POLITICS JANUARY 20, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Bill Clinton didn’t know he was in big trouble until the very eve of the November 1994 election. Barack Obama knows now, barely a year into his presidency. While the party loyalists can blame Martha Coakley’s defeat on her ignorance of Red Sox baseball, it was clearly a message to the president and his party. Yes, a less inept candidate might have beaten Scott Brown, but if Obama and his program had been more popular in Massachusetts, even Coakley could have won--and by ten points or more.
There were no network exits polls, only a limited sample by Rasmussen, but some of the polls taken beforehand bear out Obama’s role in Coakley’s defeat. In the final January 17 poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning North Carolina outfit that picked up Brown’s surge early in the month, 20 percent of the respondents who voted for Obama in 2008 said they’d vote for Brown. Among those voters, only 22 percent approved of Obama’s presidency, and only 13 percent backed his health care plan. (Click here to read Thomas B. Edsall: "Why Health Care is the Graveyard of Democratic Dreams.")
In fact, the percent of 2008 Obama voters who were backing Brown almost perfectly matched the percentage who were dissatisfied with Obama’s health care plan, which Brown himself singled out for criticism in his campaign. According to the Rasmussen exit sample, 52 percent of Brown voters rated health care as their top issue--a clear indication that they were viewing the election in national and not merely state terms.
The most important question raised by Coakley’s loss is not what she could have done better--the answer to that can fill pages of unhappy anecdotes about campaign mishaps--but why Obama’s popularity is so low that a Democrat could lose Massachusetts. A conservative Republican Senate candidate winning Massachusetts, which Obama carried by 62 percent to 36 percent in 2008, is comparable to a liberal Democrat carrying Utah.
If you believe some of the blogs, the Democrats lost Massachusetts, and Obama’s approval is plummeting nationwide, because he alienated his left-wing base. Perhaps that does account for an absence of turnout among young voters in the Virginia gubernatorial or Massachusetts Senate races, but the polls have not shown growing dissatisfaction among young, minority, or liberal voters--the three voting blocs that accounted for Obama’s strongest support in 2008. Where he has lost ground--and where the Democrats have lost ground--is primarily among white working and middle-class voters and senior citizens.
The Suffolk University poll in Massachusetts, which like the PPP poll, was pretty much on target in the final result, singled out two white working-class towns, Gardner and Fitchburg, as bellwethers. Obama won Gardner, where Democrats hold a three-to-one registrations edge, by 59 percent to 31 percent in 2008. Brown won it by 56 percent to 42 percent. Obama won Fitchburg, with a similar Democratic edge, by 60 percent to 38 percent in 2008. Brown won it by 59 percent to 40 percent. That suggests a fairly dramatic shift among white working class voters.
There is no similar city or county gauge for how seniors voted in the final result, but there were prior polls. The Suffolk poll taken January 14 has some clues. The age group that most strongly favored Brown was sixty-five to seventy-four-year-olds by 58 to 38 percent. The same group opposed national health insurance by 48 percent to 28 percent and thought the federal government couldn’t afford such a plan by 66 percent to 33 percent. This age group also included the highest percentage of voters--41 percent--who said they “strongly opposed” Obama’s plan. And they were the one group (albeit narrowly) who disapproved of the job Obama was doing as president--by 45 percent to 44 percent. (Click here to read Jonathan Cohn's open letter to nervous and frustrated House Democrats.)
If you look at national polls, Obama has suffered the greatest loss of approval among exactly the same groups. In the Pew polls, Obama suffered a drastic drop in support in the $30,000-$75,000 income group, from 63 percent to 17 percent approval in February 2009, to 53 percent to 35 percent disapproval in the January 14 poll. Among respondents over sixty-five years old, he went from 60 percent to 17 percent approval to 54 percent to 31 percent disapproval. In its January 2010 poll, Pew has a breakdown by race that is even more disturbing. Whites with some or no college--a rough designation for working-class whites--disapprove of Obama’s presidency by 54 percent to 36 percent.
Why do these groups matter? Since the 1960s, when the Democratic Party split over race, and later over cultural issues as well, the white working class has been a key vote in elections. Their departure from the Democrats in the South helped account for the transformation of the Deep South from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. And in the Northern states, and particularly in Midwestern states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they have been the swing vote in state and presidential elections. It’s a fair measure to say that if a Democrat can get about 45 percent of the white working-class vote, he or she can carry Ohio--Obama got about 44 percent in 2008. But if he gets only 40 percent or less in these states, he will lose those states and lose national elections. The white working-class vote may not be as important in five or ten years, as the demography of America shifts, but it remains so now—an enduring legacy of the politics of the late '60s.
The senior citizen vote overlaps to some extent with the white working-class vote, but it has a special importance because these voters come out disproportionately in midterm elections. If the Democrats continue to lose the senior vote, as Coakley appears to have done in Massachusetts yesterday, they will get clobbered in November 2010. We’re not talking two or three senate seats, but as many as eight, and not 20 or 25 House seats, but maybe between 30 and 40. To avoid a calamity on that level, Democrats will have to answer a difficult question: Why have these two groups distanced themselves in the last year, and particularly in the last few months, from Obama and the party?
These two groups of voters have not viewed Obama’s presidency in a fundamentally different way from many other voters, but they, and particularly working-class whites, have been the prime source of a populist anger against the Obama administration. They have perceived Obama as robbing Peter to pay Paul--or more concretely, taking benefits from and imposing higher taxes on them in order to provide greater income and benefits to others. And we are talking here about perceptions. I don’t intend to get into an argument about what is actually in the various health plans, some of which do benefit senior citizens and the white working and middle class.
Working-class populism in America has always taken two forms: The first--let’s call it left-wing populism--has typically been directed at speculators who make money from people who work in factories and offices and who don’t seem to contribute to the actual wealth of society. The second form--let’s call it right-wing populism--has targeted immigrants, black sharecroppers, the unemployed, and other out groups who are seen as trying to deprive those who work of their rightful earnings. These two strains often appear together, as they did in the original American populist movement. And these sentiments are most concentrated among the embattled classes--those that see themselves threatened from above and below.
Obama has provoked both left-wing and right-wing populism. He provoked left-wing populism by using tax dollars to sustain the banks and auto companies and to reward their managers who had already shown themselves to be incompetent--and then by acquiescing when the bankers paid themselves additional bonuses. In a poll taken in early January by Allstate/National Journal, 1,200 respondents revealed whom they thought had “benefited most” from the government’s response to the financial crisis. Banks, investment companies, major corporations, and the wealthy were way out in front.
Obama’s health care plan has provoked a combination of right-wing and left-wing populism. The middle class and senior citizens see it as a program that taxes and takes benefits away from them in order to help those without insurance--the out groups--and to enrich the insurance companies themselves. They didn’t invent this perception out of thin air: It derived in part from the plan to tax “Cadillac” health care plans (which are sometimes held by unionized middle class workers), penalize workers who don’t buy insurance, and cut future Medicare spending, while providing new subscribers and profits for the insurance companies. Undoubtedly, the prior perception of Obama’s financial policies reinforced these suspicions about his health care plan, which is now as unpopular as the bank bailout. In Obama’s speech in Massachusetts last Sunday for Coakley, he relegated his health care policies to two passing references to insurance companies.
