As I look around the political landscape today, illustrated perfectly by the complete chaos that the health care reform debate has evolved into, I have to ask myself, what the hell happened? How did the Obama presidency, which had so much promise and potential for becoming the "change" that so many of us voted for and hoped for, turn into such a mess? How did this happen to a president who was elected in what amounted to a modern-day landslide, who came into office with an approval rating near 70%, with an opposition party at a historical low point and in complete disarray, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and with the mood of the country eager for a new direction after 8 years of Bush/Cheney?
How has he become a president with an approval rating below 50%, with members of his own party chastising him publicly for his inaction, and the Republicans seeing even the possibility of re-taking control of the House in the 2010 mid-term elections? A president who was positioned to make transformational change, but now is satisfied with just passing "something."
I don't have a degree in political science, or anything else for that matter, but I have been an observer of politics and how it works and doesn't work for 30+ years, and for what it's worth this would be my advice to President Obama on what happened and where he needs to go from here, not in any particular order but as they come to mind.
* Stop sitting back and watching things happen and show some leadership. I know on the issue of reforming health care you were attempting to learn a lesson from what happened to President Clinton by not being too hands-on and letting the legislative process work, but Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the popular vote, you got 53%. That qualifies as a mandate, that's political capital, you should have used it. Hell, George Bush didn't even win the popular vote in 2000 and was just barely over 50% in '04 and he saw that as a mandate for his agenda.
* Getting elected is one thing, governing is something else. Sometimes you have to twist a few arms and kick a few butts to get what you want. That isn't you're natural inclination, being more the cerebral type, and there's nothing wrong with that, most of the time. Lord knows following shoot-from-the-lip George it's a refreshing change. But there is something to be said for a good ass-chewing and a few veiled, or not so veiled, threats once in a while. Particularly in the Senate where there is a weak-kneed leader like Reid. For those of you old enough to remember, how do you think LBJ, either as Senate Majority Leader or President, would have handled somebody like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson? It wouldn't have been a pretty sight.
* Get away from the corporate interests as far and as fast as you can. Be it Wall Street or Big Insurance, you're looking like a president whose strings are pulled by special interests and lobbyists. To go along with that, no more secret deals like the one with the pharmaceutical companies. People are sick of that kind of politics as usual.
* Give up on the notion of bi-partisanship, please. Mr. President, in case you haven't noticed by now, Republicans will oppose you if you propose legislation that says water is wet and fire is hot. You can't negotiate with people whose sole purpose in life is to drive down your approval ratings and make you look as ineffectual as possible. Stop playing the role of Charlie Brown while the Republican Lucys hold the football.
* Get some new advisers, starting with a new chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel does not have your best interests at heart. His goal is to keep the corporate campaign contributions away from the Republicans, by whatever means necessary. That has led you to where you are now, and it ain't good, in case you haven't noticed. Also Larry Summers. It doesn't look like you're serious about regulating Wall Street and cracking down on the big bankers who brought us to the brink of a complete financial meltdown when you're top economic adviser is one of the people who was responsible for the conditions that led to that meltdown. A president who ran on the mantra of "change" shouldn't have a bunch of Clinton administration re-treads in his administration anyway.
There is still time, Mr. President, this thing can be turned around. You still have supporters out here who are ready and willing to get behind you, like we did behind candidate Obama. Be that guy again, don't squander this opportunity by morphing into just another politician who says whatever they have to say to get elected. We sent you there to change Washington, right now it looks like Washington has changed you.
How has he become a president with an approval rating below 50%, with members of his own party chastising him publicly for his inaction, and the Republicans seeing even the possibility of re-taking control of the House in the 2010 mid-term elections? A president who was positioned to make transformational change, but now is satisfied with just passing "something."
I don't have a degree in political science, or anything else for that matter, but I have been an observer of politics and how it works and doesn't work for 30+ years, and for what it's worth this would be my advice to President Obama on what happened and where he needs to go from here, not in any particular order but as they come to mind.
* Stop sitting back and watching things happen and show some leadership. I know on the issue of reforming health care you were attempting to learn a lesson from what happened to President Clinton by not being too hands-on and letting the legislative process work, but Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the popular vote, you got 53%. That qualifies as a mandate, that's political capital, you should have used it. Hell, George Bush didn't even win the popular vote in 2000 and was just barely over 50% in '04 and he saw that as a mandate for his agenda.
