The Audacity of Obama
Let's hope the rumors aren't true. Let's hope the insiders have it wrong, and that Wednesday night's health care speech is not what some here in DC fear most: that Obama is ready to cave on health care, abandoning or backing off on the public option.
But if they are right, and if the President does step back, instead of stepping up, then my reading of The Audacity of Hope two years ago will have proven to be right on target.
I read the book after the very bright woman who was then acting as president of my university (part of the SUNY system) convened a discussion about it. That was still in the days when Hillary Clinton (our own U.S. Senator in New York) seemed a shoe-in for the nomination. Obama was a curiosity. Not a terribly seriously option.
Reading the first few chapters of the book, I was wowed. I remember telling my husband I thought the guy was incredible. A great writer, a refreshingly honest politician, a man with an extraordinarily ambitious vision. As the product of a multi-racial partnership, he could see a way to bridge the many gaping divisions between and among Americans of all ages and races and classes and geographic and economic positions.
By the time I'd finished the book, however, I'd shifted my position. Maybe I was getting tired of what started to feel like his slick rhetorical gift. Maybe I was just overwhelmed by skepticism. In the end, it seemed to me that anybody who could so fully embrace opposing points of view might not be willing to do what was necessary as President: stand up and show true leadership by taking a strong position and running with it.
Well, so, I wasn't an Obama man, at least for a while. I was too suspicious. I didn't think when the going got tough, that he would be the President willing to do what he should do.
As his candidacy grew more and more popular, I had to let go. I finally saw the inevitability of the Obama movement, and like others, wanted to believe that in him, we had a brand new kind of leader. A President like Lincoln, FDR or Johnson who could remake America. A President to carve a way into the 21st century. Like so many Americans, I became excited that this man had a mission. And a bold vision. And real guts and honest determination to seize a historical moment and make a real difference in the lives of ordinary people.
But now, what? Now I fear that he might actually be the waffler I thought he was when I read the book. The man who wants to please everybody, but in the end, pleases no one. He appears at this moment to be losing support, and instead of standing up and saying, we are going to stay the course, because it's the right thing to do, he backs down. Retreats and gives in to right-wing fear-mongering and finagling.
Tragically, it's almost as though he and his handlers don't get it. They don't see what we saw as he was swept into office on a groundswell of grass roots support in January 2009. They don't truly understand why everybody was so wildly enthusiastic about his up-from-nowhere candidacy.
Over and over again this year, we have heard him say "we need the public option because it's the only way to keep the insurance industry honest." Exactly. Without that option, then what are we left with? What kind of health care reform do we have? To many of us, the reform ends up looking like another corporate giveaway. Sure, millions more Americans will be insured. And who stands to profit from those millions of new premium payers?
WellPoint and United Health and Cigna and Aetna.
Apparently, Mr. President, you think you can cave on health care, and still hold onto your base. I respectfully suggest that might be a dangerous miscalculation. You will lose so many of your staunchest supporters with a speech that backs away from the public option. There are millions of us out here who will be enraged if you have the audacity to take us, and our support, and our votes, for granted.
Please, Mr. Obama. Please don't.
Follow Claudia Ricci on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RicciCJ
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't know if Obama is a waffler, or buckling under the tremendous pressure of trying to reform health care while shoring up the economy, dealing with two mismanaged wars, and hysterical accusations for wingnuts for every move he makes.
It is also important to point out that the public option wasn't in real danger until the blue dog Dems withdrew their support. If the Obama administration watched a few seasons of West Wing they would know to call in the blue dogs and tell them to shape up or they would set MoveOn.org And Colorof Change.org on them and then White House would back another democrat against them in the next election. If the blue dogs still held out, then they would call in a Republican and say if you vote with us, we won't back the blue dogs in the next election so it will be easier for a republican to win. Where are Josh, Toby, and Leo when you need them?