Is this political failure Obama’s fault? I have made the argument that Obama’s declining approval can be attributed to the rising rate of unemployment and that the only way he could have prevented, or eased, the fall in his popularity would have been to get Congress to adopt a much larger stimulus program last winter. I still think there is truth to that argument--and also to the riposte that with the current congress of Republican nihilists and Democratic deficit hawks it would have been impossible to get a much larger stimulus. But I think that there is more to Obama’s problems that than original sin of the insufficiently large stimulus program.
I updated the graph that I did last fall to illustrate the close correlation between unemployment rate and presidential approval or disapproval. What I found in Obama’s case is that at the beginning of last fall, when Washington began debating his health care plan in earnest, his level of disapproval began to exceed the rise in the unemployment rate. (See chart below)
Of course, there is nothing particularly scientific about this finding, but it at least suggests that Obama’s political problems can’t be entirely laid at the foot of the Great Recession. Beyond that, one has to look at how the administration has conducted itself politically.
Obama’s political problem boils down to the difficulty he has speaking to and for middle America. This problem became evident during the middle of the primary battle with Hillary Clinton. And it could have seriously damaged his candidacy against John McCain. But the onset of the financial crisis that fall, and McCain’s feeble response to it, along with his choice of Sarah Palin as vice president, highlighted Obama’s strongest asset in the eyes of voters--his intelligence--and reduced the importance of his lack of a common touch.
As president, however, Obama’s lack of engagement with middle America has come to the surface and has contributed to his decline in popularity. This shortcoming has been evident in his style and choice of venues--he gave his endorsement of Coakley on Sunday at Northeastern University, in Boston, rather than at a union hall or public auditorium in Worcester or Springfield. It is also evident in his choice of advisors and spokespeople and in the way he has framed his programs.
He chose the former head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, to be his chief economic spokesman during a financial crisis that was widely seen as the product of Wall Street. And in developing and presenting his policies on the banks, he didn’t put the kind of conditions on taxpayer assistance that would have assured middle America that they weren’t giving handouts to the wealthy.
In the case of his health care plan, he did not really have a spokesman, but ceded the public face of the policy to the congressional leadership. Perhaps, he should have settled this year--when the recession heightened populist fears and resentments--for partial reforms that were more closely geared to the recession. Large reforms have usually occurred when the economy is on an upswing (1935, 1964-5) and voters feel a fundamental security. But leave that aside.
Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.
Obama now clearly faces not just a recession and two wars, but a political crisis. He needs to adopt policies that will boost employment, but he may not have the political clout to do so. He needs to restore the public’s faith in his own leadership, but it’s not clear to me how he can accomplish that.
The last two Democratic presidents faced similar crises. After the Democrats got drubbed in the 1978 midterms, Jimmy Carter took exactly the wrong course. He replaced mediocre people with even more mediocre people. He allowed intramural squabbles to surface. He lost his focus and ended up blaming the American people for his political problems. Clinton, who had governed his first year as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law graduate, rediscovered after November 1994 that he had been a successful governor of Arkansas. He governed for the remainder of his six years as the president of middle America, even resisting a furious attempt by Republicans to impeach him.
I am not sure how Obama can surmount this crisis. Obama does not seem, like Ronald Reagan or Clinton, to be a man of many faces. Even back in Chicago in the 1990s, it was clear that the man who had given up community organizing to become a lawyer and politician was more comfortable in Hyde Park than in Southeast or Northwest Chicago. Obama can try to make himself into a friend of Joe Sixpack and the enemy of Wall Street--he’s certainly trying to do so with his proposal to tax the big banks to pay for their bailout--but it’s not going to come naturally. Still, Obama has surprised his critics before, and perhaps (one hopes!) he will do so again.
John B. Judis is a senior editor of The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
58 comments
On the other hand, perhaps a Democratic Party that actually stood for something and was prepared to lead with vision rather than cower before the GOP might be useful too.
- ironyroad
January 20, 2010 at 3:12am
Re the graph - Correlation does not equal causality. Re the Geitner appointment, believe it or not, unlike journalism, there are some jobs that require actual skill and experience not just the ability to sling words about. The problem with the stimulus was not its magnitude but the fact that it was primarily designed slop the troughs of special interests rather than to simulate the economy. Obama's problem is not his inability to speak to the working class, but rather the more fundamental and insurmountable problem that his policies are an anathema to the working class (and thinking Americans in general). Despite your desire to portray the opposition to Obama's health care reorganization as some variant on the tired argument of class conflict and struggle, the real opposition was not the the redistributive elements of the program (which in a more transparent form such as a modest expansion of Medicaid, the public would have supported), but rather the public's well founded and empirically justified belief that governmental usurpation of the resource allocation function for health care would have been a disaster leading to worse care and higher costs. In the end, it was the failure of Obama and Democrats to focus on the real health care issues (excessive cost and lack of insurance), and instead to pursue the purblind and unbelievably hubristic belief that they could remake 15% of the economy by cutting inequitable deals behind closed doors and replacing the market mechanism with a 2000 page sophomoric treatise written by wet behind the ears Congressional aids and paid shills for the Democratic Party posing as health care experts. Good riddance!!!!
- dtohmatsu
January 20, 2010 at 3:41am
This is a bit hysterical. This entire piece would never have been written had Coakley not been such a remarkably rotten candidate. Look, I'll always agree that Democrats are second to none in thier lameness, but Obama's numbers are going down because we are a nation of short sighted, entitled cry babies who demand that Presidents be entertaining magicians. America - if you want a President who is a dopey underwear model type who promises more destructive right wing utopia, have at it. You deserve it.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 6:31am
Wandrey demonstrates why I think Repubs are right to refer to the "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" Party. Aside from better grammar, this underlines the now-traditional excuse of Blame the People (Demos to the Hellenically inclined). If people only weren't such short-sighted, entitled crybabies, they would accept that leftists know what's best for them. dtohmatsu wraps it up nicely. I'm looking forward to a return of divided government in 2010.
- Robert Powell
January 20, 2010 at 7:38am
The real lesson, as I have written many times, is that Republicans engage in the most vicious political warfare all day, every day. Any notion of bipartisanship is a fool's errand. The Democrats wasted months negotiating with Olympia Snowe for her support on health care, they gave her what she wanted (as it changed from minute to minute), they got the finger anyway. It ran out the clock and allowed the whole thing to descend into a brawl that made Dems look incompetent and gave cred to Republican lies. Meanwhile, the Republicans could campaign against health care with shameless lies while Dem hands were tied by not wanting to alienate Republican Senate votes by making them the enemy. The entire Republican strategy is to obstruct governance at every turn and then blame the Dems for being unable to govern with the sole purpose of defeating the Dems at whatever cost to the country. The only way out is to make war on the Republicans, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Make them filibuster in fact by speaking endlessly. Counter their lies with equally hyperbolic claims of Republican hatred for working people and middle class people. Tar then incessantly as the party of big money that is gorging at the public trough. Run against insurance companies and every other interest that Republicans protect. Obama's mistake was political pacifism, thinking that to lead he had to abandon partisan warfare. But that is impossible because the Republicans never do anything else. Let the Republicans defeat legislation, so long as it is legislation that is perceived by the middle class and working people to be for them.
