The next two weeks in Congress may provide an answer to the metaphysical question "Can Democrats govern?" If the answer turns out to be "no," then a large part of the electorate is going to decide that it is pointless to bother electing large majorities of Democrats to Congress, because they simply can't get anything done when they get there. If the answer turns out to be "yes" (or even "kind of"), then Democrats may have a chance to make the case this fall that electing lots of Democrats is the way for the voters to go.
In the next two weeks, two major pieces of legislation will be in the news. The first, of course, is health reform. The second was just introduced today by Senator Chris Dodd, and it deals with Wall Street reform, and consumer protection. Dodd's bill has a long way to go, but it'll start the process in his committee soon.
President Obama faced an enormous challenge when he took office, because our financial system appeared to be on the brink of outright collapse. For the past year, this danger has faded and the economy is beginning to show signs of bouncing back -- a stunning achievement in such a short period of time, but one for which Obama doesn't get a lot of credit at times. But the problem is that Wall Street is still playing by the same rules that led to the near-collapse. The regulatory structure has not been changed yet to prevent the exact same thing from happening at any future point. Congress has not acted yet. Well, to be precise, the House has acted (and passed a fairly strong bill), and the Senate has not. Which is why Dodd's draft of a bill is big news, because the Senate is finally making a little progress on the issue.
On health reform, Democrats are approaching the finish line (finally!) after spending much of the last year on the subject. But success is not guaranteed, even at this point. White House officials and Democratic leadership sound confident so far that they've got the process under control and the necessary votes under their belt, but this is not the same thing as a guarantee that within two weeks both health reform bills will be on Obama's desk awaiting his signature. No matter what happens in the end, it's going to be a lively few weeks in Washington, that's for sure.
But, on both these issues, the core question boils down to: Can Democrats govern? Can they actually do what is necessary, once they get power in Washington? Can they follow through on the campaign promises that got them there? Can they behave like adults and fix our nation's problems to avoid future financial disaster, or are Democrats just incapable of actually taking necessary action -- even when they've got large majorities?
If Democrats can manage to pass the two health reform bills (without somehow tripping over their own metaphorical feet while attempting to do so), then the American public will take notice. Whether one loves or hates the plan Democrats are trying to pass, its passage will be a political fact. Voters will agree on the basic fact: "Well, they got it done." Whether that motivates voters to support Democrats who managed to pass such landmark legislation, or whether it motivates voters to "throw the bums out" remains to be seen, but at least such elections will hinge on the fact that Democrats passed something, and not "Well, we tried our best, maybe next time."
Now, I'm not trying to predict how individual voters will act, come November. All I'm saying is that on the question of basic competence in governing, Democrats are going to have a lot easier time explaining their position if they can point to tangible legislation which they managed to pass. Otherwise, they'll just have excuses for why they wasted a year without having anything to show for the effort. And that's not a very cheerful thing to try to run a campaign on.
Regulating Wall Street falls into the same category -- basic competence. We have a set of rules for Wall Street to operate under. The rules failed to prevent a near-disaster. We barely survived this near-disaster. So, to prevent future repeats of this performance, any sane individual would agree that the rules need to be changed -- and beefed up. In specific, rules which cover the causes which led to the problems. It's been about a year and a half after the near-disaster struck. And yet the rules remain the same.
This one's even easier than health reform, because Democrats can so easily position themselves as on the side of the consumer of financial products (mortgages, in particular), and their opponents on the side of The Big Banks, or just Wall Street. Republicans aren't going to go along with Democratic ideas (that's pretty much a given, especially since Dodd bent over backwards trying to get Republicans on board, but finally wrote his own bill in frustration with the endless delays and obstructionism). Meaning Republicans will have to explain out on the campaign trail why they're for letting Wall Street operate exactly the same way as led to the near-disaster.
Once again, to any sane individual, crafting some new Wall Street regulations is a no-brainer. Doing so means whoever is in charge is capable of governing. Not doing so means incompetence.
Which is why I'll be following both pieces of legislation closely in the next few weeks. Democratic chances in the upcoming congressional elections may hinge mostly on where the unemployment rate is around October, I realize. But although the economy in general will likely be the major factor in the elections this year, Democrats also need to prove that they are capable of governing when the voters give them the chance. This means being able to pass legislation Democratic politicians have been promising their voters for years, and it also means being able to react to a crisis by passing legislation to avoid the same problem in the future. It means, in short, being able to govern.
Because if Democrats are seen as the party that tries real hard (but never manages to get anything actually accomplished), then it's hard to fathom why voters would get enthusiastic about the party. "Close" only counts in horseshoes, as they say. If this is truly the case, then ironically the Democrats actually become the "party of no" -- because the only reason left to elect them is to prevent Republicans from passing their agenda. And the slogan "Elect a lot of Democrats so that we can stop the Republican agenda, and waste a lot of time fooling around with things we can't pass" just isn't going to cut the mustard.
