Obama Organizing Advisers Rap Health Care Push

Two former advisers to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, famed labor organizer Marshall Ganz and urban policy expert Peter Dreier, are now publicly criticizing Obama's health care reform strategy.

In a frank op-ed in the Washington Post on Sunday, they contrasted Obama's campaign promises of organizing and confrontation with the sometimes middling approach to mobilizing health care reform:

Throughout the campaign, Obama cautioned that enacting his ambitious plans would take a fight. In a speech in Milwaukee, he said: "I know how hard it will be to bring about change. Exxon Mobil made $11 billion this past quarter. They don't want to give up their profits easily."

He explained what it would take to overcome the power of entrenched interests in order to pass historic legislation. Change comes about, candidate Obama said, by "imagining, and then fighting for, and then working for, what did not seem possible before." ... But in the battle for health-care reform, the president and his allies are ignoring his own warning. The struggle for universal medical insurance... is in trouble.

For months the president insisted that any significant reform of the health-care system include a "public option" ... Republicans have made it clear that they won't support any plan that competes with the insurance industry ... In the past few weeks, Obama has hinted that he might settle for reform without a public option, thus assuaging the Baucus caucus and the insurance industry but angering many of his progressive supporters. At the same time, Obama's readiness to compromise hasn't mollified members of the small but vocal right-wing Republican network... If the unholy alliance of insurance industry muscle, conservative Democrats' obfuscation and right-wing mob tactics is able to defeat Obama's health-care proposal, it will write the conservative playbook for blocking other key components of the president's agenda -- including action on climate change, immigration reform and updates to the nation's labor laws.

The article goes on to apportion the blame widely -- not simply knocking Obama or OFA management, but also unions, liberal advocacy organizations and "netroots groups" -- and it credits conservatives for wielding stronger organizing tactics this summer. That's an especially significant argument coming from Ganz, a progressive organizing guru who has worked with everyone from Cesar Chavez to Howard Dean to Obama, including recording an endorsement for the Illinois Senator at the inception of the presidential campaign (video below). Here's the key criticism:

Once in office, the president moved quickly, announcing one ambitious legislative objective after another. But instead of launching a parallel strategy to mobilize supporters, most progressive organizations and Organizing for America -- the group created to organize Obama's former campaign volunteers -- failed to keep up. The president is not solely responsible for his current predicament; many progressives have not acknowledged their role.

Since January, most advocacy groups committed to Obama's reform objectives (labor unions, community organizations, environmentalists and netroots groups such as MoveOn) have pushed the pause button. Organizing for America, for example, encouraged Obama's supporters to work on local community service projects, such as helping homeless shelters and tutoring children. That's fine, but it's not the way to pass reform legislation...

Meanwhile, as the president's agenda emerged, his former campaign volunteers and the advocacy groups turned to politics as usual: the insider tactics of e-mails, phone calls and meetings with members of Congress. Some groups -- hoping to go toe-to-toe with the well-funded business-backed opposition -- launched expensive TV and radio ad campaigns in key states to pressure conservative Democrats. Lobbying and advertising are necessary, but they have never been sufficient to defeat powerful corporate interests.

In short, the administration and its allies followed a strategy that blurred their goals, avoided polarization, confused marketing with movement-building and hoped for bipartisan compromise that was never in the cards. This approach replaced an "outsider" mobilizing strategy that not only got Obama into the White House but has also played a key role in every successful reform movement, including abolition, women's suffrage, workers' rights, civil rights and environmental justice. Grass-roots mobilization raises the stakes, identifies the obstacles to reform and puts the opposition on the defensive. The right-wing fringe understood this simple organizing lesson and seized the momentum. Its leaders used tactics that energized their base, challenged specific elected officials and told a national story, enacted in locality after locality.

Of course, it's easier to mobilize against something than to develop an outsider-insider strategy supporting an incumbent legislative proposal and, in the case for many Obama-friendly progressives, simultaneously trying to strengthen the proposal along the way.

MoveOn, to take one example, has been trying a two-track approach. Politically, the group has largely backed the White House on health care. Meanwhile, organizationally, MoveOn staff have been working with their members on "Public Option NOW" events. If you believe that Obama adviser who said he was "shocked and surprised" to see a progressive fallout over the public option, however, then those efforts have not been very influential on the inside track.

Finally, it does seem like the August doldrums are renewing the progressive appetite for pushing Obama -- even the House Progressive Caucus is starting to channel its inner Evan Bayh and actually threaten to withhold votes. Just as Ganz and Dreier took their strong criticisms public, there is always the prospect that many other Obama supporters may get more vocal. Michael Huttner, who heads ProgressNow, a 2-million member netroots organization focused on state issues, has a new book out this week that aims to mobilize Obama supporters into taking more concrete action to help and push the administration during this governance period. If progressive Obama agitation moves beyond a few critics and into the broader engagement of supporters around the country, well, that's the kind of mass action that Ganz and Dreier have in mind.