- roidubouloi
January 20, 2010 at 8:04am
In 1960, we ate six slices of an 8-slice economic pie. Nowadays, India and China are gobbling up six slices of the pie, leaving us with only two slices. No wonder those of us who are not doctors, lawyers or venture capitalists are starving. This is a tectonic shift. We are sliding toward a nation of moneyed professionals being served by a massive class of waiters, secretaries and hotel night clerks who can't earn enough money to support a household. The only solutions are (i) to invent things the rest of the world is willing to pay us for (or that allow us to stop buying stuff from other nations), or (ii) invade and conquer other nations. I vote for (i).
- Mikelawyr2
January 20, 2010 at 8:58am
Where I initially saw a disconnect between Obama and the general public was when Obama had said something to the effect that paying higher taxes was patriotic instead of his saying something like: "to save Social Security," or "to keep us safe." When Obama said that health care reform was needed to help out businesses, I thought it had general appeal. But when that was replaced with something like, "we're going to pay more so 20 + million more will have health care," I thought he moved off into a corner.
- Nusholtz
January 20, 2010 at 9:25am
A few thoughts on John Judis's latest exercise in hand-wringing: 1. Comparing the results in the MA special election versus results in the 2008 Presidential election is the epitome of an apples-to-oranges comparison. McCain/Palin never even bothered to contest MA and, unless someone tells me otherwise, only spent money on TV ads in MA media markets that also included competitive NH. By the time the 2008 election rolled around, only Republican die-hards in MA were going to turn out and vote for McCain or against Obama. That wasn't the case this time around. 2. The graph showing Obama approval versus the unemployment rate doesn't account for everything, but it accounts for a lot. With a few blips here and there, the fall in his approval ratings correlates to the rise and persistence of 10% unemployment. To the extent that the rising unemployment rate affects the perceptions of voter blocs that were never all that fond of Obama in the first place (whites without college degrees, voters over 55), they are going to be even less fond of him than they were in the first place. This is hardly rocket science. 3. To back up what Roid said, the main lesson to learn here is that if you're going to go down, you've got to go down fighting. The unfortunate public perception in many quarters is that Obama is a Wall Street liberal, who is more interested in accommodating the financial industry and striking deals with health insurance and pharmaceutical companies than in fighting unemployment. Although the Republican brand is in disrepute, individual Republicans have managed a wondrous feat of disassociating themselves from the ineptitude of Republican governance under Bush/Cheney and getting a large portion of the voting public to buy the notion that what our government from 2001 to 2009 was not "conservative". For Obama and the Dems, the main thing to do for the next 9+ months is not to revive a fight against the Bush Administration per se -- that would only hurt those few Republican candidates (like Rob Portman in OH) who were actually part of the Bush Administration. It is to create an effective counter-narrative that our current problems derive from conservatism, and that the best way to restore America's greatness and economic prosperity is to defeat such conservatism at every turn. 4. As to health care, it really doesn't matter what Democratic Senators are saying -- the whole action is in the House. Over the next two days, the President, his staff and the House leadership need to ensure that the Senate bill is passed verbatim. That will rip off the scab of the health care fight again, but would allow the wound to be covered with a fresh bandage and hopefully heal by November. As for preserving some of the compromises that the House struck over the Cadillac tax or Medicare subsidies, just introduce those as stand-alone bills and fight for them as much as possible. If they die in the Senate, at least those Congressmen and Senators who fought for them and needed union votes could say that they tried their best and would continue to fight for them. 5. Rob Powell, your points are always well taken about divided government. The big distinction between 2010 and 1994 seems to be that, for all of their noise, the Gingrich Republicans actually had a policy agenda that they wanted to implement and which permitted some compromise with a Democractic President (welfare reform most notably). It doesn't seem like the current Republican Party really has much of a policy agenda, or at least not one that they are publicizing. Divided government only works if there are agenda items on which to compromise. What are the Republicans offering here?
- wildboy
January 20, 2010 at 9:58am
Yes, the problem is nationwide. It has been since Obama took office, inheriting the worst economic conditions since the Depression. It's derailed all the fair-weather ideas he wanted to implement early. Presidents live and die by approval ratings. Old news. This election wasn't a message from the American people disapproving of the President as much as it is a message from voters in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey showing their disapproval of Democratic candidates as well as their amazing ability to vote against their own interests. The Coakley thing is its own mess, as was Deeds' and Corzine. The real lesson to take from this is: People are scared... and stupid. The Republicans' message of forthcoming doom is more effective than the President's message of facts, details, and reality. I don't see this changing any time soon, so Obama better pick up his A-game and make sure his message is clear: If you don't support me, you hate America. Hey - it worked for Bush. Of course, in the situation we're in, it's almost true now.
- bcbaird
January 20, 2010 at 9:59am
- Whoa, although the comments above don't take on Mr. Judis directly, they address challenges which will require Obama do more than change his style or a policy or two and they speak to limits of the chief's powers. In short order: 1. "...a Democratic Party that actually stood for something and was prepared to lead with vision rather than cower before the GOP might be useful too." 2. "the Geitner appointment...there are some jobs that require actual skill and experience not just the ability to sling words about. 3. "...we are a nation of short sighted, entitled cry babies who demand that Presidents be entertaining magicians." 4. "We are sliding toward a nation of moneyed professionals being served by a massive class of waiters, secretaries and hotel night clerks who can't earn enough money to support a household." And while the above statements are more non-partisan than either party would wish to admit, the majority of voters (unaffiliated) would agree but they are a force that can only assemble to vote against incumbents. Further, while it's possible to get elected by running against Washington, the power and interests of state and regional power bases proved that the most secure route is saying no (doing nothing, whining or pointing fingers). So far, the country still seems willing to accept Obama's lead and the majority in the center is begging for him to tell congress, "follow me or get out of the way.". A good start would be to tell Nelson and Snowe to "kiss my ass, these are the plans and I'm taking to the country. I can't do any worse without you than I did by pandering to you for the first year.". He doesn't need a new face or a new style as much as he needs to return to the stump and remind people who he is. -
- michael
January 20, 2010 at 10:09am
RP - thanks for the Demos reference in between the Fox boilerplate. Democrats don't need a divided government, they take care of that all by themselves. (I won't go in to your "leftist" box though. JFK called them "suicidal bastards" which is perfect. I'm not a feminist and I have a picture of a Predator drone on my computer. Nice try though). Do you really think health care works in this country? That it doesn't need reform? That health "insurance" is really a capitalist enterpise? If so, you must be a Republican Senator. Brown's agenda, such as it was, is the same utopian hooey Republicans have been foisting on us forever. We just got done dealing with twenty years of it (including Clinton) and we're dead broke. Most of our major institutions are at great risk of collapsing because of it. Unlike to the new Republican Governor of New Jersey, who I disagree with but trust and respect, Brown said nothing at all of substance. Just a promise to destroy a hard fought for bill that will help millions of Americans and businesses. But he was cute, drove a truck and he talked alot about being "angry" whatever that means. Does that mean he promises to personally close Citigroup and lock up Blankenfeld? Go ahead! Make my day Senator! Brown did show class in his acceptance speech and ran a terrific campaign. I sincerely commend him for that. I will say it will be nice to have a Republican with manners, civility and decency again, its been a long time. Let's hope Brown keeps it up. But this sudden concern for overspending on the right is a lie and for any American to believe it is absurd. Facts are funny things. The only Presidents who have shown any interest in cutting spending in the last twenty years (and who have actually done it) have been Democrats. Obama has gone out of his way to make the health care bill deficit nuetral. Let's compare that impulse to any major initiative put forth by a Republican President of the last twenty years, shall we? Say what you will about Steele, he at least acknowledges reality in this. Tea partiers are liars, every last one of them - to themselves most of all. In between cleaning up the right wing destruction of the economy and running two wars, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. He's also doing exactly what the polls told him to do. That Americans might need to wait an month or two before the President waves his wand and soothes their "anger," is just too much to ask for too many people. I'm afraid this does speak to a lack of character seeping through the culture. Obama cannot go out and find anyone a job or snap his fingers and make the economy boom on command. So yes, I do think we need to grow up and stop expecting the President of the United States to make dealing with our inchoate feelings a top priority...speaking in a strictly Hellenic sense of course.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 10:14am
Nice to hear, Wandrey. Where was that in recent years. This President can't "run the economy" and no POTUS can. We need to lose our child-like faith in politics as the salve for our ills. NO POTUS in the last 20 years has actually cut spending, although Bill/Newt slowed its growth for a time. Brown ran a very good campaign, and Coakley is a stiff. In MA that rarely matters, but it did this time. As far as I can see, the Rs don't have much of a policy agenda, but the duty of the opposition is to oppose, and this they have done. By November they need to get an agenda, because "the Ds suck" will not be enough in most places as a governing philosophy. So I'm with RP - we could use some divided gov't, or at least a majority party that seriously considers minority ideas, unlike today. I'm happy to see that some things never change. Thanks, roid.
