Are Liberal Netroots Groups Helping Obama Fail?

I've started deleting them as spam.

I'm not talking about the enlarge-your-penis emails or "You've Won the Lottery" notices.

I'm talking about the increasingly-urgent emails coming for weeks from liberal Netroots groups calling for a "public option" for health care -- a government insurance plan citizens could choose to pay for instead of private insurance.

Never has so much passion been so misdirected. If what these liberal groups ultimately wanted out of President Obama and corporate-funded Democrats in Congress was a topnotch public plan to compete with the first-rate private plans, the wrong way to get it was to make that the demand.

Especially of a president whose instinct is toward conciliation and splitting the difference with big business and the right wing.

Sure, Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago when Russia was still our mortal enemy, Nelson Mandela was still an official State Department terrorist threat and the White House was still funding Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan.

For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?

Activists must recognize the surest way to get a strong public option that could compete with the Cadillac of health plans. We needed to mobilize millions of Netroots people, almost every union and 150 members of Congress to endorse a maximum demand: National health insurance . . . enhanced Medicare for All. In other words, a cost-effective single-payer system of publicly-financed, privately-delivered healthcare that ends private health insurance (and its waste, bureaucracy, ads, sales commissions, lavish executive salaries, profiteering).

Had liberal groups sent out millions of emails building a movement that posed an existential threat to the health insurance industry, Sen. Baucus and Blue Dog Democrats and their corporate healthcare patrons might well be on their knees begging for a comprehensive public option -- to avert the threat of full-blown Medicare for All.

As things stand now, as writers like Bob Kuttner and Norman Solomon have warned, a weak public option would institutionalize a two-tiered system with healthier, wealthier citizens getting the best (private) plans, and sicker, harder-to-treat people getting an inferior (public) plan. Newt Gingrich couldn't dream up a better scenario to discredit an enhanced government role in health care.

To win serous reforms, we need activist leaders who are tough-minded progressives making maximum demands for reforms that truly address our nation's problems. Leave the inside-the-Beltway deal-making to the politicians, properly frightened and moved by the roar of mass movements.

We need activist leaders who have a clearer idea of who Obama is. He's not one of us. He's one of them -- a politician bent on placating corporate interests. We knew all we needed to know about his current worldview from all the corporatists he put in top jobs.

And from the fact that he felt the need -- six weeks into his administration, after the middle-class bailed out Wall Street -- to call up the New York Times and assure the world that his policies were not socialist but were "entirely consistent with free market principles." At a time the corporate greedsters and free-market ideologues had been exposed as having threatened the economic well-being of the world, they weren't the ones on the defensive. They weren't doing the apologizing. Obama was on the defensive; he was apologizing to them!

When Democratic leaders start borrowing right wing rhetoric, we know our activism has not been strong or progressive enough. At the AARP townhall Tuesday, Obama described a public option as "controversial, I understand people are worried about that." He went on to assure his audience that "nobody is talking about . . . government-run health care" or "a Canadian-style plan." At one point, he further assured seniors that no "bureaucratic law in Washington" would interfere in their healthcare decisions -- seeming to adopt the faux-populism of anti-government rightists. Yet he seems incapable of anti-corporate populism, even with despised industries like Wall Street and health insurance.

I have huge respect for the smart young activists who built up the Netroots, unleashing all sorts of progressive possibilities for our country. But I'm bothered by their often ineffectual, Beltway-originated, halfway demands.

I became active during the Vietnam War. We might still have troops in Vietnam if - instead of militantly demanding "All Troops Home Now" -- we'd organized behind polite Beltway initiatives like: "Let's begin negotiations" or "Let's set a timeline for phased withdrawal."

I fear that Netroots leaders are doing the same dance with Obama today that they did with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007-08. Instead of demanding that Democrats in Congress bring our troops home from Iraq by using the power of the purse to defund the war, Netroots leaders rallied behind weak, non-binding timelines and other halfway measures cooked up with Congressional leaders.

Without a loud, clear demand for "troops home" from the large online antiwar forces, Democratic leaders started retreating and succumbing to Republican rhetoric. Reid proclaimed: "We will never abandon our troops in a time of war." Pelosi declared: "We will have legislation to fund the troops!"

And the corpses kept piling up.

Great social reforms have occurred in our country not when social movements took their lead from what the White House deemed possible, but when the White House was pushed by powerful movements demanding reforms bolder than what the president was comfortable with. Leading abolitionists pushed Lincoln toward ending slavery by demanding immediate abolition. Socialist and workers movements in the '30s sufficiently scared elites so that FDR could pass New Deal reforms far short of socialism. Martin Luther King and civil rights activists continuously pushed and prodded JFK and later LBJ.

And these movements didn't have the Internet.

