With an Incredible Shrinking President, It's the Congress, Stupid

The Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim have a story posted declaring that the Democratic Party is "leaderless" because President Obama has refused to assert himself on health care reform -- and specifically on the public option. They report that Obama "is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option" and is pushing them to make it contingent on a so-called "trigger" -- that is, on a legislative provision that has been the safest way to kill health care reform in the past.

What's surprising, of course, is the surprise itself. I'm frankly shocked that anyone thinks either the capitulation or the lack of presidential leadership is anything other than predictable -- and further that the presidential passivity is automatically a horrible thing.

As I reported in a previous column, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was one of the architects of the trigger idea when it was used to protect the pharmaceutical industry just a few years ago -- and he's the guy who has been pushing the trigger in the current health care debate for months. So the White House has been not-so-quietly advertising its willingness to capitulate for some time now.

But arguably as important as the specifics of this health care fight is the White House's overall willingness to set aside the bully pulpit and let Congress drive the train on the toughest fights. Indeed, the White House is publicly bragging that the president is entering a "quiet period" right now -- which should underscore a very important lesson about this president that I highlighted in a magazine article way back in February of 2008.

In a piece back then for In These Times entitled "It's Also the Congress, Stupid," I suggested that candidate Obama's statements and behavior suggested he would be a Reagan-esque executive -- that is, a more passive president who gave Congress room to work out legislative details on particularly contentious issues. I specifically projected this out on health care:

To again cite the healthcare hypothetical, it is easy to imagine a President Obama calling for universal healthcare with certain broad parameters, letting Democratic congressional leaders wage the trench warfare needed to pass it, and then signing a final bill -- even if it ended up being more progressive than what he had in mind.

Admittedly...Obama's potential aversion to the veto pen might halt him from obstructing progressive bills, but it may also prevent him from stopping conservative ones that should be blocked.

I'm no Nostradamus -- and my prediction wasn't some act of genius. I believed this would be the dynamic due to the fact that Obama, both in rhetoric and in policy, has always been conflict averse -- and that tough issues like health care, climate change and Wall Street reform do not comport to such a "unity" posture. Instead, because they inherently question the status quo, these issues inherently evoke conflict, and Obama has responded -- quite predictably -- by letting Congress do the dirty work.

That means despite the celebrity-obsessed media's focus on every mundane detail of Obama's daily life, many of these fights will be determined in the Congress. For instance, we cannot rely on the president to either veto bad things or use the bully pulpit to pass good things. However, we can probably rely on the president not to veto genuinely progressive things (for instance, I don't think he would veto a health care bill because it included a robust public option).

The good news is that more and more of the progressive movement has figured all of this out.

More and more activists and organizations have realized that "the decider" on many domestic issues has increasingly become the Congress, and that at least in terms of legislative leadership, Obama resembles what Time magazine once called George H. W. Bush.: "The Incredible Shrinking President." The grassroots/Netroots campaign to pressure rank-and-file Members of Congress has, quite amazingly, kept the public option in the debate at a time that the insurance industry, Republicans, corporate Democrats and the White House have tried to take it off the negotiating table.

The bad news, of course, is that so much of the media still revolves around worshiping the presidency and glorifying presidents that it's more difficult these days to motivate the grassroots around pressuring the more diffuse concept of "Congress." Put another way, in today's celebrified culture, it's easier to motivate people against or behind a person than it is to motivate people against or behind an institution.

But that is the challenge. When a president looks at the biggest legislative fight in a generation and tells America it's time for him to take a "quiet period," he's making a Big Lebowskian declaration to Congress that the nation's "life is in your hands." And while I would certainly love to see Obama be more assertive for progressive causes, as I said at the beginning, his passivity could be bad, but it also could be great.

It could be bad if the country just holds out hope the White House will deliver positive results its own, when in fact, the White House is making clear it has no intention of doing that. It could be good, though, if, as I said in my In These Times article, progressive lawmakers fight the good fight and progressive institutions focus their resources on pressuring today's pliant Congress. It's a tough challenge in the celebrity mediascape -- but it is doable.