--

From The Nation.

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

Comments

[Dimitra Ekmektsis]

This is a nightmare, Ari! Clinton did the same thing, and now this. But this is worse, of course, because many years have passed, and the general health in the U.S. declined, which is a crime.

[ouroborous]

This article makes the assumption that President Obama really ever WANTED health care with a strong public option -- in other words, the only kind of health care reform that could possibly work.

I think that if you follow the (lobbying money), follow the timing, and follow the messaging, it becomes clear that Obama never really wanted real reform. He just wanted something he could CALL reform (just like Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act; this is becoming Obama's "No Insurance Company Left Behind" bill) while continuing to soak up lobbyist dollars.

The Republicans simply do not have enough political power right now to have masterminded a collapse of this magnitude; you really think a few screaming crazies at a town hall caused Obama to drop the public option?

I mean heck, the secret deal right off the top with Big Pharma to noi negotiate for better prices should make it clear; this was NEVER about real reform.

Sorry guys, Obama isn't playing 11 dimensional chess. He's just bought and sold.

Sucks because I voted for the guy.

[RRoadrunner]

The fight for universal medical insurance was lost on 1/20/2009 something called a public option surfaced. Its clear universal medical insurance was only a vote getter. While the PO has not rolled out deals have already been struck with the drug companies and the insurance industry. By requiring every adult to get health insurance the industry stands to gain millions of dollars by insuring the young and healthy people with lower rates’ I would not be surprised if the public option is used primarily by older individuals, the unemployed and the uninsurable leaving the tax payers to pay the bill.
The lack of progressive ideas in the presidents inner circle and has clouded his vision. They are the ones that have hijacked HCR and will be responsible for its success or failure. As a Liberal (I hate the word progressive) I’ve done everything possible to support HCR. The lack of money on my part has prevented me from gaining direct access to my Washington representatives (Democrat and Republican.) I hope that in the end the Progressive Caucus determines the outcome of HCR.
The biggest lesson I’ve learned from all of this is that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals. In theory those in corporations have two votes:, one via the corporation and another as an individuals. I have tried contacting the ACLU a number of times to fight this to no avail. Like those in Washington it seems they are only interested in donations.

[MorpheusXNYC]

Progressive is a more fitting word, I think, as it describes our goal - to help society move forward and make progress.
It's also more of a direct antonym to "Conservative", or Regressives, as I call them.

[wallyone]

Congressmen and women must not let mob rule triumph in the health care arena. This would be a terrible precedent. Can we find legislators who put the people first and do the right thing?

We need Obama to win and continue his agenda and fulfill his potential. This is the number one priority.

[whatdouwant]

It seems that people warship the DOLLAR than a human being. What they are forgetting is that you do not take it with you when you are dead. Money is meat to be spent not to be starched away in an island or a Swiss bank. Help those who cannot help themselves, that is where your reward is. HEALTH CARE issues is a human issue. It is not about the President, it is about the American people. The President health care is rock solid just as every member of the house and senate. If the GOP and the so-called blue dogs are allowed to defeat the health care bill, that means their reward will be awaiting everyone of them HELL, which is their conscience. Remember that money cannot buy peace of mind. The voice of all those that will be cheated out of good public health option will hunt all those who will vote against this bill. If you go to church, you will not be saved either, because the evil that has taken over them, which is money will use them till they dropped on their knees to beg for mercy from those they have cheated. Sickness has no political affiliation, no color, and above no gender. It does not know if you are young or old. You only have to pay a visit to the hospital and see human suffering. Think it can't happen to you, think again...

[Steve111]

Why is everyone getting so excited about the public option? When I get an e-mail asking me to contribute $1,000 now to get $10,000 in the future, I know it is a scam. Guaranteed spending now vs imaginary savings in the future is just not believable. Yet, this is what is being done with health care.

We can get all caught up in who is doing what and when, but let's look at the issues and include the costs when we discuss benefits.

[codycap]

The cost of Medicare is not cheap as a percentage of what seniors earn.
Dr. David Himmelstein of Harvard and PNHP states that having everyone on single payer would save at least $350 B per year, and latest reports say $400 B per year. That's $350 Trillion to $400 Trillion over 10 years, which would cover everyone from Day One, Dollar One--comprehensive, no deductibles, no co-pays, no rescissions. Oh, prescriptions included.
What's not to like? Oh, yeah, the Big Insurance Parasites lose their ability to suck wealth out of the populace. Some pols lose big contributors.