- butchie b
January 20, 2010 at 10:33am
Without effective opposition, the Republicans govern too far to the right and the Democrats govern too far to the left. That is why I favor divided government and super majorities to force compromise and gain broad support for legislative agendas. Clinton and Gingrich succeeded for a while even though they despised each other. To give Clinton credit for reining in the budget deficit while ignoring Gingrich's role is ridiculous. On the other hand, Reagan also ran up the deficit with a Democratic Congress, so the Democratic Congress must also share some of that blame. Bottom line, it appears that a Dem President with an effective opposition has the best chance of producing needed social reform without breaking the bank. That is what the country wants. Now that this appears to be on the horizon, I wish President Obama the best of luck, even though I did not vote for him.
- r.ennis
January 20, 2010 at 11:05am
Mr. Judis seems to think that quoting the results of polls coupled with relating his preferred narrative constitutes analysis. Isn't this the author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority?" Where is that coalition at present? Pieces like this remind me that social "science" is anything but.
- witten
January 20, 2010 at 11:19am
r.ennis, Democrats governing to far from the left? You must be joking. We have divided government now. The moderate wing of the Democratic Party in Congress has been pulling every initiative to the center since last January. If you get your wish in November, nothing will happen in the following two years, because the GOP has nothing but the same tired old nostrums that got us into this mess to begin with.
- zardoz67
January 20, 2010 at 12:03pm
The only major reason I voted Democratic is for Health reform, on FP, abortion, education, nuclear energy I am to the right of the electorate (OK on gay marriage and immigration reform to the left). If the health care bill had passed I would be happy with divided government. But, as Wandrey pointed out, 17% of our GNP and rising compared to 9% in Japan and even less in Europe, and basically next to nothing in China, means we are going to continue to be at a competitive disadvantage from here on out. And I don't even know if triangulation can even work anymore since the Republicans have decided to declare war on Democrats, the Dems will do likewise with the next Republican President (imagine if Pelosi and Reid had acted like DeMint, we would be at 25% unemployment now)
- blackton
January 20, 2010 at 12:13pm
"The moderate wing of the Democratic Party in Congress has been pulling every initiative to the center since last January." If that were true, then Obamacare would have 65% approval now and its passage would be assured despite the Brown victory. You are the one who is joking or, at least, in denial. We need to reform the system, but until a plan emerges that actually keeps Medicare solvent, the electorate wants no part of entitlements that break the bank. Trillion dollar deficits are not only unsustainable. They are obscene. There are moderate Republicans as well as moderate Democrats. Plenty of them. Maybe thay should merge and for a majority third party.
- r.ennis
January 20, 2010 at 12:59pm
If the Democrats were truly governing from the left, there would be a public option in the Senate health care bill, and the stimulus would have been larger. Is there a place for moderate Republicans in the GOP? Why don't you ask Dede Scozzafava about that one.
- zardoz67
January 20, 2010 at 1:09pm
I agree with r.ennis in theory about how divided government should work, but the problem is that the Republicans seem interested only in opposing, not in the kind of bipartisan compromise that should make divided government a virtue. Mere obstructionism doesn't improve government, it only cripples it. (I don't see in this sort of bad-faith, knee-jerk opposition any sign of fulfilling a "duty" to the public, as Butchie seems to suggest.) But in any case the Dems are "big-tent" enough that they can get in their own way.
- frippo
January 20, 2010 at 1:11pm
Currently, I can't see the Republicans working with Obama on anything. They have demonized him so much with their base that it would turn on them if they tried.
- zardoz67
January 20, 2010 at 1:18pm
roidubouloi is exactly right about the incessant and consistent ranting by the right about anything and everything Obama does or doesn't do. It started immediately after the election and has continued non-stop through the first year of Obama's term. Unfortunately Obama and Democrats in general don't do well against these tirades. Reasonable people find it difficult to believe that rantings by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Palin would have credibility with anyone but wing-nuts. But the independents who are the swing block of voters that really determine elections are also influenced. Add in MSM sentiment that tries to be fair and gives undue credibilty to the likes of tea party folks and its easy to see how conservatives get influence. That Obama let Congress control the health care issue resulting in a large complex bill that is complex to explain allows Republicans to complain that there is something inherently wrong with the bill because it is large. Throw in constant lies about death panels, government takeovers, etc. and eventually you create doubt in minds of supporters. Not countering accusations of giving rights to terrorists and claims that saving the banks was necessary allows the Republicans to keep repeating their hollow complaints with the eventual result that independent voters become influenced and change votes. Voter memories are short. Last year people voted against the failed Bush policies, now they are influenced by right wing cries that all that is wrong is due to Obama's failures. Democrats and the White House need to do much better at promoting and selling their policies and successes. Allowing Republicans to frame all the arguments is a sure fire path to political ruin.
- srodar
January 20, 2010 at 1:27pm
I'm a small business owner and a progressive. When I see how clueless the Democrats often are about the private sector, I unfortunately understand why that is such an unusual combination. The administration's stimulus efforts were designed to save public service jobs, but didn't do anything to address the weakness in the private sector. Its preferred health care reform, rather than providing a cost effective public option financed by the wealthiest individuals and big business, that could provide real cost savings and relief for small and start up businesses and their employees, they chose a welfare model paid for by taxing the middle class and coercing small business and the self-employed. Absolutely clueless.
- esmense
January 20, 2010 at 1:38pm
Judis, where you you been these past several months as the backlash was building (around health care reform). At least you have the good sense to pivot. For Obama's sake, as well as that of the Democratic Party and the nation, let's hope Obama and the Party leadership pivot with you.