 

 

Comments

[mjc]

Mr. Sirota, this isn't news to many liberals. The man really doesn't like confrontation, prefers avoiding any problems by ignoring them or letting someone else deal with them. Congress has been waiting for many months for Obama to decide exactly what sort of health care reform HE wants. There are at least three more or less viable bills out there but no leadership from our president. Like the economy, like the environmental problems, like the two wars we are waging, health care will be some sort of APPEARANCE of reform, an insurance policy boon and any reform will be the Obama's idea: cut Medicare programs, eliminate most of Medicaid, and tax those of us with incomes below the $250,000.

[burndtdan]

Good article, but really what puts it over the top into awesome is coining the adjective "Big Lebowskian".

[DeWayne]

Public Option clear and simple is a Healthcare Insurance industry (wedge) to retain some control in case of a "worse case scenario", meaning US-Citizens DEMAND "Single Payer" Healthcare.

Single Payer is a "Preventative" in preventing health-calamity situations, keeping check of health to essentially (elinimate) Radical Calamity healthcare needed, that is today paid for by US citizens also picking up the tab for those no longer able to pay skyrocketing Remedial-Healthcare prices.

Public Option continues Insurance Industry provinding "Golden Policies" to the wealthy, and scamming the remaining (common citizen majority) with policies limited as much as possible to permit obscene CEO salary/bonus/perk (thievery)

Pres-Obama is allowing the US-Congress that scammed America in the Pharmaceutical "Rip Off", again to remain in the pocket of the Healthcare Insurance industry. The US-Congress probably aware many will no longer have a job after next election, and (WILL) over ride any Presidential Veto. Can you say SCAMMED AGAIN.

[ECBA88]

As I've been saying for a year now, Obama is the first postmodern president. Whether or not the US is ready to work with that remains to be seen.

And I'd rather have someone besides Harry Reid in the Senate drivers' seat, but he seems to have (mostly) found his voice and pulled through on health care so far. Pelosi is doing pretty well.

Obama's turn to speak up is coming, but it remains to be seen whether he'll recognize it.

[strangelet]

You make some excellent points. I believe that many progressives may have interpreted Obama's campaign remarks about "changing way we do politics" as meaning "let's pass some progressive legislation"; whereas what he *meant* was "let's move back towards a politics of negotiation".

If my view of his true intent is correct, there are at least two consequences that should not be surprises:

1. He may have, and publicly express, progressive goals; but he will settle for more centrist compromise, if that is what the legislature produces.

2. He will, of necessity, try to keep himself -- and his administration -- somewhat above the legislative in-fighting. You cannot, after all, encourage a civil and deliberative politics by being perpetually excitable and arm-twisty.

The analogy with Reagan is apt, but does break down at one point -- Reagan's handlers would trot him out at crucial moments to encourage legislative compliance (on both sides of the aisle) via his huge -- if to me inexplicable -- personal popularity across the political spectrum.

Obviously, Obama does not have the full-power version of this option. I believe, though, that he does have the ability to influence some Blue Dogs. Normally, the most effective time to twist arms is as late in the game as possible. In this particular case, it is time for some light twisting in the Senate, so that both bills that go to conference contain some form of public option. If he's never going to arm-twist, why the heck is Rahm his

[bilmardre]

It tickles me how the GOP who had 8 years to deal with Afghanistan are now experts loudly giving their opinions on what Obama should do, and how liberals who have not been able to pass anything for years are now experts all telling Obama how to do his job.

I thank goodness we have a President with a brain who knows how politics works and doesn't fall into the traps liberals love to run headlong into.

[Mason]

Next up: Financial reform. Start by re-enacting Glass-Steagall and go from there based on advice from people who know what they're talking about: Krugman, Stiglietz, Roubini, and Volcker.

Money for Main Street.