[ouroborous]

"Why is everyone getting so excited about the public option? When I get an e-mail asking me to contribute $1,000 now to get $10,000 in the future, I know it is a scam. Guaranteed spending now vs imaginary savings in the future is just not believable. Yet, this is what is being done with health care."

You do know that this could also describe insurance, or even simply saving money, right?

The principle of delayed gratification, of putting money aside for a rainy day, is hardly a scam.

[piadog]

ourobrous, I agree that a private or group insurance policy and the public option are all a form of saving money for a rainy day. We pay into the system with the understanding we will be able to draw on it to pay medical expenses in the future.

The BIG difference between the two is that while the money we would pay into a public option plan will always be available to us.

That's not the case under a private or group insurance policy. If you drop the policy, you loose everything you have paid into it over the years. Rather than paying for your healthcare needs, it will be used to pay executive salaries, bonuses, investor profits, corporate lawsuits, and someone else's healthcare.

I paid my insurance premiums for years, until I was eventually priced out of the market.
Now, I have nada, zilch, zero. No insurance and no possibility of getting it.

Why people haven't taken to the streets years ago is beyond comprehension.

[Steve111]

Very well said.

Putting money away for a rainy day is the proper way to prepare for the future and to be responsible. Save first, then spend.

However, we are being told to spend a trillion dollars over the next 10 years for health care. Somehow this guaranteed increase in spending will allow implementing imaginary plans that, "will save money". Let's get real and save money first, then after the proven savings are implemented, use the excess in responsible ways.

[ajwriter]

You've missed one key point: single-payer and the "public option" are not remotely the same. The latter is not a bold, ambitious plan to many progressives, but a fatal concession that cannot work.

I's tragic, because the right-wingers were going to roll out the same opposition no matter what the proposal. We should be fighting for something worth fighting for! We don't want progressive fingerprints on the public option. "Competing" with private insurance? The good people who brought us "recisions" and "bad faith" and "pre-existing conditions"? You think they haven't made more stuff up to get all our money while not honoring their contracts when those no longer work? Better that a public option fails and people continue to get fed up to the point that they push for the real thing.

Too bad for the Republicans that they are so under the thumb of the wingnuts, because FISCAL conservative could be coming up with a non-federal alternative solution that got rid of for-profit insuranc, ie., freed up our citizens and businesses to go live their lives to the fullest of their productive capabilities. They'd have let the Dems propose single-payer -- then proposed something else that achieved the same goals (especially ending the poorly performing, inefficient insurance industry) without needing government, and they'd be the heroes. But no, they keep hammering away at those nutty UNconservative giveaways to the fleecers of America, destroying the very marketplace they claim to cherish.

[SFSierra]

How could complacency settle in so quickly with the Obama administration and progressive groups? Getting Obama elected guaranteed nothing, it just got him elected. While progressives have had high hopes that Obama would follow through on campaign pledges, such as comprehensive healthcare reform with a public option, it's naive to believe that all that will just magically happen.

It's too bad Ted Kennedy is not still around and in good health so he could show Obama how its done. The only hope now is that his death has shaken both Obama and progressive leaders out of complacency.

[marinade]

How could complacency settle? Don't blame the progressives. It looks like when the campaign was over somebody told progressives to f off.

What happened after the campaign was all of our donations and phone numbers and email addresses got sucked into the DNC which has returned to its usual impotent self since Howard Dean left.

[DocTwain]

What are you talking about?

Democrats have 59 votes in their caucus in the Senate even with Kennedy dead.
Joe Lieberman and the seven worst Centrist Democrats can vote against the bill, and using reconciliation it will still pass with a 51-48 vote.

All of the town halls are unnecessary. They dems got their mandate when they were handed their supermajorities in both houses, and the presidency.

If the Democrats don't pass single payer or an extremely strong single payer that can lead to single payer simply by people voting with their feet, then they have utterly betrayed progressives, and we will simply have to get rid of every Centrist in the primaries.

The Obama's administration's "3 principles" are hopelessly vague. I was just at a town hall protest and there were various different groups in favor of health care reform--the confused Centrists, just shouting for "health care"; the single payer advocates; and the public option advocates. Meanwhile the tin-hatters just shouted "acorn" and "why don't you move to Russia?" Why couldn't Obama give us something real to rally around?

[MyNameIsJames]

Wow - great post! The whole progressive movement needs to have a "come to Jesus" moment with President Obama and tell him that if he wants mobilization that he needs to speak clearly- stop the insider game playing and show some courage.

IF the President wants to play "INSIDER" politics now that he has been elected then we should have voted for Hillary Clinton because she is much more adept at playing the "INSIDE" game.

President Obama was elected to be a new fresh voice that took on the "INSIDERS" while mobilizing Americans to fight for their own best interests. This is NOT what we have witnessed from his administration.