* Getting elected is one thing, governing is something else. Sometimes you have to twist a few arms and kick a few butts to get what you want. That isn't you're natural inclination, being more the cerebral type, and there's nothing wrong with that, most of the time. Lord knows following shoot-from-the-lip George it's a refreshing change. But there is something to be said for a good ass-chewing and a few veiled, or not so veiled, threats once in a while. Particularly in the Senate where there is a weak-kneed leader like Reid. For those of you old enough to remember, how do you think LBJ, either as Senate Majority Leader or President, would have handled somebody like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson? It wouldn't have been a pretty sight.
* Get away from the corporate interests as far and as fast as you can. Be it Wall Street or Big Insurance, you're looking like a president whose strings are pulled by special interests and lobbyists. To go along with that, no more secret deals like the one with the pharmaceutical companies. People are sick of that kind of politics as usual.
* Give up on the notion of bi-partisanship, please. Mr. President, in case you haven't noticed by now, Republicans will oppose you if you propose legislation that says water is wet and fire is hot. You can't negotiate with people whose sole purpose in life is to drive down your approval ratings and make you look as ineffectual as possible. Stop playing the role of Charlie Brown while the Republican Lucys hold the football.
* Get some new advisers, starting with a new chief of staff. Rahm Emanuel does not have your best interests at heart. His goal is to keep the corporate campaign contributions away from the Republicans, by whatever means necessary. That has led you to where you are now, and it ain't good, in case you haven't noticed. Also Larry Summers. It doesn't look like you're serious about regulating Wall Street and cracking down on the big bankers who brought us to the brink of a complete financial meltdown when you're top economic adviser is one of the people who was responsible for the conditions that led to that meltdown. A president who ran on the mantra of "change" shouldn't have a bunch of Clinton administration re-treads in his administration anyway.
There is still time, Mr. President, this thing can be turned around. You still have supporters out here who are ready and willing to get behind you, like we did behind candidate Obama. Be that guy again, don't squander this opportunity by morphing into just another politician who says whatever they have to say to get elected. We sent you there to change Washington, right now it looks like Washington has changed you.
Huey,
The bills do have some good in them, but as of right now the only winners in the current plans the Senate has been discussing are the insurance companies. Sure they will not be able to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions, but that does not mean that the policies they will offer will be affordable or even cover the types of treatments that consumers will need.
I am for health-care reform not insurance give aways. The beauty of Medicare is that everyone over 65 is eligible. That is why no one will dare take it away. This bill will only help the unisured and poor and lower-middle class. I can already hear the cries of welfare this and welfare that from the right-wing. The current plan is to weak and will not be effective and when a Republican President comes back in power they will fight for deregulation and the insurance companies will really have a field day.
Obama needs to state his plans in simple terms and then fight like heck for them. His explainations are too cerebral. His message needs to adhere to the KISS method: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID.
And that's how this will get done, as ugly as it is. We've been working at universal or quasi-universal coverage for nearly a century now. It's not going to be beautiful from the get-go. That's guaranteed...especially, as noted earlier, without strict campaign finance reform.
Carguy, no it is scary and spot on!
Shortstuff wrote: We don't get shit unless we reform campaign finance.
-------------------
OK. We go back and forth on issue after issue. But, when you boil it all down, Washington is dysfunctional and will continue to BE dysfunctional until we reform campaign finance. PERIOD.
The health care reform legislation has put this in the BIG spotlight. The American people have shown it plain and clear what they want. It's obvious that this ie NEEDED. We are the ONLY civilized nation that does not provide some sort of health care to its citizenry. So what is the "roadblock"??????
Plain and simple....bought and paid for elected officials whose allegiance is to those who pay them NOT those who elected them.
If we don't do something about this, in several hundred years, the children of the best and most powerful nation on earth will be reading about the U.S.A in their history books and learning how a great nation was destroyed from within by their own government.
I hope that's not too overly dramatic.
My thoughts exactly Des. Thank you. I was one of the final holdouts for Obama showing some poltical courage until he bowed down and sucked up to Joe the Schmecka (look it up in a Yiddish dictionary, it's worse than schmuck) Lieberman. When Medicare for 55 got scrapped, I lost all faith.
As much as I despise Reagan, I have to give him credit for having cohones to twist (and break arms) in Congress to get what he wanted.
Des for Prez. Has a nice ring, no?