In 1993, a National Health Insurance bill gained 100 co-sponsors in the Democrat-led House, plus endorsements from many unions, even Consumers Union. There was unfortunately no Internet then when the Clinton White House undermined this growing movement by pushing an incredibly complex plan that left big insurers dominating the system. Clinton's plan inspired few and confused many. After it went down in flames, talk radio host Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he didn't back an easily-explained Medicare for All approach that had so much support in Congress. Clinton said he'd thought it was politically too difficult but now wondered about that judgment.

Here we are 16 years later. Neglected by Netroots groups, John Conyers today has 85 House co-sponsors for HR 676, the Expanded Medicare for All Act, as well as the endorsement of many unions and Obama's longtime personal physician. If all those emails I've received lately had been about building the HR 676 movement and a public system instead of a "public option," the bill would have many more co-sponsors and could be pressuring Democrats to stand tough today.

For Obama to feel secure about reform and standing up to the right, he needs to feel that he's in the center pushed by noisy forces to his left. He's admitted as much. The way to help him succeed is to mobilize seriously to his left.

The way to help Obama fail is for Netroots and liberal groups to collapse toward him from the get-go.

And if Obama does fail, we can quit laughing at a Republican Party in disarray due to Bush, religious extremism, hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism.

Because in this period of crisis and fear, unless a progressively-prodded White House delivers reforms that actually improve lives soon, right wing reaction could rebound more dangerous than ever in 2010 and/or 2012.

* *
Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of Progressive Democrats of America .

Comments

[Samalabear]

Here is another must-read article that must go viral. I found this on Common Dreams, and it can also be found on Black Agenda Report, a site that has excellent articles on health care reform. Like Jeff's excellent article it puts Obama in there along with Congress et al:

Top Ten Ways To Tell Your President & His Party Aren't Fighting For Health Care For Everybody

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/31

[Samalabear]

I have to ask this, because after Kucinich and Edwards were knocked out I was for Hillary over Obama any day. In light of the following lines from this excellent article:

"After it went down in flames, talk radio host Jim Hightower asked President Clinton why he didn't back an easily-explained Medicare for All approach that had so much support in Congress. Clinton said he'd thought it was politically too difficult but now wondered about that judgment."

What do you think Hillary would have done? I don't know that she would have decisively locked out single-payer advocates, as Obama did, but I could be wrong. She was talking about mandates and insurance. On the other hand, though, I don't think she would have faded into the background on health care reform as Obama has so often and just left it all up to Congress to concoct this mess called H.R. 3200.

It seems that Bill Clinton may have learned the lesson, but did Hillary? And then there is the question of has Obama consulted with Bill Clinton about this? This whole paragraph tells it all, tragically. RIght now it seems that Obama learned nothing from the Clinton experience except not to write a bill behind closed doors.

[sarahlee310]

Totally agree, Jeff. You nailed it.

Anyone who has done any negotiating knows that you can not start negotiations at your "line in the sand." When activists bought into the fear mongering that single payer wasn't practical - they immediately lost more ground than sustainable health care could afford.

Citizen activists needed to stay on message for Single Payer and let the politicians compromise.

We started losing as soon as HCAN with MoveOn's support, started up and Democrats (citizens/­activists) started abandoning single payer for the "practical" public option. Healthcare for America Now (HCAN) was dirty in choosing the name - which almost identical to the existing and years old "Healthcare-NOW!" that has been organizing across the country for single payer for a LONG time. They even use a favicon nearly identical to Healthcare-Now's - all in an attempt to confuse those getting interested in health care reform and get them on the public option train instead of single payer.

Probabilities are that we wouldn't get single payer, but we would have cleared a bigger, clearer path for Congress to follow.

What is happening now is very disappointing and may result in millions more lost lives before the nation has an opportunity to address the issue again. I will keep fighting for single payer until the President signs a bill. And I will be please if what we get is simply a good, Medicare like public option. Sadly, it does not look like that is going to happen.

[MontanaMaven]

One of the best posts I've read in a long time. This nails our local young "progressives" here in Montana who are Third Way compromisers who seem never ready to fight for anything. They prefer to manage a problem, not solve one. And that's because they look at the people in Washington who are nothing but a bunch of managers with nary an engineer or architect with a vision to be found anywhere.

[TDCarolan]

At the top of this post beside your name it says "Founder, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting" this statement does not jive with the rediculous outrageous comments you make in this article. You seem to think that a governement run health option will solve our problem? It will not even come close!

The problem in this country is HEALTHCARE COST!!!!!!!!!
Healthcare costs are driven up by LIFESTYLE CHOICES!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes we spend more on healthcare than any other country and we lag in life expectancy. But we consume more junk food than anybody else. Obesity rates in the US are at 40% of the population. The obese population cost 40% more in healthcare and medications.

Bring down healthcare costs you bring down health insurance costs!

A government run option is making is a band aid it will cloud the real issue NOT FIX IT!

[jefke]

Amen!!! Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for laying out clearly.