Either Democrats can govern -- and can make this case to the public during the campaign -- or they cannot. The next few weeks will be critical in answering this fundamental question.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Loading comments…
We need to get rid of more of them. Elect more Democrats to increase the margin of votes and things will change for the better. We will have a well regulated economy again, and with it prosperity.
Everything is do or die and it has to be NOW. There's little understanding that 5 imperfect solutions, over time, can make one perfect solution. And it's not just the American problem with short time horizons. First, there's analysis paralysis. At some point the thinking ends and you just get on with it. Also, there's this overriding cynicism in Progressives that expects the worse and focuses on it too much. The imperfect compromise is a failure--never a partial success. It's okay to think like that if you're an academician, but when you have to "make the call," you have to be willing to take what you can get and move on. Negotiate hard--sure. Don't leave too much on the table--a given. But Democratic party governance should always have a bias towards action. Does it increase the good? Does it leave the world better than it was? Does it build toward the future? Those should be the guiding principles, not whether a decision satisfies some purity test.
Progressives can't stand moves to the middle. They have to get past that!
Both parties get pulled to the center, always have, always will.
There are 20-30% on the far left and far right, with a big chunk in the middle.
When the Dems have a big majority, there are some DINOs (DEM in name only)
Example: Some pro-life Dems
When the GOP have a big majority, there are some RINOs (Rep in name only)
Example: Some pro-choice GOP
If you want a "big tent" it may not be filled with your closest friends, that's life.
those democrats who oppose the obamacare will not have my vote or support next election.
In case the Dems in congress are listening, here’s how you do that.
HUDDLE UP!
The Dems in Congress meet in a private party caucus, like a huddle.
You discuss what you’re going to do in private, reach a consensus, and call the play.
Then you step back on the floor, (Break), and ya RUN THE PLAY as a team TOGETHER.
Your now like a football team that lines up and,
the running backs crying “I don’t want to run again because that line couldn’t punch a whole thru a wet paper bagâ€,
the tight end is screaming “why should I block, it should have been a pass playâ€
a lineman is whining “we should pass, pass blocking is easierâ€
and after you finished telling the other team what the play is,
but before you get the ball snapped, the play clock runs out!
The other team does not have TO DO ANYTHING.
They just roll around on the field laughing while you back up.
Got it?
OK
BREAK!
Now go run the darn play, together as a team, and GET SOMETHING DONE!
Ah! A football metaphor fan!
You might enjoy this, from last October -- "Halftime At The Healthcare Reform Superbowl" --
http://www
:-)
-CW
I read your linked story, it is good.
As much as they're derided on this site, the moderate and conservative Democrats constitute the governing majority in the House Democratic caucus. By a bit of a margin, in fact.
So, the notion that the Democrats can get together, act rationally, and work to propose legislation that builds from where the strength in the caucus lays, is something that the fringe would be utterly opposed to.
We need to find and encourage more real democrats to run in the primaries. New people to the political races to challenge the old thinking. We need to energize a grass roots movement that challenges any incumbent who isn't doing the job. Here in Central Florida we are fortunate to have Alan Grayson. We are also fortunate to have several new entrants in state and local campaigns that are willing to fight the status-quo. This is the only way we are ever going to make inroads in congress, and it may not happen this election cycle but we have to keep trying. Now is not the time to give up.
Beating up on Rahm Emanuel is the norm here I realize, but give Rahm credit, he is the one who got the Blue Dogs elected in the first place, he personnally recruited many of them. Why, because these are conservative districts and the ONLY way to get a Democrate elected in a conservative distrist is to run a moderate Democrate! DUH! If a Progressive would have run in those districts, the GOP would have won and gained control of Congress, is that better?
And there are benifits to having a majority with Dem by there name even if they don't always vote with you.
Example: Leadership positions with control of agendas, committee chairs with control of agendas ect.
Still, the belief that every district or state is just going to go about electing a pure Progressive candidate is lunacy. You go with your "elect only 'real democrats'" strategy, and you're going to end up with a "real democrat" congressional caucus that is at a further minority than what the current Republicans are facing.
The Blue Dog/New Democrat coalitions are near 120 members strong. These near 120 constitute the bulk of the conservative and moderate Democrats in the House.
You push these guys out, by only going with candidates that are "real democrats" and you lose 100 of those near 120 seats. It's simple as that.
And, frankly, I'd rather just focus on being in the governing majority, for as long as Democrats, left, right and center, can be.
The Democrats sold us, the people, out for the corporations and the fallout won't just dust them this November: it will be a route. I predict Nancy Pelosi will lose her re-election in San Francisco, the most liberal city in the western U.S. She has betrayed us all for a big payout and she can go to hell.