I think the solution is 2 health care bills: The Health Care Reform Act (just reforming the current system) and the Health Care Accessibility Act (introducing the public option). When the GOP goes nuts on the reform act, the Dems can say "See, they are just obstructionists." Then Dems could push through both bills without bi-partisan support.
There will be no meaningful public option because the Dems and the GOP are the same -- both are chock full of Enthusiastic Piggies fed at the trough of Big Pharma/Healthcare. Don’t waste your time anymore voting for either; it’s like deck chairs on the Titanic.
What you should work for, IMHO, is:
1) implementation of proportional voting (what they have in Europe that has allowed the Green Party to get some modicum of power). Proportional voting does away with winner take all, so a party that gets, say, 30% of the vote will have 30% of the representatives rather than nothing. Proportional voting is the main thing that will help third parties get power; and
2) stronger control of campaign finance.
3) The big media outlets must be pressured to allow third party candidates access to the debates (they kept Nader out, and will do so with any third candidate).
If you keep voting for the same two parties, you will continue to be GAMED. The Dems talk a more progressive game, but watch the RESULTS.
WAKE UP, AMERICA.
Hey Claudia, here's your Norma Rae speech you've been looking for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRVB4kq59Sw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
Sorry, Claudia, but the problem isn't Obama. The problem is YOU. In addition to reading his book, you might want to check out the bills that he introduced and got PASSED in the Senate and then research just how he got those bills passed to figure out whether or not he's able to stand his ground and get things done. His strategy isn't a new one. The sad part about these so-called liberals who think they know Obama is that they really don't. At least you admit to not taking him seriously two years ago when he was already way more experienced in the Senate than Hillary "Failure is my middle name" Clinton. All you saw was the hype and the rhetoric. And you only have yourself to blame if you're unsure of whether or not he's a "waffler".
To point you in the right direction: Check out his police profiling bill in Illinois and research what it took to get that very controversial bill passed.
I have to agree. He's gotten some pretty tough legislation introduced and passed, and has a unique way of choosing and executing his 'fights'.
Being President is quite different from being a Senator, however. The dynamics are very different. He's proving himself surprisingly masterful at getting results. Not perfect, but in my estimation he's well above average.
It's interesting how much projection is going on these days, e.g. all the noise over his address to students before anyone really knew what the speech contained. Once made public, however, no-one really felt badly of it, other than those who operate from an "Obama can do no right with me" perspective.
I'm withholding any judgement on what he "might" say tomorrow. I can hope, I can dream, but I will decide my opinions after I've heard the speech.
Personally, I'd like him to come out and say something like, "Congress, I put the task of health care reform before you, and I'm unhappy with the result. So I'm going to put all of my political capital behind single-payer, universal health care. It's the only system that ensures coverage of all Americans, and it needs to be done."
Hope yes. Expectation? Not much. But if we prevail, and congress passes HR676, I would expect the President to sign it. And he will, if we ensure it gets put in front of him.
It only needs the will of the people behind it to pass. Give it your voice!
I think the worst mistake liberals make is confusing Hillary with her husband. If you looked at her bio you would know that she at least began as a liberal activist. She did legal work for the House Justice Committee during the impeachment proceedings that ended the Nixon presidency. While she played a relatively minor role it was enough for the Republicans to spill gallons of invective on her and later on her husband as well. Unfortunately it was not just right wing zombies who drank that Kool-aid.
All along, during the campaign for the Democratic nomination I thought that Hillary would prove to be the more progressive of the two.
Never just believe what you read or hear, always look for some verification, and for God's sake think! Join me in beating this wimpy centrist we've elected into the fire breathing leftist ideologue that we and our country need!
I won't buy into any suggestion that Hillary would have done better - she would not have, because she is far more conservative than Obama. In fact the sad truth is that progressives may hve had no candidate to spport in '08.
I supported Obama as soon as I read through the policy positions he posted on his website - they sounded jut the right note of a 'new centrism' that could further the progressive agenda without grossly offending a moderate middle class.