And get the you-know-what out of Afghanistan and shrink the military.

Imagine the possibilities.

[shelby35]

Those economists, while they have good ideas aren't infallible. In fact they got it wrong that the peripheral nations would collapse. In fact many are weathering and even excelling in the global turn-down. We have ridden the storm and no longer face the threat of a Depression. We will survive and excel.

[Mason]

A Democratic Party majority in both houses of Congress shocked and surprised to find itself out in front of the President and leading the way on reforming health care is an astonishing development and it may take awhile for them to fully realize what this means and decide what to do about it. Think about it. I suspect, for example, that most Democrats are used to the President setting the agenda, his people drafting and submitting all of the legislative proposals to implement that agenda, and voting for whatever he wants, no matter how repugnant, if only to avoid being criticized as irresponsible, obstructionist, or soft on (fill in the blank). With few exceptions, the only thing congressional democrats have been good at is coming up with mealy-mouthed excuses to explain why they voted for something awful like FISA or telecom immunity. In less than 72 hours, that benefit-heavy and comfortable rubber-stamp job has been electrified, energized, and empowered creating and illuminating a vast array of exciting possibilities that were unimagineable a week ago.

For example, why not abandon the frustrating effort to pound square pegs into round holes that accurately describes the attempt to cobble together an acceptable compromise out of the the mess of mismatched provisions that constitute the five committee bills? Why reinvent the wheel to protect the insurance companies that precipitated the need for reform?

Since Medicare works, stop the madness now and pass HR 676.

[realpolitic]

Obama seemed different on the campaign trail. He was very much a leader, even inspirational, and told us exactly what he was going to do. Once in office, he grew cautious, for example, letting Repblicans decide so much of his stimulus plan. Now because there were not enough infrastructure and job creations projects as Democrats wanted we may need another. Republicans always impose the same two or three solutions that have been tested and failed. Give Democratic solutons a chance. Health care reform looks like it will pass, but I would like to see Obama get out there and lead by saying exactly what he would like to see passed. I would like to see him twisting arms in private to make a deal the way LBJ did. Obama may be the president who never sweats, but he should occasionally roll up his sleeves.

[VJ2008]

Thank you for saying this. It's nice to finally hear someone talk about this using common sense. It's a very good thing that President Obama is letting congress hash out the details, for many reasons. One real good reason is that if he is too aggressive, then he would be blasted for dictating too much as opposed to letting the respresentative of the people work through the issues. I love his approach. I believe it is as it should be, because he has after all made himself pretty clear on what he wants to see, without issuing ultimatums. President Obama is doing TERRIFIC, and his supporters are waiting for the signal that he needs us, but right now, mostly letting the exorcism of the extremists finish playing itself out.

[tibetanterrier]

Could the color of his skin be a reason why he's not using the bully pulpit as he should? The teabaggers revolted for what exactly? There is a very small angry minority that is living in fear that President Obama is going to hand the country over to the Black Panthers. What has he done to merit the comparison to
Hit ler? In my mind angry=dangerous and homeland security knows it.

[Mason]

All of us need to detach for a few minutes and consider the possibility that our Republican brothers and sisters, or teabaggers if you prefer, are frightened about the uncertain and deteriorating situation in which they find themselves. They are not alone. We are in the same situation and we're frightened too. Therefore, are we not natural allies plagued by the same enemies?

I believe we are, but our respective ideas about who is responsible and what we should do to reclaim what has been stolen from us and fix our economy differ significantly. Consider what might happen if we started talking to each other instead of demonizing each other. For example, I am a liberal law professor and I live in a red state. Only 17% of the people who live in my county have attended some college and in my despairing moments I think I'm the only person who doesn't attend a fundie church on Sundays (I never go to any church).

Unlike many liberals, I suppress my ego and endeavor always to treat others with respect. I accept and listen. I do not judge, demonize, argue, or lecture. You can discover and together explore more common ground than you ever imagined to exist, if you engage in discussion with another by sharing stories about what you fear. The key is to focus on common threads that connect us and avoid grandiose rhetorical solutions such as the isms that separate us..