Des, this needs to be sent verbatim to the White House.
But in addition to all this, there MUST be a campaign finance reform. Until that happens, every single member of Congress is just bought and paid for by some sleazy-ass lobbyist. You know it and I know it. And the ones with the money (the corporations) are the ones making the rules.
We don't get shit unless we reform campaign finance.
Personally, I feel like he is to busy smoochzing it up with celebs and other "know" no-nothings who have a lot of money and politcal savy in DC to get what they want. Get back to business, grow some nuts and get down to finalizing what you promised the American people.
....B+...
STANDING OVATION.
alienHunter you speak the truth! i did want to share something i witnessed yesterday, when andrea mitchell spoke with jay rockefellow. mrs. greenspan made several attempts to get the senator to express his anger and frustration which he initially resisted. finally her persistance paid off, but the anger was controlled and directed into "yes i'm disappinted, angry and frustrated, but here's how it is now". he want on to say "i don't pick up my football and go home when i lose, keep playing". he went on to list the few things left in the bill, and i was surprised that the dependent coverage for up to age 26 was intact, a well as the chips funding which expires in feb and would become not only permanent but would be expanded. obviously the medicare buy-in is out, but that was only a pitiful consolation prize for the public option which should have never come out in the first place. dems have to own this loss, pure and simple. because they snooze, we lose, but scrapping the bill i'm not sure is a wise thing. unless howard dean or another dem with the stones is prepared to launch a 2012 dump obama campaign immediately, making health care reform failure and tea party kkk rallies the bottom rung of the platform. then obama could become the lame duck officially he has become politically, and could go around giving platitude speeches and picking up awards. the black congression caucus might already have this idea because it seems they are fed up with him already.
VERY well said.
Excellent post, Desperado. Your observation that President Obama's natural inclination does not include kicking butt and taking names is visibly true. It is the root of the criticism surrounding his "2009 Apology Tour." You know it. I know it. But it comes across to our conservative adversaries as being weak and ineffectual. I do not totally agree with that assessment. I voted for the man because I sensed intelligence, pensiveness and a genuine commitment to ideals such as bipartisanship - things I personally place high on the list of qualities of a true and respected leader. But the time has come for him to take a cue from the Republicans and throw down the presidential trump card. He has to be intuitive enough to know if he does not, he will be committing political suicide. I still believe (hope) he is too smart for that.
And ahhh, machine, if we were Republicans this bill would be done. Indeed . . .
You are correct, but I think that was when he believed it politically doable. I think that he would rather pass a bill with the individual mandate and increase the # of insured Americans than kill the current bill.
I fall into the same camp that Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, and Paul Begala fall in. The bill is imperfect, but it's still a good bill and significantly improves what we have now. Once the bill is passed, I think it would be easier to bend political will to make constant improvements, instead of killing the bill and holding out until you get something perfect. I posted a comment on one of the other blog topics. Don't have time to repost, but here's a link to some of the op-eds I've read and agree with.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/is_the_senate_health-care_refo.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081202575.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/illusions-and-bitterness/
Hi Huey;
But, early on he seemed to be really up on the public option and increasing the number of people to be insured. There were changes between the election rhetoric and the post election promises. He did come out very positive for the changes made by some members of congress.
Your last paragraph in the original post was right on. Until we modify the way PACS operate and we get rid of the legal bribery we are doomed for any kind of significant change on almost any major issue. Too many are bought and paid for.
I would have to disagree Stexcat. The healthcare platform President Obama had during the campaign didn't have the individual mandate for adults, only for children. His proposal wasn't a "universal" proposal to begin with.
An independent analysis of his platform showed that it would leave about 19 million without insurance. It was one of the big differences between his proposal and that of Hillary Clinton's and John Edwards'.
The notion that he had a vision that was grand and universal in scope is not accurate. The individual mandate was added by Congress because they wanted to pass something that was truly universal.
I wish to congratulate my esteemed colleagues machine, Huey, and stexcat for their EXCELLENT posts as well. You too ladies.
I do have one suggestion. Lets send President Obama the complete "box set" of DVD's of "The West Wing". He and his staff could learn a lot from President Bartlett and HIS bunch.
(See, I told you I wouldn't be "speechless" for long)
Dude...it's like you're in my mind. Every paragraph is EXACTLY what I think too. And your conclusions are 100% IMO. You have, in fact, left me speechless.