So you're saying no bill would be easier for Dems to run on in the fall?
I have to disagree about Pelosi, however. Harry Reid may not be coming back to Washington next year, but Pelosi will definitely still be there.
-CW
When I spotted this exchange with "hippie4ev
Chris knows that I have been SHARPLY critical of ...the process..a
That said, I have honestly come to believe that those who suggest we should "start over" are VERY naive and have ZERO political history.
It has been 16 years since Hillary/care was euthanized.
I submit that it will be even longer before even MODEST reforms will be adressed in any serious way if the gargantuan efforts of the last 14 months come to nothing but a ratification of the (unsustainable) status quo.
The very term "health care reform" will become another untouchable "third rail"
Moreover, failure will far transcend the fortunes of Obama or the Democrats.
The enthusiasm and energy of the '08 campaign..
The only RECENTLY restored, uniquely AMERICAN, belief...
That ordinary citizens can educate & organize themselves
That they can thereby effect positive change through the political system....
Indeed the BEDROCK idea that elections matter at all......
All will be in serious question in a way not seen since the days just after Vietnam and Watergate.
For many reasons the choice is pretty stark and simple.
Pass the bill and continue to work for more meaningful reform....
Or stand with the Republicans and the insurance lobby for NO REFORM....
For me,......i
REGARDS
TM
Polls repeatedly show that the American populace is in favor of health care reform. Polls also repeatedly show that the American populace is in favor of the public option. And finally, the polls show that the people oppose the CURRENT bill being rammed through Congress as a "last chance to fix health care, ever!" ploy.
People aren't dumb; they know a bad bill when they see one. And now, with this Faustian bargain that Democrats have set up for themselves -- do nothing, or pass a bill that the American public does not want -- they will see through the charade and understand how the game was rigged from the beginning.
This is why this lifelong-registered Democrat (but now, Independent) hopes this health care reform bill fails, politically speaking; I know that the mandate-only approach won't fix anything (so we won't lose anything by its failure), and the political cost to Democrats might force them to start paying attention to the SUBSTANCE of what they pass again, instead of just "can they pass something.
-Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to continue with practices, like dropping people from coverage once they get sick, lifetime caps on coverage, and refusing to even offer coverage to folks who were sick before, that have done countless harm to the lives of people across this country.
-Small businesses and individuals will get an opportunity to pool their resources, in a way that should help provide for lower cost insurance.
-Senior citizens, who go through the ills of having to pay for their prescription drugs at full cost when they fall into the "doughnut hole", will now see that hole filled in.
-And, in a move to help strengthen the overall fiscal budget picture in this country, Medicare Advantage, a private subsidy that has been effectively marketed as a public system, will be effectively eliminated, with the drug benefits that were to come from that program reintegrated into Medicare, the actual government program.
That's just a brief synopsis of what is actually already in the healthcare legislation. And, frankly, this idiotic belief that the "American public" will gladly throw all of the good elements in this bill away, only because it doesn't include a "public option", which in any form that hit Congress only affect 3% of the folks in this country, is beyond stupid.
* Yes, people will be able to buy insurance on a state-by-state (not federal) exchange. However, existing exchanges don't give much hope that this will be a game changer for anyone.
* Filling the doughnut hole is good. It's one of the few net positives of the new bill. I'm not sure it's worth the mandates without cost control, however.
* I'll skip the Medicare analysis because frankly I'm not well-versed enough on the policy to argue it. It's still a far cry from reimportation or Medicare drug bargaining, but again, I don't know enough policy to argue about that topic well.
As to what the American public wants, that's a mystery, of course. But we DO have polls, and polls have resoundingly shown exactly what I claimed when I posted this: that the public loves the idea of health care reform, the public loves the public option, and the public hates the Senate bill now being rammed through and labeled "Mission Accomplished: Health Care Reform."
I disagree on this point.
Most Americans are fully aware that it's not much trouble (despite much theater) to get the votes for handouts to large interests at the expense of average Americans.
The only thing that is going to matter to American voters is whether a party passes legislation that proves to be in the interests of the country and all Americans.
They have forgotten in their pursuit of the lofty political goal of Health Care Reform, the means in which they have used to reach this goal cannot be justified by the end result. And since they will use any means to achieve this goal, the American People now see that the promises of this goal are not worth the price that is being extracted by the Democratic leadership.
As an example of this leadership crisis, moments after Obama outlined his new bi-partisan Heath Care bill, he appointed the brother of Congressman Matheson to the 10th District Court of Appeals. Matheson voted against HR2962 on 11/7/2009.
I wonder if his vote will change when the Obama health bill comes to the house?
The short answer is a resounding "no".
There is no leadership, just bribery.
No ethics, only self preservation.
No honor, only lies.
No transparency, only backroom deals.
No bipartisanship, only partisanship.
