Retreat and Surrender
Make no mistake about it, health care reform and the public option are the turning point for Obama and this country. Today's New York Times is reporting that factions in the White House are arguing about what compromises they will make in order to get health care reform passed. They did not have to have this argument. If Obama had organized his cohorts and gone on the offensive and stayed on the offensive from the beginning, he would be winning this battle, not losing it. That he did not do so speaks ill of his readiness to govern. If he yields now, then not only was he not ready to govern, he will not be able to govern. He will have knuckled under to the Republicans' bullying, and he will gain neither their cooperation nor their respect. They will know that they have him surrounded, and they will simply ignore and demean him for the rest of his term.
And he will have lost his progressive allies and well-wishers, who will have found that he cares very little for their support. The result will be a Republican return to power on a whole new footing -- even stupider, crazier, and more ruthless. Remember 2000, when the Republicans overran the recount in Florida, then stole the election, and then gloated and sneered about it? Those Republicans are going to look easygoing compared to the 2012 Republicans.
The public option is ground zero in the fight for America's future. It is the only way to actually control and rein in the insurance companies, as was shown when insurance stocks rose on rumors that the public option might be killed. But the public option is also a symbol. It symbolizes who is in power -- the people, who want the public option -- or the corporations, who don't. It's that simple.
If the public option falls out of health care reform, then it will mean either that Obama is too corrupt to fight for it, and never cared that much about health care in the first place, or it will mean that he is too weak, even with a majority in both houses and a decided victory in an election against clearly flawed opponents. His weakness will not have been in his mandate, but in his character. Neither of these is the lesser of two evils -- both are equally evil. If Obama is simply corrupt, then that means that there is no hope because the entire ruling class has been bought and paid for, and the government is just a sham, a front organization for wealthy corporations. If Obama is a well-meaning weakling, then that means there is no hope because Obama's unnecessary collapse before the curdling and shrinking right-wing will only empower them now that they are at their worst. And we are not talking about empowering Dwight Eisenhower here. We are talking about empowering Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck -- people who use stupidity and hatred as a standard for rallying support.
Make no mistake about it -- this is it. No public option, no turning back. No public option, and bullying and ignorance carry the day. Oh, and corporate profits and gun-toting, the only two remaining symbols of the American Way.
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
It's rare that I read an article on Huff Post or anywhere else that I completely agree with, but this is one. Ms. Smiley is absolutely 100 percent correct.
Obama assumed the Presidency with both houses of Congress controlled by his party, and with massive amounts of political capital (not to mention good will) on his side. In just a few months, he has squandered it all. Healthcare reform was his number one priority, and, even with resounding public support, it is now doubtful that he can make it happen. Why? If he had taken the fight to his opponents, instead of holding back and letting them take control of the debate, he would have already succeeded and could now be addressing one of the other myriad problems which we face.
She's right--if he fails on health care reform--and any "reform" without a public option will be an unmitigated failure--then he's finished. The Republicans and their goons will disregard him and there will be nothing he can do about it. "The People" are pretty much finished after the Wall Street bailout--another Obama cave-in--but if he loses healthcare due to another cave-in, he's done, and so are "we, the people."
Its funny how unless Obama ends up doing exactly what Jane wants then it means he is either weak or corrupt, ignoring all the other big relevant factors that prevent the president from doing what others have also failed to do for 60 years. Get a grip! This post is far to slanted to be taken seriously
Obama, even with a majority in Both houses, is showing none of the signs of strength and power that his predecessor did. Those of us who campaigned endlessly for his election on his promise of change to move this country ahead again have seen precious little of the fulfilment of those promises.
We don't really care what the excuses are, especially given the majorities. If he doesn't come thru in a big way with good healthcare for all Americans, we will be looking for a new candidate who will. I will be looking for new senators and congress people who will. The issue will certainly not end with Obama, but unless he steps up to the plate and gets it done, the issue will certainly end Obama's continued presidency.
And those of you who think it will bode well for Republicans, guess again. Republicans are now a very marginalized group as a voting block. What you WILL see is the demise of both Repugs and Dems and the rise of a Progressive candidate with real solutions, one willing to quit throwing money down the never-ending gullet of the military industrial complex in favor of actually taking care of citizens. Speed the day.
That's very good, Blue Cross Dems. I'm going to remember that and use it. It's pithy and is more descriptive than Blue Dog Dems, although the later may be more fun to picture.
Think he's got time to read all of this? I don't think we should abandon him...yet. However, I feel quite differently about the Blue Cross Dems. I see very little difference between them and the Republicans, so why bother voting for them? Try an independen
Statement from the article:
"... If Obama had organized his cohorts and gone on the offensive and stayed on the offensive from the beginning, he would be winning this battle, not losing it. That he did not do so speaks ill of his readiness to govern. If he yields now, then not only was he not ready to govern, he will not be able to govern ..."
