Vital Lessons from the Health Reform Wars

Let me start with a caveat: I've consistently believed that a) President Obama will end up signing a health reform bill; and b) the punditocracy will give him credit for pushing it through, thus shoring up his sagging poll numbers.

The crucial question is whether it ends up being a good bill.

That said, this has been a terrible summer for Democrats. Here are seven key takeaways from the ongoing health care debacle:

1. The big banker bailout has been far more damaging than the White House can imagine.

A month ago, I wrote about the obscenity of Goldman Sachs' record bonuses: "What does it say that the toil and sweat of the first responders who willingly streamed into the burning towers is used to enrich people who "earn" more in a week than a nurse or teacher makes in a year? What does it say that Iranians can march by the millions, put life and limb on the line, while Americans sit meekly by as a financial colossus with tentacles deep into the federal government enriches itself beyond our imagination on the backs of the poor and struggling?"

Paul Krugman discusses the ramifications: "I don't know if administration officials realize just how much damage they've done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing." Glenn Greenwald adds: "the White House loyally serve[d] the interests of the banking industry that caused the financial crisis (we don't want to make enemies out of Goldman Sachs or turn investment bankers into GOP funders)."

In a nutshell: trust is much harder to build for a health care transformation when Americans see Democrats standing by as ultra-wealthy bankers get ultra-wealthier -- on their backs.

2. The anti-Bush moment has passed, and with it a huge political opportunity.

Carnage in Iraq; confirmation from Tom Ridge that terror alerts were used for political purposes; feuding between Cheney and Bush .... nobody gives a damn. Obama was elected to be the anti-Bush, but the anti-Bush moment has passed. A couple of weeks ago, I argued that "the fact that Democrats are floundering on health reform and Obama's poll numbers are dropping is no coincidence. It's a giant turn-off to voters for Democrats to have spent eight long years railing against Bush, then turning around and copying some of his worst traits."

Greenwald elaborates: "The central pledges of the Obama campaign were less about specific policy positions and much more about changing the way Washington works -- to liberate political outcomes from the dictates of corporate interests; to ensure vast new levels of transparency in government; to separate our national security and terrorism approaches from the politics of fear. With some mild exceptions, those have been repeatedly violated. Negotiating his health care reform plan in total secrecy and converting it into a gigantic gift to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries -- which is exactly what a plan with (1) mandates, (2) no public option and (3) a ban on bulk negotiations for drug prices would be -- would constitute yet another core violation of those commitments, yet another bolstering (a major one) of the very power dynamic he vowed to subvert."

3. Rumors of the GOP's death have been greatly exaggerated.

Although it's pretty early to be making 2010 prognostications, there's no doubt that hopes of a permanent Democratic majority have collapsed far more quickly than Karl Rove's similar plans for the GOP. Obama's polls will swing all over the place in the coming months and years, but judging from how the new administration has come out of the gate, Obama could easily be a one-term president, and even Robert Gibbs is being forced to talk about that scenario.

With respect to Congress, Charlie Cook has bad news: "Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats. A new Gallup poll that shows Congress' job disapproval at 70 percent among independents should provide little solace to Democrats. In the same poll, Congressional approval among independents is at 22 percent, with 31 percent approving overall, and 62 percent disapproving."

4. Obama's campaign machine is not fungible.

If I had a nickel for every time a reporter wrote that Obama was finally firing up his 'online army' I'd be rich. As I stated last week, "Obama's much-talked about online army of 13 million people doesn't exist. At least not in the mobilized, battle-ready and efficient form we saw during the campaign. Between natural attrition rates and typical open (and conversion) rates, that 13 million is closer to a tenth the number who actually read the emails and far fewer who take concrete actions. The singular focus of a presidential race is absent in a multi-faceted legislative fight. Mobilizing an online army on the scale of a presidential campaign is significantly more difficult in these circumstances, if not impossible."

A persistent point I've made since January is that the Obama team is in perpetual campaign mode, but that they are operating in a completely different environment, where campaign tactics can be useless, and even harmful. On a related note, Dibgy addresses the dated approach favored by the White House: "Rahm Emanuel believes that the key to Democratic success is a coalition in which Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys mitigate progressive change on behalf of the moneyed interests which he believes the political system must serve. Regardless of his malevolent view of how the political system should work, on a political level, I think he's living in the past. The political system is no longer organized around two parties with a faction of either moderates or racists in the middle who determine the consensus. The two parties have neatly broken down on ideological and even geographical lines and issues have to be fought out in the open on partisan grounds. Turning over the country to Max Baucus and Charles Grassley is undemocratic and unmanageable and it's not going to hold."