- raylward
January 20, 2010 at 1:39pm
It is not uncommon that I enjoy the comments more than the original article. Many of the comments are better than the article mostly because not all of us wear blinders like Judis. Still, there are so many partisans and so few solutions. For the past 50 years (and probably longer), government at all levels has continued to grow larger and more intrusive, the national debt has grown larger, government employees and the politically connected rent-seekers (like Goldman, etc.) have consumed a larger portion of resources (except for a couple of the Clinton years when we had beautiful, wonderful gridlock). If people want jobs and wealth creation, it is easy; get government OUT of the way. Lower taxes, eliminate harmful regulations, fire most of the regulators and government employees. Government sector employees consume wealth; private sector employees create wealth. The unemployed, dead-weight government workers will be more than offset by private employment gains and those former government workers will be forced to figure out how to become productive citizens instead of useless overhead. This is the libertarian approach to government: Minimum government; minimum taxes; maximum freedom. This philosophy is not limited to the Libertarian Party. There are a few Democrats and Republicans who are libertarian in their approach to government but they do not have the balance of power. As I run for office, I am asked by potentially large money donors: "What will you do for me? What will you give me in return?" I can offer them nothing but freedom. Most of them prefer being able to rig the game in their favor. Freedom works; let's try it. Dale Ogden, Libertarian, 2010 Candidate for Governor of California; http://www.daleogden.org http://www.daleogden.net
- dalefogden
January 20, 2010 at 1:44pm
If people want jobs and wealth creation, it is easy; get government OUT of the way. Lower taxes, eliminate harmful regulations, fire most of the regulators and government employees Yes, we are still enjoying the boom times that Bush gave us, no banking regulations, lower taxes, that works wonderfully. Lets see, a country with minimal government: Somalia. Yeah, minimum taxes, maximum freedom (hell, you can get away with murder there)
- blackton
January 20, 2010 at 2:33pm
Maximizing personal liberty is another definition for anarchy.
- zardoz67
January 20, 2010 at 2:56pm
Great comments, y'all. This thread could be used for a civics lesson, and to explain why I love my country, even if I sometimes loathe my government. Tough call on best comment so far. I'm going with butchie's: "We need to lose our child-like faith in politics as the salve for our ills." I recommend that parents keep a large bottle of misanthropy in the fridge, like cod liver oil, and force little Justin or Brittney to gag down a spoonful every day. By the time the kids are old enough to vote their blood will be colder and wiser than beer in August.
- williamyard
January 20, 2010 at 3:29pm
Freedom does work -- but freedom can co-exist quite well with unfreedom as American liberties co-existed with slavery for 80 years. There are entrenched bureaucracies in Washington to be sure -- I never know why the Dept of Agriculture needs to take up three city blocks or whatever it does in DC -- but government does a whole lot of stuff that people would miss if it stopped doing it. From air traffic control to the CDC to the interstate system to public universities to law enforcement, they are entities in which, and not without which, freedom can actually survive. Nobody would feel very free if there were a flu epidemic and access to the vaccine were to be determined entirely by the market
- ironyroad
January 20, 2010 at 3:30pm
Well butchie? That's not what I said. Mr Yard has a similiar take on this topic as I've understood it (very roughly: feckless Americans swinging wildly demanding their pony now, punishing when they don't get it rather than honestly assessing about what is really possible), but of course trying to paraphrase him would be a fools game. He's so much more articulate its embarrassing. (I digress, but I think the left does this with the GWOT - I forgot the new name. Whatever it is, Obama is doing his best and I think America mostly sees that). I didn't say the President can't run the economy, although I think you're right. But they can set competent policies. There simply is no comparison between D's and R's in stewarding the economy responsibly, at least in my lifetime. So the idea that these raging masses care about debt is something I just refuse to take seriously. I do think the idea that a President should leap around worrying about the inchoate rage of people who don't even bother to make sense is silly. I'm pleased that Obama does not do that. Republicans have been so dishonest and hateful since Obama came in, I can't even take them seriously at all about anything. Bottom line and what is the most obvious: I'm just so disappointed in losing this seat and knowing how many people will suffer because of it. I hope the folks looking forward to divided government are right. I apologize if my disappointment was too acute.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 3:33pm
Blackton, just great stuff. You're on fire today. Well butchie? That's not what I said. Mr Yard has a similiar take on this topic as I've understood it (very roughly: feckless Americans swinging wildly demanding their pony now, punishing when they don't get it rather than honestly assessing what is really possible by a President), but of course trying to paraphrase him would be a fools game. He's so much more articulate its embarrassing. I didn't say the President can't run the economy, although I think you're right. But they can set competent policies. There simply is no comparison between D's and R's in stewarding the economy responsibly, at least in my lifetime. So the idea that these raging masses care about debt is something I just refuse to take seriously. I do think the idea that a President should leap around worrying about the inchoate rage of people who don't even bother to make sense is silly. I'm pleased that Obama does not do that. Maybe I'm your basic outof touch Dem that thinks policy and results matter. Republicans have been so dishonest and hateful since Obama came in, I can't even take them seriously about anything. Bottom line and what is the most obvious: I'm just so disappointed in losing this seat and knowing how many people will suffer because of it. I hope the folks looking forward to divided government are right. I apologize if my disappointment has been too acute.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 3:35pm
Mr Yard, I mentioned you before you commented. Erase what I said and replace it with the beer in August stuff please.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 3:51pm
Jill at 3:33: "[Yard's] so much more articulate it's embarrassing." Jill at 3:35: "[Yard's] so much more articulate it's embarrassing." Sounds so nice, gotta say it twice! Meanwhile, some parallels between Brown and Obama occurred to me last night: attractive guys; calling for change; slim CVs; following fading dynasties; voters impatient with complex, uber-expensive initiatives (Iraq; health care); etc. Brown had once backed what was essentially Obamacare but won by blasting it. Something cooly Zen about the electorate seeing a dichotomy where there is none, and not seeing one where one exists (change = not change), and doing both at the same time and about the same issue. In my opinion we are in uncharted territory with these here deficits. We're taxing Americans who don't yet exist--we have crippled ourselves, our children and grandchildren are our avatars. We are sending tomorrow's zygotes in to wage sneaky battle against our own financial comeuppance. But not even 3D IMAX will make the future look futuristic, at this point. James Cameron is pooh-poohing the deleted sex scene between the human and the alien in his movie; move along here, nothing to see. Zoe Saldana, aforementioned alien and one-gal Blue Gal Group, demurs: "[Showing the sex scene] is worth it, especially now that we're living in a time where there's not enough affection and sexuality in movies. I miss the '80s!" I miss the '80s, too, mainly because I had a hell of a lot more liver cells to waste back then. But also because Americans in general seemed less delusional. Perhaps my dying liver cells held the key to our collective sanity; if so, my bad! It's like Richard Brautigan's "The Pill Versus The Springhill Mine Disaster": When you take your pill, it's like a mine disaster. I think of all the people lost inside you. Conversely, we're in the process of fucking our children. If Obama thinks paying taxes is patriotic, then birth control is most certainly not, not when we need armies of tax payers just to get back to square one. Good luck with that. For, as Mikelawyr2 said, "We are sliding toward a nation of moneyed professionals being served by a massive class of waiters, secretaries and hotel night clerks who can't earn enough money to support a household." True, but as Bogey would say, "We'll always have Pandora."
- williamyard
January 20, 2010 at 4:23pm
Wandrey, you said that Obama can't snap his fingers and make the economy boom on command. I agree. No POTUS can, and we should stop expecting him to. I understand your disappointment, as many Dem friends at work here feel the same. Take heart. The argument is never over, and November is coming soon.