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
Whether by nature or by choice, Obama comes across as Neville Chamberlain - when he should be coming across as Gen. George Patton!
The DEMs needed highly-focused goal orientation, a stridently unified (and moderate) party, and strong and unyielding leadership. They have none of these.
Personally, I believe Obama has butchered his chance for re-election in 2012 - and he may have even lost the ability to effectively govern for the rest of this term. Again, whether by nature or choice, he has selected a whole bunch of the wrong people to populate his inner circle of advisers. They next time the GOPs get back in power - the Democratic Party might as well dissolve itself.
I voted for him - but with the fear that this would happen!
"I voted for him - but with the fear that this would happen!"
Honestly, I was afraid that something like this would happen, too, but I didn't think it would be THIS BAD.
Jane Smiley,
You hit the nail on the head!
You're fanned.
Finally someone has the nerve to speak the truth. I volunteered hundreds of hours - along with all the members of my family - in 3 different states to get Obama elected. Failure to stand up the to LIES and intellectually vacuous position of the Republican party will doom this presidency
What about a compromise that includes a public option, available to all, but allows each state to opt out if they so choose? I suspect we would quickly find out how much support exists for the public option. Those low population states that seem to be controlling the outcome could opt out. Just like the stimulus package we would find out that most states would want it, despite the rhetoric.
Let the people decide.
The public option IS the compromise over single payer.
Doing something reasonable and sensible would be way more effective. This "plan" does not even address the best chances of affecting one of the things people would get behind, reduced costs.
See K.J. Dwyer's Profile
Dead on. Thank you Jane.
I think it's worth mentioning that the "Public Option" was already a compromise position to a single payer system; a compromise that, prior to the inauguration of Obama, had surprising bi-partisan support. It would allow private insurers to stay in the game, but would provide an "option" to consumers to choose a government program if private insurance was too expensive or restrictive.
The "Public Option" was the compromise. This was already, in many analysts' minds, not enough, but an important step in the right direction and would at the very least provide a much needed check on the spiraling costs of private insurance.
Obama repeatedly stated throughout the campaign that reform without a Public Option was unthinkable, unrealistic. There was no ambiguity whatsoever. A Public Option was fundamental to any real reform.
If the administration now believes that back-door dealing with Big Pharm will suffice and that the Public Option is not necessary, they need to state why. I've yet to hear a single cogent explanation of how healthcare costs can be controlled without a Public Option.
I'm afraid that Smiley has hit the nail on the head. Obama is proving to be feckless at a time when much stronger leadership is demanded.
The president needs to stop thinking like a legislator and more like an executive. He needs to stop looking for consensus and make a decision then stand by it, sink or swim.we haven't had a legislator elected president since 1960, and I'm beginning to see why.
I knew that Obama was a moderate all along. Every analysis showed it.
If you wanted a progressive, you supported Kucinich.
But Corporate Media never gave him a fair chance. Look at the debates. He got like one minute to every 4 or 5 for Obama and Hillary.
I supported Obama, mostly because of the opposition.
But I never expected anything different than what we have now.
I HOPED for different, but I did not expect it.
Maybe Noam Chomsky is correct: America doesn't have a two party system. It has two factions of one party: business.
That would explain why Obama campaigned on change but delivers status quo. And does so on fundamental issues like health care.
So maybe the debate should move beyond personalities like Obama and shift to the two party system itself. To wit, are there real choices for American voters?
There are, but voters have to decide to make them. A two-party system, regardless of how slim the differences between the parties, is a potent and attractive bread-and-circus for a people indoctrinated into competition. There are also serious barriers to entry for minor parties that grow more quickly than the electorate. Having no poli sci education whatsoever, it seems the way for a third progressive party to break in is to start with (e.g.) D+30 districts and have committed people on the ground spreading word of mouth widely.
Know why past Democratic candidates have fallen short? People like Ms. Smiley. Here's their formula: start with a defeatist attitude; attack one's own rather than fighting for what one believes in; then say "told you so" afterward.
Last I checked, the President cannot enact ANY legislatio
Know why those opposing the public option are doing so? Money! Don't like it? Fix the campaign financing system once and for all. Don't believe me? Study the original Blue Dog and what became of him, then connect the dots.
BTW, the financial bailout came compliments of Bush and Co. Was President Obama suddenly going to take the money back? From where, exactly? It's also a fact that had we not acted in the financial meltdown a year ago, there would be no financial system right now. One can debate whether that system functions as well as it could but facts are facts.
And to those saying foolish things about wishing they hadn't supported Obama... really? You would have supported (directly or implicitly) monery-man McCain and Palin the divider? Really!?! Imagine where we'd be now with THAT team in the White House.
Best damned post I've read on this. . .
Agreed!
DITTO!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