First form the relationship.

[capitalismisntamoral]

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain"

or if you like:
the body/emotional states of fear and excitement are almost indistinguishable. It's the meaning that you attach to them, that gives them negative or positive connotations, respectively.

A more neutral approach would be to interpret those body states as your emotions telling you there's something coming up that you need to be prepared for, to take action.

[tibetanterrier]

I get what your saying but how do you form a relationship with someone that ha tes you? I'm not speaking for African Americans cause I'm not, but I live in a world where people like me get kill ed for being who they are.
Listening and talking is great advice but as President Obama said during the campaign some folk just want to cling to their ways(guns,­religion)a­nd will not listen.
I'm only frightened by those frightened by me.

[Indon]

It takes a _lot_ of work to educate just one person, though. And that's time we lose out of doing productive and useful things.

Though, I guess if you don't have a job, engaging with conservatives could make for a nice, albeit time-consuming, hobby.

[Mikel Moore]

When considering my vote selection in the last election, my take was that Obama is more pragmatist than ideologue. I've not been disappointed...

[realpolitic]

His ability to take the middle road and accept compromise shows he is no ideologue. Conversely, he is almost letting Republican Rep. Olympia Snowe decide the health reform bill.

[LiberalDemIda]

I don't see it that way.

Olympia Snowe is a Senator, member of the Senate and an 'esteemed colleague' of the body that helped crashed and burn the Clinton health care reform platform in 1993-94.

Pres. Obama is not the one doing the deciding who has what to say there. That would be Harry Reid, Senate Maj. Leader.

Sure, Harry Reid and others would LOVE you to think it's all Obama's fault, but aren't they also the ones with the humogo egos and one of the three CO-EQUAL branches of government? So why should Pres. Obama be blamed for their inability to get their ducks in a row?

[Mason]

Like me, David Sirota was surprised by the large number of people here who disagreed with Sam Stein & Ryan Grimm's blog over the weekend reporting Obama's lack of support for the public option.

"What's surprising, of course, is the surprise itself. I'm frankly shocked that anyone thinks either the capitulation or the lack of presidential leadership is anything other than predictable . . .White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was one of the architects of the trigger idea when it was used to protect the pharmaceutical industry just a few years ago -- and he's the guy who has been pushing the trigger in the current health care debate for months. So the White House has been not-so-quietly advertising its willingness to capitulate for some time now."

People may reasonably disagree about why Obama wants to kill the public option, but I don't see a reasonable basis for disagreement regarding whether he no longer supports the public option. That's been obvious for a long time because he keeps saying it isn't necessary and there is no reason to believe Obama and Rham disagree about triggers.

Will everyone please get up to speed on this and stop accusing progressives, who merely pointed out the obvious, of being Republican trolls? Thank you.

[Estreet1964]

Thank you.

[Indon]

On the one hand, I dislike Obama not pushing aggressively for progressive law at a time when the nation clearly needs it desperately.

On the other hand, I rather like Obama actually letting the legislative branch of government legislate, from a government-function perspective.

So. Ambivalent about Obama's strategy on this.

[hmargret]

Whatever.....we are heading into facism. check out SB 2099, which is being snuck in by the Obama admin. it requires a $50 tax on all guns, fingerprinting and a psychological evaluation. to be enacted for 2010 tax year.

well, boys and girls.....this country is just like the others. We've been fed that we're the " best" but we're just like all the rest. the fat days are over; it's time to do push-ups and train if we want to keep our freedom.

[Indon]

You're wrong. Per Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

Please don't propagate urban legends.

[fya]

Vet your information. Stop believing all that Erik Ericson tells ye. Think for yourself for America's sake. What a bunch of zombies.

[Estreet1964]

I dunno, maybe the psychological exam would be a good thing in this case.

I'm just sayin'.