No listening to the people who elected them, only listening to the lonely voice in their heads.
There mistake: listening o themselves.
But, your example (Libby Ledbetter) is lacking. All of the work of getting passed was done in a bi-partisan way and long before Obama became president. The evil Democrats in Congress waited until a Democrat could sign it into law. All partisan posturing for the benefit of those who do not pay attention.
The Chamber of Commerce, the republican lobby tool went all out to try to kill it.
Look it up.
Not a bunch of Democrats
or a bunch of Republican
Balance in the administration will merit the best results
because Far left and far right bills alike won't make it through...
everyone will be forced to Come to agreements in order to accomplish anything
and that is better than any one party owning the entire process...
either way you slice it...
I do think that you are on to something, but for another reason. When one party dominates the legislature and has the presidency, there is no incentive for the minority party to do anything other than obstruct..
Thus the Democrats' big win in 2008 was a curse in disguise.
because there were still many in their own party who would not vote to pass it.....
and some of those who didn't vote for it voted against it rightly so.....
because their voters in their districts were against the bill....
and that is their only true purpose in washington
for the people in their district..
I think they would have been in just as much trouble if they had decided to tow the party line......
this bill since its original introduction has been a Mess.... its a Far left Bill with far right frills slapped on top of it..... and thats not gonna get anything done
it Takes our money... and Expands coverage for people....
Both parties need to look to the center Left and right alike.....
Come up with real, sound and honest solutions.
of Left and right Frills.... Our political system should not be Ideologically Driven...
it should be solution driven....
it shouldn't have anything to do with who gets credit for the solution..
I personally believe that Real Centrist politics have more answers then either
Parties Favor and Agenda Driven "Solutions
You're kidding, right?
When you have the federal government forcing you to buy something, anything, it has overreached its constitutional limitations.
Also, if it is so centrist, why can't they get a single Republican to support it? Because the GOP is the party of 'no'?
uh, no.
Maybe the Democrats didn't bribe any Republicans while they were "draining the Swamp".
You take out the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the other side deals, ignore the hyperbole and nonsense that has been spouted by all that would much rather see it die, from both sides, and look t the merits of the legislation.
Where is this notion that it's some far-left bill coming from.
The bill builds on the current system of state-based regulation; it just gives regulators more tools. States now have the freedom to combined markets with other states, keeping in mind that same standards must be accepted, to broaden the pool and lower rates for folks in their states.
The bill builds on the employer-based system. It gives tax help and subsidies to small business, to give them a better opportunity to buy affordable coverage, and it starts to put a price on health coverage, eliminating the tax-exempt status for health plans costing over a certain threshold.
The bill makes fiscal sense, on a macro level. It works to undo a program that folks never intended to pay for, the private insurance subsidy that was messaged into becoming Medicare Advantage, and it does so without taking the prescription drug benefit away from seniors.
And all of this is done without the creation of a new national system.
and many other Prominent Democrats On air...... stating that "We won't get to single payer overnight"
Meaning these Supposed "comprises" are baby steps toward their goal...As well as Recordings and video of Obama Stating that it is his objective to emulate Canada's system and "We will have a Single Payer System By the end of my First term".....
now I am Not sure if he can get that done or not... but that surely Displays his intentions
with our country...
Assuming you are asking a question, I would say the answer is in the immediately preceding sentence.
"look t the merits of the legislation".
That's what I did, just don't believe there are any merits.
Is slashing Medicare meritorious? Slashing doctor pay? How about forcing everyone into an "approved" plan that they will have to pay for?
And it won't insure everyone, so what are the merits.
You say, "The bill builds on the current system of state-based regulation"
The Federal government cannot change state laws and regulations. That it is unconstitutional.
"States now have the freedom to combined markets with other states"
They already can do that. This bill has no effect on it.
"It gives tax help and subsidies to small business"
It also sucks those dollars and more back out again in much higher insurance premiums.
"starts to put a price on health coverage"
That has already been done.
"It works to undo a program that folks never intended to pay for, the private insurance subsidy that was messaged into becoming Medicare Advantage"
Killing medicare supplemental programs (Medicare Advantage) is only a small part of the $500 Billion they are cutting from Medicare. I still find it very hard to believe that liberals, progressives and Democrats are risking their political power to slash & kill a program that they were decrying, not cutting, but slowing the growth of, just a few years ago.
It is hard to sit back and listen to the cockiness of the Republican politicians. I do however, think that they will be a victim of their own conceit. They have always had difficulty representing the middle class and quite frankly it is a little hard to stomach right now. Hopefully our electorate is a little smarter than they give them credit for.
class warfare and racial politics
for their agenda is actually the one party that assumes americans are stupid, and therefore believes it is the government's job to take care of them =nanny government
=== I wonder who uses these tactics??? hmmmm