(But I'm sure I will get over it soon)
the basic nature of the Democrat/progressive and conservative are just very different. The essence of the left is "live and let live." The essence of the right is "It's my way or the highway." It shows up as a disadvantage in the political world. Worship of power and authoritarian control is what government has been about from the beginning. The right maintains that they eschew government intervention but what they really mean is that government should function only to allow them authoritarian governance over their bailiwick. It's a disgusting world view to me, but we can only blame ourselves and the conventional wisdom of parenting. The effect of overzealous toilet training cannot be overstated.
Outstanding analysis!
I agree that the lack of strong leadership is killing any hope of the "change" that we voted for. I am also very concerned by the ties - either actual or perceived - to big business, lobbyists and other special interest groups are sinking this Presidency faster than the Titanic.
Most of all, I am concerned that President Obama doesn’t see the danger or just doesn’t care…
you get my vote...
I think what happened Des, is simple.
We voted last November, and elected, the party of Howard Dean and Barack Obama. We voted "progressive".
What we now have, once again is the party of Clinton, and Emanuel. The DLC Party. The DLC party didn't work. They didn't know how to govern when Tom Daschle had the Majority in the Senate.
And, it isn't working now, and won't work in the future. We know when Wall Street wins, Main Street loses. When corporations write legislation... it helps, not people, it helps corporations.
Lawrence O'Donnell said it best on Kieth Olbermann's "Countdown" last night. This "health care reform" legislation was drafted, and written to preserve the "for profit" health care system. That's the premise the Senate started with. And, it hasn't changed.
He also chided our President for telling us, (using scare tactics) to say that if this piece of crap legislation isn't passed the country will go bankrupt.
The United States of America.... is not going to go bankrupt. Shame on Obama.
I never liked the DLC when it ran the Democratic Party. I didn't support them then.
I like it even less that they are now running
the Country. And, I refuse to support them now.
One problem being that its pretty much too late to change direction on Health Care Reform. Health care reform was going to be one of the really defining issues of his presidency and he has let it become much less that what he had envisioned. I don't see any way he can recapture the momentum and once this is passed it will be many decades before it is re-visited. Once again, special interests have won and what could have been a lasting legacy will just be another entry in the history of congress and the PACS.
Another contributing factor is that both the right and the left have unreal expectations for new Presidents will be able to accomplish. I'm currently reading a biography of FDR, and one of things that it mentions is the fact that that party that wins the White House typically loses seats during the midterm elections. The reason being is that many people who supported the POTUS feel disappointed in what he was able to accomplish, yet members of the opposing party feel that he has accomplished too much, so they are more motivated.
The biggest problems I have with the President right now are:
1) Too focused on biparisanship, although I did hear an interview with Joe Biden in which he made a very good case for the continuing need to reach out in a bipartisan manner.
2) He compromises too much from the beginning, so, after further compromises, bills become even more watered down.
3) He's too cautious. I read what I thought was an accurate description of President Obama, which said that he has liberal values, but moderate political instincts. I think he wants to move the country in a certain direction, but doesn't want to do so too fast because he thinks it will cost him politically. After such a large win in the election, plus the ill will towards conservative economic prinicples after the economic collapse, I think there's a golden opportunity to pass truly progressive legislation, but there is too much caution.
With all of that said, I still don't think we should kid ourselves about what can be accomplished, at least in the short term. Congress is bought and paid for. Dems are just as beholden to special interests as Reps. Any strong financial reform would be killed by Chuck Schumer. Any bill to end farm subsidies would be killed by Tom Harkin. Until we have meaningful campaign finance reform, it will always be extremely difficult to have truly progressive change.
Agree 100% on the lack of strong leadership to accomplish his goals. Obama cannot carry on as a rear-echelon general, expect his battle plan to be carried out from afar. Johnson understood this, applying "the treatment" where needed.
And those colonels on the battlefield are a mutinous bunch of fuckups. I understand that each senator & rep has a conscience and a constituency to serve, but couldn't they at least hammer out their differences in private? From the beginning they should have worked out a bill they could all give full-throated support, *THEN* start pushing it. By a public show of dissension and airing of petty grievances they reinforce in the public mind the notion that maybe this bill isn't that great after all if even the president's own party can't fully support it. Throw in the leadership vacuum and the writing is on the wall for the midterms.
I understand completely Howard Dean's sentiment yesterday: "If we were Republicans this bill would be done."