But Obama in office quickly surrounded himself with blue dogs, Clintonistas, even former Bush people - presumably putting together a team of insiders who could get a job done. Instead, being insiders, they isolated him from progressive voices. The policy positions of his campaign were surrendered to 'conventional wisodm,' as it is farcically referred to - the news according to CNN and the Washington Post.
Progressives need to find a way to get a strong voice in the mainstream media; the situation is better than it was 6 years ago, but it is not enough to cause any impression inside te Beltway; there, it's polityics and rhetoric as it has been for 25 years. And progressives need to talk about a third party again. However, the situation is so dark, we may have to admit that at the end of the day the corporatist (truly fascist) Reagan Revolution was so successful, so completely changd our political culture, that voting is simply futile.
I agree with you, as soon as he got into office, he surrounded himself with non-progressives. I also agree that Clinton probably would not have done better. Thanks for writing! Claudia
I agree about Hillary, but I am perplexed about Obama. I really don't know if he has something up his sleeve that he is not showing yet or if he really has buckled under to the right wing. I hope it is the former, because when I think about him losing support and going toward their side, I become physically ill. I want to believe that he will talke the strong steps to keep his promises, no matter how hard the choice, but I am also skeptical, that because he is young and somewhat inexperienced, he has accepted and followed the wrong people in his party. I hope that he does the right thing. I hope he is reading all of these blogs. I do still have the audacity of hope.
Thoughtful post, and I don't disagree with anything you said ... especially that gloomy last sentence.
In our defense, we were flim - flammed by the best snake oil salesman to come down the pike in a couple of lifetimes.
Yes - I agree with you completely.
One thing I've learned in my life is that people always tell us everything we need to know about themselves right up front. The thing is, we don't always listen and we tend to project our own hopes and dreams on that person or relationship. Often this is done with the best of intentions.
I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, my concerns about Obama were the same as yours. I was deemed "negative" by friends and peers when I voiced my concerns. I was told by Obama campaigners how "corrupt" Clinton was. I actually saw her status as a Washington insider as a plus. I didn't think one man could change how Washington has always done business and I thought Hillary was tougher and would have a better chance of pushing through her agenda which in my opinion was more progressive than Obama's anyway.
I too eventually became an Obama supporter - there was no other choice. But then I, like you, started to admire the man, particularly seeing how he handled himself in the debates against McCain. I cried tears of joy when he was elected.
He's not living up to his campaign promises, but if we are to be honest with ourselves, neither is he acting in any other way than he ever has during his political career.
It was nice to hope and dream for a while, but now it's time to wake up.
Thank you for writing. I think we might have been totally on the same wavelength in the last election. I particularly like this line in your comment:
people always tell us everything we need to know about themselves right up front. The thing is, we don't always listen and we tend to project our own hopes and dreams on that person or relationship.
how profound this is. Why I wonder do we do it? why with a guy like Obama? Were we so desperate for someone after Bush we just allowed ourselves to fantasize?
thanks so much for writing! Claudia Ricci
Perhaps passing the largest bill in history (Recovery Act) made him timid :-)
A wimp? Unlikely. He stood his ground during the primary and the election, when everyone wanted him to viciously attack Clinton and McCain, he held back. It's a mistake to underestimate Obama.
Exactly devadasi. Having to explain that to these people should be unnecessary, but it so isn't.
Is Obama a "waffler" with a gift for gab, or is he simply lacking in integrity and seeking only to please those with power. After all, he would still be relatively young after even eight years of the W-H, if he lasts that long. He would need to be appointed to boards of directors of corporations in the "defense", financial or health-care industries. He would need invitations to speak at prestigious resorts where the elites gather. Appointments to think tanks, professorships would be welcomed offers.
We really don't know what lies (good pun!) behind the words and actions (or inactions) of BHO. Could be a wimp AND a liar!
If you don't know what "lies" behind the words and actions, then maybe you are very gullible and uninformed. Library of Congress is full of our president's actions.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
