even the anemic public option, he unnecessarily threw it under the bus. It's kinda like negotiating with a car dealer and letting them know up front that you won't walk away, even if they refuse to negotiate on the price of the car.
As far as his stimulus proposal, it was somewhat more liberal than what Congress passed, but that's usually the case with Democratic administrations and their Congresses, particularly when it comes to spending bills. The energy proposal is progressive, although it remains to be seen whether the banking/securities regulations will be strong enough. Comparing either of those to what the DLC would have permitted in the 90s is apples and oranges, however. GLB passed with HUGE numbers from both parties in the 90s because it was a different economic climate, and we hadn't just gone through an economic meltdown as we have now. The same would hold true for energy, since during the 90s gas and energy as a whole were relatively cheap compared to prices now, so there was much less demand for an alternative energy programs.
I think the DLC is just fine with Obama, ..... it's the "true progressives" who aren't.
Jim Cooper
I live in Rep. Jim Cooper's district in Nashville and know people on his staff. He is a true DLC in that he is a hard core Blue Dog even though he represents one of the bluest districts in the country. I can guarantee you that Cooper is anything but happy with Obama.
Oh, well ..... if Jim Cooper isn't happy with Obama, ....
.... that settles it.
?????
Obviously none of the Blue Dogs in the house or conservative Democrat senators support Obama. What? Do I have to poll all the Blue Dogs before you accept it? Let's face. Even if I had that poll data, you wouldn't accept it. It seems that we progressives have our own loon bin who go ape shit when anyone presents them with information contrary to their world view. As I commented elsewhere, if the world is the way way you claim it is, then we would have our votes in Congress. But it ain't and we don't.
Sorry, you misunderstand ...
... my position. I am a liberal/progressive, although by BF standards I am probably considered a centrist. That being said, I am not a "true prog" who believes that the rest of the country would support a left agenda. Most people are fairly moderate in their political views, and any politician will have to yield to that, to a degree.
Where I disagree, however, is with your premise that Obama is somehow not a centrist/DLC Democrat, and that his agenda is substantially different than a DLC agenda. Different than a Republican agenda? Sure. But the problem is that Obama was sold as a true progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and other "DLC" types. The reality is, nothing he has done to date has shown that to be true ....... just the opposite, in fact. He voted for the FISA compromise, he's expanded warrantless wiretapping, he's supported the Wall St. bailout, he's named Summers/Geithner to lead the economic agenda, he kept Gates, he's "looking forward" rather than leading an effort to hold Bush administration officials accountable, he's caved on health care reform, he's caved on cap-and-trade, approved clear-cutting in Tongassas, argued for expanding Bush's "state's secrets" arguments, retained the right to use extraordinary rendition, promised to renegotiate NAFTA - then said it wasn't necessary .... etc., etc, etc.
Virtually any POTUS would be imperfect from a true prog's perspective. The reality is that the public (let alone Congress) would not accept a far left agenda, and compromises are often necessary to achieve progress. Obama, however takes centrist positions all the time, even when he's not forced to do so by the circumstances of the issue at hand. He's certainly more progressive than the Republicans, but I don't see how he's different than other "DLC types" .... More progressive than Clinton? Gore? Nope .... his energy and financial regulation proposals may be, but they're a product of the different times we live in compared to the 90s. To date, he certainly hasn't proven himself to be more progressive than the DLC that that you lump together to form your premise of "28 years of Republican DLC rule".
Is Jim Cooper always happy with Obama? I'm sure he's not. So what? The fact that Jim Cooper isn't always happy with Obama is supposed to be evidence that he is not a centrist/DLC type? Many Blue Dogs weren't happy with much of Clinton's agenda ... or Gore's, for that matter.
The True Progs are pissed because they built their fantasies of having a POTUS who would push their agenda, based on vague promises of "Hope" and "Change". Obama dismissed the "most liberal" label that the GOP tried to stick him with, but he did little to disabuse the progosphere that he was one of them. Why should he? He needed their support. In return, they managed to help get him elected, but they do what they always do after an election ...... they got their puritanical panties in a bunch when Obama took centrist positions. The same is true for Obama's "post partisan unity" please during the campaign. The true progs thought he was just saying that to get elected, and that once he was elected, he would turn into a real fighter for progressive reform and accountability.
Long story short, Obama's progressive support is a double-edged sword. It helped him during the primary and GE campaign, but he's governed from the center ever since he took office. Complain all you want, but he (and the true progs) created the situation he's in now, and the criticism and loss of support he's facing from his base was entirely predictable. If he wants to get them back, he's going to have to move to the left and learn how to fight.
I Was Not Fooled
I am a true progressive and have never been an Obomaite. I was a supporter of Edwards because he was the first, andd for a long time only (except Kucinich) candidate proposing universal healtcare. I ultimately chose Obama over Clinton because of her continued position on the Iraq War. Any progressive who supported Obama in the belief that he was a far left liberal just wasn't paying attention. While I would love to have a far left liberal president, I have enough walking around sense to know one was not going to be elected in 2008.
"...what we have seen come
"...what we have seen come out of congress is pretty much reflective of where the Democrat Party is"
If you assume that the Democratic Party consists of only those in the house and senate whose names are marked with "D"s, then sure. They have overwhelmingly been lured into whoreing by K-street pimps with wads of cash in their sweaty mitts, and that is explicitly reflected in their "deliberations".
But obviously, your limited concept of a political party is useless in a representative democracy where at least 80% of self-declared demoratic voters have consistently expressed a desire for a public option.
A Fuller Quote
A fuller quote is "what we have seen come out of congress is pretty much reflective of where the Democrat Party is, also including the checks within the senate." The margin for tose big majorities you point to are comprised of Blue Dog Democrats in the House and DLC types in the senate. You have to take them all.
I am a far left progressive, who publicly refers to himself as a Socialist. But I can also count and can discern the composition of the party. If your concept of a political party was accurate, then you would already have the votes. I wish it was different, but it's not. People such as P.M. are not assholes for noticing.