[emmasvoice]

I cannot believe these old 20th, no 19th century villains we have in Washington. All they see is racism and money. Most of the objections to the President's health care reform effort are lies and pure folly. Old southern white people will not accept an African American President (particularly a well-learned, intelligent) one. And he is one half White American! They act like children throwing a tantrum because with health care reform their "allowance" (insurance lobbyist dollars) will be cut off. Further, "He" (Black guy President) can't tell them what to do. All of them that object, "Blue Dogs" and Republicans are a disgrace to this wonderful country. And most appalling to me is that many of these old faction men and women are unintelligent, mean and politically dangerous to the welfare of mainstream America..

[TopTigerette]

As long as you believe this fantasy, you won't have a chance to combat those with whom you disagree. Opponents of ObamaCare understand basic economics 101: Spending more while in debt equals more debt. Taxing the most productive has a tipping point. Go beyond that, you crash the economy. Individual responsibility -- in every area of life, including health care -- must be encouraged by the government. It can't be forced, only encouraged.

People like myself want to see the government free up the insurance regulations, to allow small school districts, for example, to pool their employees into one group. Or for individuals to be able to shop around the country for the best priced policies. Now we are restricted by gov't from much freedom at all in health care insurance.

[Whatshop]

Small school districts pool employees into one group. That's a pretty big group. Imagine what kind of group rate an employer can get with six employees. Well I'll tell you. It's no better than individual policies and that's why groups and employer provided insurance just doesn't exist any longer for most of us.

And individuals being able to "shop" all around the country for insurance. So they can buy from a State with no consumer protections. Sure they'll save on their monthly premium, but they better not get sick.

Sorry, but your solutions are just more of the same problems that we already have.

[underoath]

It's all true and very depressing!

[Xihuitl]

Thank you for this extremely important essay. I have never understood why anyone would think that the way to negotiate a demand was to compromise with yourself first because you were sure you could never get what you really wanted.

[mcmchugh99]

Who could seriously argue at this late date that the US is still a "free market" economy of the 19th Century type? We haven't been that since about 1892, when the Robber Barons put together the first big monopolies.

To be sure, capitalism has a free market, competitive phase every generation, but it always ends in a crash and consolidation that establishes new monoplies.

Our system is more like state capitalism or mercantilism, since the largest corporations always get state subsidies and contracts--never more than today. Obama surely realizes that he is no longer presiding over some kind of free enterprise system, and only the small business Republicans still believe that any such thing exists.

They call all of this "socialism", but I'd say that state capitalism is a hybrid, although we are also developing a larger state-owned sector than ever existed before. And it seems to me that some of these state-owned corporations should be operated more as public services than conventional for-profit enterprises.



Needless to say, we also need a more mechanisms for public investment in jobs, cooperatives, health care, green technology, housing, and so on, which would move us more in a socialistic direction.

[Paladin2]

I see the Democratic position more clearly now. It's not that everything he promised and suggested during his campaign was a lie, or the Bush policy with only the rhetoric changed, or the continued imprisonment of uncharged or tried people, or the phosphorus we rain on Afganis, or the continued everything Bush in the Security State including the military spying on citizens in the U.S. and peaceful protesters deemed "low level terrorism" and no redressing the filthy "Patriot Act" or any of a hundred betrayals, it's the people that took him at his word that's the problem. I see. Now if all the saps that haven't realized the program is just more of the same, with more guns and no butter for all but his all millionaire, all neo con advisors and their bosses feel the mud shifting under their feet it's not OBAMAS fault at all. Check, Rodger and out! If you think yourself a liberal or god forbid a progressive and still are waiting for change you can believe in you must have a multiple personality problem.

[ThankfulTexan]

Mr. Cohen,

Thank you for pointing out that President Obama has pulled the wool over the eyes of the Progressives. He used you to win the Democratic Primary and then immediately cast them aside and turned right closer to center. It was interesting watching this group being silent knowing their man was really one of them.

On the Health Care Debate, fortunately the American public is waking up and smelling the roses. The cramming of the Stimulus legislation will be remembered for a long time.

[emmasvoice]

Read the article again. Yopu missed the point.

[freelyb]

Absolutely!

[JDM73]

You said a mouthful, Jeff. And I'm sure you're getting blasted by well-meaning but misinformed people who are angry at you for saying it.
During the past few days, I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to have an honest discussion of the healthcare issue and of the toothless public option being offered up in HR3200--because people just shout at you and bite your head off when you point out its shortcomings. Some of them will even say "No, that isn't true! You're lying!" when you point out that the public option, as it exists in the House bill, won't even take effect until 2013. That it will only pay Medicare rates for three years. That it will not be available to everyone.
People aren't thinking clearly. They're angry and tired and confused, and they're shooting the messenger.

And that's exactly the way the obstructionists want it.

[Bob Soper]

Well said, Mr. Cohen.
People need to urge their representatives & senators to keep Rep. Kucinich's amendment in place which allows states to set up their own single-payer national health care system. Even though the amendment was adapted, there's a very real danger that it will be stripped out in conference; Sen. Sanders' effort to include an identical amendment failed in the Senate HELP Committee bill.