If the President cannot clear his head for the fogginess of Washington then the Progressives must make him aware that he needs to be more afraid of THEM than he is of the Conservatives.

[marinade]

Crappiest game ever. NOTHING like the campaign. What the heck happened? OFA got too big for its britches and thought they could skate?

OFA got in the way of progressives.

[JDM73]

Sadly, I don't think anything "happened". Obama's not a progressive and he never was--but of course, we expected at least a little more than what we're getting. Looking at his stance on warrantless wiretapping, however (along with his stance on Afghanistan, military tribunals, torture prosecution, the economy, and on and on), maybe even modest expectations were too much.

[marinade]

Nope. President Obama needs a win. No bill or a crappy bill are losses.

The fact that the fight to win has been so weak belies an incompetence and malaise in the administration.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

The author ignores the obvious. McFlip-Flop has failed to lead. He has failed to fight, offering to compromise before any resistance is offered & in the face of the fact that resistance is futile, due to overwhelming strength in congress. Additionally, McFlip-Flop has made NO ATTEMPT to rouse/lead his minions who elected him to lead, change & create hope. The failure is all his.

[robbep]

No matter how they try to put the blame on us we know where the real blame lies, McFlip-Flop is the one who has failed to lead and now he is facing the consequences. And the author is correct if the yella dawgs and repubs can turn him on this they do have the blue plan for dictating to him for the next 3.5 years. Obama and his advisors have forgotten a crucial point and that is you dance with the one who brought you to the dance. By alienating his base in order to woo the centrist and repubs he has lost the support and trust of the foot soldiers he needs to get things done. The move to the center was a foolish decision and will almost certainly make him a one termer. The only way he can turn this around is return to campaign Obama and DO what he says he is going to do. There is an old saying that says you have to do the same things you did to get the girl if you want to keep the girl.

[MyNameIsJames]

I understand your upset - I am upset also - I believe that we have to much more aggressive with the Obama administration. They shouldn't be able to feel that they have Progressives "in the bag" on ANYTHING that is not substanative. Currently, the administration seems to be using the Bill Clinton triangulation policy with the Progressive Left.

[JDM73]

I'm not buying the argument that the left shares the blame. We've been out here shouting, calling our lawmakers, signing petitions...but no one's listening. We're fighting like hell for health care reform, so don't blame us if we get a bad bill. Blame the "pragmatic centrists" who want to compromise, compromise, compromise.
And yes, that imcludes Barack Obama.

[ddDinah]

When PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, as a Hillary supporter I know what it means when Obama's team comes after you. We folded last time in support of the Democrats...WON'T THIS TIME...

Experts see double-digit Dem losses
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26393.html

[kburlz]

Do you prefer Hillary's strategy for health reform?

[MyNameIsJames]

At this point does it really matter? I believe that HRC could get more through the Congress than the Obama administration at this point! IT PAINS ME TO SAY IT!! I cannot believe that I just said it--but that is how I feel right now.

[jpehrlich]

ddD...you are faved and fanned!
The weak knees I know who dumped their support for Hil in the run up to the convention....are now asking me "Wha happened?". Every time I mentioned Obama's lack of experience in legislative matters during the primary...I was labeled a racist.

[Zombeaver]

So you can see that the only viable strategy for democrats is to include a strong public option in the final bill and let republicans filibuster it or, if the republicans see that as the political suicide that it would be and let it go to a vote, unamimously support it.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

With 60 votes the Rethuglicans cannot filibuster. Only the Democrats can fail. If they fail, they bear the responsibility, alone. If they succeed, they can make issue of the obstructionists. They cannot if they are the obstructionists. They will either rise or fall...as a PARTY.

[Zombeaver]

1) If a bill with a strong public option makes it out of committee and the repubilcans filibuster, Americans will place the blame on obstructionist republicans, not democrats. 2) If a strong public option bill is defeated with the help of conservative democrats, it will unravel the democratic party and democratic losses in the midterm elections will be enormous. 3) If a bill without a pubilic option is defeated by progressive resistance, the public will blame the democrats, and that's the club progressives must wield. So, option 1 is good for democrats while options 2 and 3 are bad.

I know that some democrats feel that if they manage to pass a bill, any bill, it will be hailed as a success. Again, it really depends HOW it comes to pass, not if. There are two "bill passes" scenarios to consider: 1) If a bill with a strong public option passes with progressive support, progressives will be motivated to work the midterms and MINIMIZE losses. (minimize is the important word because there will be losses, and there is nothing anything short of another attack that can prevent it, just ask Bill Clinton) 2) If a bill with no, or a weak public option passes, progressives will not work the midterms, and may not vote, and losses will be staggering. see part 3 next