- butchie b
January 20, 2010 at 4:52pm
- Sorry butchie, I don't agree that "...the duty of the opposition is to oppose...". If so, the process in the Senate allows them to stay home unless they are needed to stop a vote. All districts and states deserve better health care delivery and that won't happen from an opposition that holds a "We win when they lose." attitude. No one demands the GOP roll over and pass all of Obama's initiatives. But neither party can expect doing the best for the country is contingent upon a sixty seat majority in the senate. Without participation and compromise, republicans are doing more than oppose. They are setting a standard that the minority will rule which is very odd if their goal is to be in the majority. Their duty is to govern and no party can provide evidence of success over the long term if the only goal is to hope the opposition fails. This may be a tactic, a temporary fix to boost enthusiasm for a party that lacks direction and not much more. If they oppose the process, if they don't believe the minority can take part and be part of solutions they should look for another job. -
- michael
January 20, 2010 at 5:33pm
I'm pretty optimistic. I don't like the status quo in healthcare, which is on track to take over the government in reverse of the Republican meme. But the closer this "reform" came to reality, the more it looked like another mess of cutouts for Big Labor, Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and most of all Big Government. We can and must do better. This is gut-check time for the White House. If they do the right thing as Clinton did in a similar situation, we will come out of this thing better off. I'm sympathetic with roi's call to battle--winning really is the name of the game in politics, and as Huey Long said, "It's good to know who your friends are, but it's vital to know who your enemies are." But to really win in American politics you have to listen to the people, and as ever they profoundly distrust government solutions. It's worth considering why so many career government employees in the military and other areas tend towards Dale Ogden's analysis: they know how the system works from the inside.
- Robert Powell
January 20, 2010 at 6:25pm
President Obama, It's time to create and lead a PROGESSIVE Party!!!
- aint2sure
January 20, 2010 at 6:38pm
Am I the only one here that thinks Massachusetts voters did the right thing in electing Brown. They voted their own interests in Washington, not Washington's interests in them. No, Coakley did not lose because Dems (in Axelrod's words) were caught napping, they were in deep delta sleep because they could not believe that voters would not see that their interests were being articulated by Brown and not Coakley. Health Care reform is dead. As in *D.E.A.D.* Fuss about it, cry about it, self-flagellate about it, rage against the dying of the light about it, we just need to get it and get over it, and move on. Make no mistake, folks, voters are mad, at Congress, at Obama, and for taking the leadership in healthcare reform (a mostly good thing that it was) at Dems, who also are the party in power. If we act like voters are stupid or ignorant or hysterical now, worst if we pretend they don't even exist (voters mad at us), we have signed our consent to assisted suicide in NOvember. I've been reflecting on the political/social history of the 20th century and the great strides in social and civil rights advancement for the greatest number. But over the entire span of U.S. history, mostly Americans are conservative, while at the same time generous, big-hearted, patriotic, lovers of democracy. Americans, however, don't trust big government and want as little of government as it takes to keep the boat afloat, the people themselves accomplishing the rest. We're in poor shape in many ways governmentally today but compared to most other societies, not just Western democracies, our citizens have it awfully damn good. I think our citizens have learned that as much by way of this past two years financial meltdown as at other times of challenge *and* crisis. We need to challenge ourselves to do better, not our government to do better by us. If we need to exert more control over health care spending we ought to think about spending less on health care products, drugs procedures etc., and more on living healthier and happier lives, regardless our station in life. The poor are getting poorer, and more and more of our citizens now and to be know what that's like but they didn't come here for government relief, they came to make the best of what this country offers. As a progressive my feeling is what the Repubs are saying about why Massachusetts voters elected Brown over Coakley, that people want us to slow down so they we can think, and rethink if necessary, our priorities when the nation is in the deepest recession in 50 years (or is it 60 or 70 years. What the hell, take your pick!). Also, Dems need to seriously contemplate what I think is a slam-dunk conclusion about recovery from this recession. Most of us are doing ok, while the very poor get very poorer, but we've lost millions of jobs, many of which will not be returning for a long time still - at least another year and probably longer. And the recovery will not be a snap- back, it will be very slow and gradual if it is to happen at all, let alone successfully. I'm damn well contemplating it because I am out of work again and though I'm confident I will get hired again I have no prediction when or what industry or field it will be in. I think that is true for the majority of folks whose jobs have been lost, less those who are despairing and have given up altogether. This is the new reality. As in R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.!
- Tgossard
January 20, 2010 at 7:23pm
The elitist in the Obama administration still don't get it. Most Americans want either a public option or single-payer health system and not the hodgepodge plan that includes proposing taxes on so-called health insurance Cadillac plans and through mysterious Medicare savings. They are also having serious problems understanding how Wall Street is paying out record bonuses after receiving billions in aid while simultaneously unemployment is increasing along with home foreclosures. If Obama wants to save his administration he must force an up-and-down vote in the House and Senate on bills that would place everyone on Medicare or a single-payer system. Obviously neither would pass but we would know very specifically who we would not vote for in the upcoming November elections. This should be done very quickly so the Congress, and especially the Senate, could further express their love of the lobbyist and their disdain for the middle class on other important issues before the elections.
- bobsr
January 20, 2010 at 7:31pm
On another topic somewhat related to the defeat of healthcare reform, the biggest regret I have about how things rolled out in Obama's first year as that he didn't take what probably would have seemed at the time the biggest and most insane gamble of his or any Presidency (because it would have been), and nix the bailout of Wall Street, stop it cold in its tracks, and let the chips fall. I wish he'd done it I really do wish it like my next paycheck TBA. What a different place we'd be in by now, maybe just as chaotic but building a new house called responsible banking, in place of the...I'm sorry I can't think of any word bad enough to represent the big banks and insurance companies that supposedly were (are?) too big to fail. That's an untruth I wish Obama had never assented to. The fight for justice and equity for our people in the marketplace is the really biggest battle of our time. I hope we're up to it.
- Tgossard
January 20, 2010 at 7:40pm
Butchie - I spoke of you at dinner tonight, you are a real class act - you too RP.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 7:58pm
As I just commented in Edsall's article thread, I throw my vote to Bob.
- Tgossard
January 20, 2010 at 8:08pm
PS I just read on Andrew Sullivan that Randall Terry hates Scott Brown because he supports Roe Vs Wade. That and his manners make me have a bit of a crush on Brown now. Tea baggers will swarm any minute though. Let's see what you're made of Senator Elect.
- WandreyCer
January 20, 2010 at 8:27pm
While it is necessary to "listen to people," as RP says, it is feckless to suppose that health care reform could ever be explained both honestly and in a manner that people would understand. Impossible. The very fact that the Republicans could make headway by declaring that the Dems were proposing "death panels" is as much indication as we need that the PR battle simply cannot be fought on straightforward policy grounds. The policy has to be one thing, the rhetoric something completely different. And it doesn't matter whatsoever if the rhetoric and the reality are at odds. That's just how it is. Until the Dems stop being pansies at politics, they are going to get beaten up. The headline today that Obama is thinking of trying to appease the Republicans made me ill. If he keeps going down that bipartisanship road, he may very well end up a one-term president. The American people want the president to demonstrate that he has the stones to beat up the opposition and tie them in knots. Otherwise, they don't believe he can be commander-in-chief. Sure, everyone likes to complain about the fighting in Washington. But what they want more than an end to the fighting is a winner. The way to win is to ram this thing through the House, give the Republicans the finger, declare that the Democratic party is going to do everything within its power -- everything -- to prevent the Republicans from obstructing the people's business and then keep putting up bills that the American people love so that the Republicans can vote against them. Make them filibuster by actually debating. Humiliate them, humiliate them, and keep on humiliating them. When they are lying half dead on the floor, THEN it will be possible to govern this country. So long that is as every time they threaten to get up, they get kicked in the head and go down for the count again. It ain't beanbag. The disaster for the Democratic party began in the 70s, not because the party was too liberal, but because it was taken over by policy wonks who simply do not seem to understand how to be politicians. They yak, yak, yak about policy and they don't know how to wield a knife. In the days when the party was run by bosses, at least they understood how to fight.