5. The old media machine is alive and well.

Although the online commentariat have tremendous (under-acknowledged) power to shape the national debate, the health care debacle is a frightening illustration of the old rightwing noise machine's potency: "Setting aside strategic errors by the Democrats (and there have been several in this fight), just look at how reform opponents have outgunned the White House using town halls, cable news, newspaper editorials, Freepers, Drudge, talk radio and chain emails. If I close my eyes, I'm transported back to my days on the Kerry campaign and the summer of Swift Boats, Purple Heart Band-Aids and rightwing attack machine antics. It's as though a half decade of technological advances disappeared in the blink of an eye.

Forget Facebook and Twitter, it's all about Fox and MSNBC and CNN replaying images of angry protesters at town hall meetings railing against 'government takeovers.' It's about Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh spreading fear and fury. It's about anonymous emails zipping across the country, distorting the facts and sowing confusion. It's about rightwing pundits setting the terms of the debate by foisting radical ideas on the public. Paradoxically, the attempts by Democrats to counter all this by sending emails to Obama's list and creating campaign-style fact-checking websites seem almost quaint by comparison."

Eric Boehlert adds: "the entire mini-mob crusade was built around the GOP's age-old media strategy--right-wing radio, Drudge and Fox News. i.e. It's 'Old Media.' In terms of new technology, the mini-mobs are very 1990's."

6. The national debate is still conducted on the right's terms.

That's the title of a post I wrote last week, in which I contended that, "the national discourse (if you can call it that) could very well have been about the benefits of a single-payer system, but aside from a sham vote to appease progressives, single-payer is considered anathema in the media and political establishment and instead Democrats are scrambling to respond to a barrage of rightwing talking points. ...

When the left mocks 'birthers' and 'teabaggers' and 'death panels', we should keep in mind that there is a larger and more sinister strategic imperative in play, namely, to move the debate to the far right. Granted, it may not be a conscious strategy on the part of ordinary Americans voicing their fears about "government takeovers" and "socialism." For these citizens, the desire to "take their country back" stems from genuine emotions and beliefs, albeit emotions and beliefs carefully stoked by a still potent rightwing message machine using think-tank-crafted soundbites. Put more bluntly, a lot of these protesters really believe what they're saying. What's distressing (and deplorable) is how wrong-headed some of it is. And what's disgusting is when it devolves into racism and xenophobia."

7. We are a soundbite democracy and the right has better soundbites.

All credit due to the Obama campaign for using simple powerful words like 'hope' and 'change' in their successful White House bid. But let's face it, now that we're dealing with down and dirty policy fights, we're seeing the brutal effectiveness of conservative messaging. 'Government takeovers' and 'socialized medicine' and 'death panels' infiltrate and infect the public dialogue, and no amount of fact-checking can change that. And it's too late to start developing our own soundbites on the health care debate, since these things take years to create, activate and deploy.

In conclusion, in this summer of Nazi symbols and gun-toting protesters, terrified citizens parroting rightwing soundbites, chaotic town halls and fear-mongering radio nuts, an avalanche of half-truths and misconceptions flooding the airwaves, we're learning some sobering political lessons. Hopefully Democrats will take heed and adapt, but I have my doubts. Strangely enough, the remedy for what ails Democrats isn't all that complicated:

Lay out solid goals based on core progressive values; govern with confidence but not overconfidence; confront opponents with strength but also with decency; make fairness and justice indomitable pillars of policy. Sure it's idealistic. But as I've said repeatedly: it's good politics, too.

Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou

Comments

[mjc]

Early on in the actual presidential campaign I realized that Obama was NOT going to be much more than a slicker Geo Bush. The talk about bi-partisanship really clenched it for me because there has never been a time that Republicans actually joined with the "other" party...De­mocrats...­.to form policy or practice. Couldn't vote for McCain for various reasons, mostly his vice presidential choice....the endangered species hunter and killer, so I blanked the top of the ticket. Charles Blow had a good op ed piece in the NYT today about how Obama SHOULD have been front and center...."knee deep" in the health care proposals instead of allowing various bills to come from Congress. Obama is not really a risk taker. He is more worried about losing than about accomplishing something or putting down markers on the issues that matter to him. That is what will limit him...in my liberal book....to one term. Getting elected while black isn't really a major accomplishment. The campaign tried to NOT present Obama as that black man..the first...running for presidential office, but Obama himself has with his caution and corporate leanings made himself just that.