- roidubouloi
January 20, 2010 at 8:34pm
I agree with roi and I think it's particularly unfortunate that the famed Chicago ward politics that everyone yesyes disapproves of but was very useful at times seems to have taken a vacation from this Chicago-rooted White House. What we need is the skill that takes out an opponent before he even realizes someone has done major surgery on him on his front lawn. My fear about Obama is that he wasn't long enough in the Senate to grasp what a piece of work the GOP has become. He seems to think that, in the final analysis, everyone will sit down at the table and work on solving a problem for the American people. He doesn't seem to get it that these are people who don't care about that. They (or the folks who pull their strings) have an ideological hatred that goes beyond the rational -- they don't really believe there's anything like a broad "national" interest, because the nation includes too many people whom the GOP base doesn't think belong here anyway. Anyone with two brain cells to work together knows that we need to sort out problems that are hanging over our future like a shadowy presence: energy security, terrorism, educational standards, health care cost/availability distortions, and most of all a kind of moral disconnection that leads to fairy tales and wish-fantasies being swallowed as if they were facts in the real world. I'm not a party-label guy. If the Republicans genuinely had a grasp of these challenges (and I think some do) and were prepared to cooperate on real solutions, then one wouldn't be worried too much about a GOP resurgence. But if Sarah Palin or similar is the future of the party, they can't be trusted with anything important. For all the current accusations of cowardice leveled at Dems, I think it's worth saying that the most astonishing act of wimping-out in recent times is the painful inability/unwillingness of intelligent Republicans to tell the truth to their constituency, and to be fair one should consider the whipping that some of them get when they try (e.g. Graham). But reality doesn't give the United States a special pass. A nation that decides to believe in fantasy and turns its back on the world is not a nation that is on track to recover its leadership role in the world. Sorry.
- ironyroad
January 20, 2010 at 9:05pm
Respectfully, from my outsider's view, Massachusetts was a big loss for Obama. But he can’t come on strong in response as some urge, including doubling down on health care. He needs effectively to tell America he hears it. He needs to back off trying to pass heath care right now in its present form in a huge, complicated, economy-realigning bill when Americans dislike it. Assertiveness here could doom Obama. And it could deepen and entrench the disaffection shown in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts. (Btw, if it were up to me you all would have some type of single payer system. but your political realities make this impossibie right now.) (Anyway, the Senate and House Bills are both centralized plan and top-down decision-making rooted in bureaucracy. The Wyden-Bennett plan, for an example, was consumer and competition oriented, emphasizing consumer choice and power. Something like that plus tort reform could be, well, a “reset”. Your country seems temperamentally suited to the latter and ill disposed to the former.) So as just noted, if Democrats act as though Americans have not spoken up, if they were, say, to try to force through such unpopular legislation, it would ramify through the your body politics like shit though a goose. And it would cut against the presidential rebranding already in the works and starting to peek out and take some baby steps--populism rooted in genuine connection and skilful triangulation. I think a Democratic President set back on his heels successfully did that once before, not so long ago. The Democrats should in due course pick their battles and take their stand, but not now, and not with this legislation.
- basman
January 20, 2010 at 9:06pm
Mr. Judis has put together a compelling argument and a great read. However I am not completely on board and would like to throw out an alternative read on things. The Democrats still have 58 seats & Old Joe in the Senate, not a a bad working group. Still a 78 seat edge in the House. They can still craft legislation and let the Republicans in the Senate Fillibuster. But that will get old quickly. The economy which is not generating jobs at all, is generating returns to their stock holders. The Dow hit 10,700 this week and should be closer to 12,000 come November. Rebuilt 401(k)'s and good news from one side of the economy will blunt a lot of Republican criticism over jobs. A lot of the middle class concern also regards the foreign policy. With criticism if Irad quickly fading and a stronger Afghan policy the two wars could be winding down come November. Yes one attack could wipe this out, but I think it is more likely that Ayman al-Zawahiri or Bin Laden will be killed before there is another attack on America. If Iran breaks the right way we could be looking at major success in the middle east. I do not see the doom & gloom that others are forcasting. There are some major things breaking the Obama way. I think the guy could end up like Reagan and coast into reelection and be remembered fondly by many. I would stick to the plan. Throttle back on healthcare and cap & trade and go to work on the other stuff and see what happens.
- CRS9TNR
January 20, 2010 at 9:29pm
CRS9TNR, if Old Joe is to remain an ally will depend on how he's treated by the leadership, with respect. I don't think he deserves it, but I may well be wrong, and he just might have a grip on a way to get some meaningful reform if not the total package. I hope all will go well there, but I retain something of a distrust of Lieberman. Or is my attitude toward him unhealthy and needs reforming? Interesting times.
- Tgossard
January 20, 2010 at 9:48pm
p.s. I just saw bits of Obama's interview today with Stephanopoulos: exactly the right note, imho.
- basman
January 20, 2010 at 10:07pm
Let's make it perfectly clear. Voters wanted the government to fix health care not take it over. Judis and the "progressive" Antoinette wing of the Democratic party still haven't figured this out....but it doesn't really matter because The progressive agenda is Dead. Thank you Massachusetts.
- dtohmatsu
January 20, 2010 at 10:52pm
The answer to failure of a Maginot line-building strategy is NOT to build a longer, better fortified Maginot line. The answer to a failure of a compromise, move right, policy by Obama and the Senate Democrats is not more compromise and move further to the right. However, both are unlikely to change. It is unfortunate-- and politically risky-- but to satisfy his primal instinct to compromise, Obama needs a strident, near-intransigent-demanding Progressive movement with a credible candidate to head it. I'd sure give it $ -- I bet millions of others also would.
- gdbittner
January 20, 2010 at 10:59pm
dtohmatsu, that is utter nonsense. How is the current bill a government takeover? Private insurance will still exist. Hospitals will remain in private hands. Doctors and nurses will not become civil servants. There isn't even a public insurance plan to compete the private companies.