[maxfax]

Not since the days of Atwater and Rove has there been real bi-partisanship, when they figured out being anti-everything Democrat or progressive anything, works much better with a side of fearmongering and hate.

Obama underestimated his opponents, and has been ill-served by his advisers.

[jmpurser]

Tragically I have to agree with all 7 points.

I'd add an 8th: 8 - the left has no national party to represent it.

[Brian Ross - Huffpost Blogger]

Peter:

You are one step behind here. The bigger problem is not the pundits or that the blogospher­e/Internet­/Twtitter is not communicating as well as CNN and Fox. That's what cost Team Clinton an election, not understanding the new media well. They are probably the only things holding the tide, which is not leaning in the favor of health care reform or Obama largely because $80,831,142.00 worth of influence, more of it aimed at DEMOCRATS than Republicans, from big insurance, big pharma, healthcare professionals, hospitals, and retiree groups neutralizes anything that a grassroots organization can do.

Max Baucus the Democrat steering the whole process is on the hook to big insurance for $724,075.00 and to "health professionals" for $790,141 to a grand total of $1,514,216.00. $1.5 milllion in campaign contributions for one key senator from Montana. He could buy off every voter, cow and fencepost with that money.

More than 85% of the members of congress take money from one or more special interests in the health care reform debate as you can see at my article at HuffPo which lists every last one of them, so the public knows how to qualify what they are hearing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-ross/congress-on-sale-politica_b_264755.html

[Mainbob]

Is there any hope for beneficial health care reform? Even Senator Sanders in this week's http://sandersunfiltered.com said "Unfortunately we don't have the political will to pass Single Payer" - Medicare for All. And he sponsored S.703 single payer bill in the Senate with no Cosponsors....
I asked the senator on the "submit a video question": http://www.twitvid.com/5C9E1 What are strategies to get that political will... Is it http://MadAsHellDoctors.com trek to DC? Come on! this is a Representative government... and these reps are elected by the people not the corporations. So far, I have not seen "Change we can believe in" Bummer!

[WorkingClass]

The problem is corporate rule. The only way to overthrow corporate rule is to organize and mobilize the working class. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will move in this direction because they are owned and operated by our corporate masters. Americans must abandon the Democrats and Republicans and take matters into their own hands.

[maxfax]

Affluence begets affluence.

[confuseddemocrat]

You should be a senior political aide in our current administra­tion...you­r points are dead on

I am not so naive to think that politicians (including Dems) would not renege on some of their campaign promises but I am just shocked about how quickly the Democrats have forgotten their election promises

I am also perturbed about their lackadaisical approach to fixing the economy and to instituting economic reforms to prevent this economic catastrophe from repeating itself

Your post describes rather succinctly why the Dems will be losing large blocs of votes in the 2010 and why there may be a resurgence of the Repub or some third party

[Bonzo]

Inre #3...

"With respect to Congress, Charlie Cook has bad news: "Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats."

What a pathetic demonstration of what ails this country. "Leadership" predicated on what's good for an incumbency.

Barf.

[loveHP]

All so true and enough to depress any progressive.

Relative to controlling the debate:
While progressives by nature are not up to the immoral and outrageous tactics of the Repugs, they do need to accept and utililze the reality that the MSM is really an entertainment medium that thrives on controversy. So, they do need to be more provocative to get the MSM's (and much of the public's) attention.

Republicans are unified and consistent with their negative message - that government is bad and a threat to its citizens. Democrats likewise need a consistent, negative message - that the Republicans don't care about people, and that they can't be trusted. This message should be part of every response to Republican disinformation.

[awerling]

I had to stop reading this blog entry about half way through. I was getting depressed.

[Edmonsky]

Peter Daou:
It is difficult for you to understand that Senator Kerry did not lose election because of “swift boat” negative campaign by Republicans. There is an incontestable constant in winning national election for the office of president known as likeability scale. Senator Kerry failed woefully on likeability metric.

Democrats have always made the mistake of thinking that a cerebral and wonky knowledgeable candidate is all that matters in winning national election. No, Sir. Most Americans want a face they would like to bring inside their bedrooms every day for the next four years. This matter is very personal and paramount to most Americans. I remember a female Democrat who once lamented how to bring herself past Senator Kerry’s long face for four years. It may seem pedestrian but vast majority of voters are.

Peter Daou, ask yourself a very simple question. Why are Conservative talk-show radios more successful than their counterpart Liberals? That is the crux of the matter. It is easier to destroy rather than build. It is easier to lie than to tell truth. It is easier to believe in God than to be an atheist. It is easier to succumb to fear than to deconstruct it.

[wendyxxixx]

I thought Kerry lost because the election was stolen, as it was in 2000 from Gore. Not because of the shape of Kerry's face.

[Rogan]

...And it's easier for a radio station to program a show they get for free, than to pay for programming. Which is why Conservative radio shows are "more popular," at least it was, to begin with: Rush is free. The stations get to play Rush's show, for nothing. Because that's how important Rush's message is, to the corporate machinery running the stations.

[CtDude]

Liberal shows are all free as well. They're just not as good. In fact, about 99-percent of all talk shows are free -- you're just required to run between 4 and 8 minutes of network commercials per hour, and get about 12 minutes for local advertisers. Rush's show is -- I think -- the only show that charges cash, because they can.

[Edmonsky]

Peter Daou Wrote:
“One of the worst traits of the Bush years was the unending rationalization of his actions by the right. With Democrats in power, I'd like to believe that progressives will avoid that kind of blind cheerleading and act as a firm check on the White House and Congress.”

Peter Daou cannot be blowing hot and cold at the same time. Republicans in general always rally round their leader in the White House. Democrats are fragmented and they always form a circular firing squad, trying to gun down their leader in the White House by concocting illogical argument that they are acting as a firm check on the White House and Congress. Nobody has ever taught Peter Daou that if you cannot beat them, you join them. In engineering, it is call copy engineering because it does not make sense to keep on inventing wheels.

Keep on bashing Obama and his presidency and hope that his opinion numbers will go up. It is delusion of grandeur.

[jan4insight]

Great comment - faved!

x2 also

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

On the media: People who came before us weren't stupid. In fact they had fought and won very difficult battles for progressives. They clearly understood that mass media could be used by powerful corporations to alter public attitudes and prohibited any companies from owning more than a few stations, newspapers, etc. They required media companies to serve the public interest with news and documentaries and to limit commercialization of their programming. The Fairness Doctrine required multiple points of view to be presented.

Reagan got rid of those rules and we are living with the result.

[WilliamL]

It would be wise for the left/progr­essive/lib­eral/Democ­ratic constituencies to return to the one issue that solidified the base that being the desire to see a responsible resolution to the wars in Irag and Afghanistan. The health care issue is most. def. a relevant issue to many. However, a renewed interest in those men and woman whose day to day health is in jeopardy would be justified, timely, and an issue that seems to has dropped in importance and visibility.

It seems that when Bush was in office, it was the one thing that every one "cared" about, the well being of the troops. an end of the war, the horror and so on but now that Ds are driving the agenda, their seems to be a greater interests in a health care issue that does affects millions but it would seem to be wise to refocus on the one issue that brought people together.

The health care debate sd. not dominate all other issues.

[Malagodi]

How about this for a vital lesson?

Media opinion makers on the left: stop talking to and about your well-paid selves and politicians and start talking to people. Every minute spent with the camera and microphone trained on politicians and other media mouths is a minute wasted for most people.

Turn the camera around and make the American people the focus of your attention rather than treating them merely as 'consumers' of political strategies.

The problem is not some kind of technical failure to communicate from the White House, as if the job of the Presidency was to develop a product and then sell it. The 'problem' is not recognizing that the society is more than a shopping mall, more than a marketplace. While society is vastly complex, what people everywhere want is astonishing simple.

The people clearly stated what they wanted during the Presidential campaign regarding health care. President Obama was fabulously popular not because he had some new idea to proffer, but because he said very eloquently and simply what is was that people wanted, a transparent, clear and understandable process when they need a doctor or hospital.

Every person knows what they want when they or their kids are sick, they want to see a freaking doctor.

How about this proposition: If the President and the progressives had a Studs Terkel or a Paul Harvey or some simple storyteller who talked to people instead of marketing specialists, we'd have universal coverage already.

[plasma]

...and now the end is near, and so you face the final curtain, the public option just won't happen, I do feel however whatever is passed is the "camels nose under the tent" which is just as bad.

[Yellowbird]

Wow, Mr. Daou.

You think Hillary would have done anything different? The Clintons are the quintessential corporate supporters. Why, the retired President hob knobs with the likes of Bush Sr.

WHAT do you think THAT did for Hillary's run?

They all make big mistakes inside the beltway. Republicans too.

Because they can't see outside their guilded walls.