- zardoz67
January 20, 2010 at 11:05pm
Since all the action is still here in Judisville, I will cross-post what I just wrote on The Treatment. Take it for what you will. I have a humble suggestion to all who would listen, including those (like Jonathan Cohn) who have so poured their heart and soul into health care reform that they see its delay or demise as unmitigated disaster -- take a deep breath and think strategically, for a moment, instead of tactically. The voting public, both in Massachusetts and around the country, has had their fill of health care minutae: individual mandates, public options, "bending the curve", Cornhusker kickbacks and the like. A large majority of voters have health care through their employer or Medicare, generally like it but generally dislike the hassles and increasing out-of-pocket costs (though those who get health care through their employers generally miss the impact on their wallets since the health care is deducted from paychecks). Most of these people also don't think that they will lose their health care and don't see the worst-case scenarios that sympathetic politicians propound and policy analysts study. This is logical fallacy of the first order, but it's reality in these here United States. If you asked most people if they believed they were going to get a cold this winter, they would probably also answer "no". Given the incredible level of economic anxiety in this country, and the perception that the US Congress has spent the last 9 months battling over arcana, Democrats need to pivot almost immediately to an agenda of job creation, effective financial regulation, long-term deficit reduction and recouping the costs of the financial rescues of 2008-09. They were poised to do just that, and such a strategy should sufficiently resonate with unhappy independent voters and disillusioned liberals to at least preserve the party's overall majorities in the House and Senate. Scott Brown's election threw the strategy for a loop, but it should not throw off the timing of the pivot for more than two weeks or so. For health care, that means one of two things -- either the House sucks it up and passes the Senate bill as-is with the expectation that they will try to fix it this year or next, or (if the votes aren't there) the leadership decides to shelve comprehensive health care for the time being. Then the House, Senate and White House can attempt to fashion a smaller, ostensibly more bipartisan bill over the course of the next 6 months BUT NOT AS A MAJOR PRIORITY. Bring it to a vote before the August recess if the votes are there; if the Republicans still won't play (because they don't think there is any upside, or because they are mad about the hammering that they have been receiving from Democrats over their efforts to obstruct financial services reform) then pass the dang thing with Democratic votes only and let Democrats at least claim that Republicans just want to allow insurance companies to discriminate against sick people. One other thing about losing the filibuster-proof majority -- I think that Harry Reed allowed Mitch McConnell to maximize his united 40-vote block and never actually press for cloture because he and the Administration felt that they needed legislative accomplishments in their first two years. Now that they got a fair amount of those accomplishments, it's time to call Republicans' bluff and get them to actually attempt to filibuster the jobs and financial reform agenda. No, they don't need to stand around and read phone books all day, but they do need to actually have parliamentary procedure dragging out votes. When this type of process is highlighted for the media, people tend to notice and get mad about the party responsible for the shenanigans. Although not an obvious parallel, this is how it played out during the government shutdown in 1995, to the Republicans' detriment. As citizens, we have a right to be dismayed at how this process has gone. As people who think and comment on politics, we have an obligation to think hard about how to move on.
- wildboy
January 21, 2010 at 11:02am
This abortion of a healthcare bill doesn't address any of the core problems with healthcare: 1. consumers of healthcare don't buy healthcare today -- misaligned incentives 2. providers of healthcare are not held accountable to outcomes but rather focus on fee for service -- another misaligned incentive 3. trial lawer abuse -- drives up costs 4. majority of healthcare cost are related to chronic lifestyle/behavioural choices --- this bill doesn't do enough here 5. Increasing access to healthcare without dealing seriously with quality/cost is stupid. Healthcare a 'normal' economic good -- easier acces = more costs. That is what is happening in MA as costs now running amok. This bill doesn't cut costs at all, best case is slows the rate of increase -- what BS I understand why liberals like it --- more Gov is better for them and they don't have to pay for it anyway -- however, the private sector independents and republicans that will pay for it are against it. It will fail Don't pretend what good for liberals is good for US. .
- mr_rationale
January 21, 2010 at 1:03pm
mr_rationale. Good post!
- dtohmatsu
January 21, 2010 at 7:02pm
Nothing like two guys who miss the point high-fiving each other across the virtual bar counter. 1. Health care isn't a consumer good. It's a component of active human society, like education and security. The fact that it has come to be treated in the U.S. as a consumer good, don't make it so. 2. If the Republicans were truly interested in reform of the fee-for-service model they could have joined in to set up exactly that kind of accountability. 3. Medical malpractice fees and the culture it comes from need to be reformed, but it's wrong to deny people recourse if they have been severely harmed by the medical profession, or by any other. Note to dtoh: Your #3 contradicts your #2 -- legal accountability is also accountability, like it or not. 4. True, if exaggerated. Again, if the GOP were seriously interested in reform they could have joined in and worked on exactly this issue. In fact, the standard conservative posture is to state that they don't want the government coming between the customer and his triple-decker cheeseburger (it's unamerican, don't you know!). 5. Agreed, but one way of controlling costs is a public option that will operate without the pressure to make huge profits at the expense of ordinary people, and that will serve to keep private insurers awake and honest. However, that was apparently next to satanic ritual murder for the GOP (and a few Dems) so we lost that opportunity.
- ironyroad
January 22, 2010 at 4:49pm
1. Actually health care more like a luxury good from economic perspective. The higher per capita GDP the country higher the % of GDP spent on healthcare. This is why the % of GDP is misleading in general 2. Republicans are interested in reform that focuses on quality and outcomes -- nothing in the liberal bill addresses in any meaningful way 3. we agree 4. Again - I think we agree 5. we agree So we agree more than not. However, these points not in the bill
- mr_rationale
January 23, 2010 at 1:23am
I would humbly direct attention to the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act, which does address many if not most of the outstanding problems, and has broad bi-partisan support (ten Republican co-sponsors in the Senate). Obama decided that the failure of Hillarycare was writing it in the backroom, so it was sabotaged by the Democrat-controlled Congress. So he turned it over to his Democrat-controlled Congress, which sabotaged it anyway. Dump the Pelosi/Reid monstrosity (and Pelosi/Reid along with it), pass Wyden-Bennett, and move on. Next up: Iraq collapses into chaos under the sleepy and wholly clueless watch of tragically inappropriate Obama appointee Christopher Hill to our most critical diplomatic post.
- Robert Powell
January 24, 2010 at 2:55pm
A crucial issue that kept many progressive voters home in Scott Brown's special election upset was Democratic candidate Martha Coakley's abuses of power both as MA Attorney General and earlier as Middlesex Country MA District Attorney: (1) railroading the innocent (a) The Souza grandparents http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/mp-souza.html (b) Paul Shanley http://counterpunch.com/wypijewski01252010.html (2) helping others railroad the innocent (a) Fells Acres http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html (b) Michael O'Laughlin http://www.freemichaelnow.com/ (3) before the US Supreme Court, seeking impunity for rogue prosecutors who knowingly frame the innocent: http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/supreme-court-to-weigh-if-framing-suspects-worse-than-frivolous-lawsuits/ http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Pottawattamie_County_et_al._v._McGhee_et_al. AG Coakley is part of an odious political machine that includes not only Middlesex County (the most populous county in Massachusetts, hence a stepping-stone to Attorney General), but also much of the news media in Greater Boston, including much of the Boston Globe, and the only State supreme court to endorse the modern-day witchcraft of "repressed memory." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/child-myths/201001/the-paul-shanley-case-and-repressed-memory-recovery-not-such-thin-partitions If Democrats had offered an ethical alternative, Republican Scott Brown almost certainly would have come up short (though attracting some notice for a strong showing in a heavily Democratic State). For more on a curious blind spot of many progressives toward prosecutorial abuses in sex-related cases, see http://www.7dvt.com/2010sympathy-devil (in "Seven Days: Vermont's Independent Voice") Sympathy for the Devil By Judith Levine [02.03.10]
- hcunn
February 8, 2010 at 6:27pm