As Richard Trumka announced on Rachel Maddow earlier this week, without a strong public option, unions will sit out the next election. This is not an idle threat - Trumka is dead serious.
This came just a week after Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said
It doesn't have to be a perfect bill. I support a public option, but, yes, I am open.
So, now that Trumka has burned the ships, has Durbin responded?
I'm an old Chicago guy, having lived there for 9 years before moving to Nashville. I'm still suffering culture shock. Never before have I been in a place that is so anti-labor, pro-CEO, anti-tax, anti-government, or pro-wealthy. Tennesseans are the epitome of what Thomas Frank described in What's the Matter with Kansas? Low-information voters, suspicious of "Washington politics" and unwilling to engage in the political process, frequently vote against their own best interests because they'd rather remain stuck in prideful self-sabotage than admit the need for help.
Tennessee has the highest personal bankruptcy rate in the nation. And while wealthy radio hosts like Steve Gill and Dave Ramsey tell their brainwashed listeners that they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the politicians they support - folks like Ron Ramsey, Zach Wamp, and Bob Corker - continue to undermine the general welfare while handing out more free candy (in the form of tax breaks) to corporations and the wealthiest Tennesseans. It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstaps when you have no boots. And it's hard to create personal wealth when there are no jobs.
Even in the Democratic Party in Tennessee, you've got DLC types like Harold Ford, Blue Dogs like Lincoln Davis and John Tanner, and an abiding love for the policies of Bill Clinton (who, incidentally, is headlining a major Tennessee Democratic Party fundraiser in a little over a week). I frequently hear from friends and colleagues that Gov. Phil Bredesen should just become a Republican, given his pro-business, anti-tax, pro-wealthy policy positions. And while I understand that there is a difference between the "good government" Democrats and the bats*** crazy wingnuts (on issues like guns and abortion), I still feel like Democrats are trying too often to out-Republican the Republicans.
The real problem is this. In Tennessee, the golden rule looks like this: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Too often, the tacit (or public!) understanding is that you have to pay to play in the political sphere. (I know this is not unusual, and the rest of the country is like this too.) And while Tennessee's new Democratic Party chair, Chip Forrester, certainly sees the value of the progressive netroots, when it comes to fundraising, the Democrats are still using the old school tactics.
Too many Tennesseans are used to the inaccessibility of politicians. Bredesen, a typical CEO type, is notoriously reclusive. On the day after the gubernatorial election, I happened to share an elevator with Bredesen, who at that time was working in my building. I put out my hand and said, "Congratulations, Governor!" His response was more or less to get out of the elevator as quickly as he possibly could (now, I know he's busy, but... come on!). Tennessee Democrats frequently compare the introverted, calculating Bredesen with the more gregarious Gov. Ned Ray McWherter, who served as House leader in the state legislature before his election as governor in 1986. At the end of the day, politics is still a popularity contest, and competence alone is not enough to push an agenda. (Just ask Tracy Flick.)
And this is the problem with running government like a business. In business, the goal is to gain competitive advantage, beat the competition, and maximize the profit for your particular interest. Reclusive, calculating, protective leaders make boatloads of money, in part, because they develop the ability to go for the jugular. In a democratic government, the goal has to be fundamentally different. You have to use the "Together Everyone Achieves More" approach. The instincts that make you successful in business might help you win an election, but they won't help you build a movement or empower citizens. It's about addition, not division.
Which brings me back to Dick Durbin. When Durbin was my Senator, I remember well how he railed against the oil companies (remember, Amoco was still Amoco back then, and it was gutsy for him to attack one of his wealthiest corporations) and the inflated gas prices in Chicago. He's now leading the fight for regulatory reform in the consumer credit industry. Durbin can do populism fairly well. And of course, Illinois is a state with a strong Democratic machine, for all the political infighting.
But will Durbin be able to whip support from Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad? The last thing I've heard from Durbin on healthcare reform was that he was "open" to a plan without a public option. Durbin was floating that test balloon before the President did. And now that Trumka and labor have pushed back with their threat to pull support for anyone who opposes a public option, we're stuck.
Do we accept a pyrrhic victory on healthcare that merely creates regulatory reform for insurance companies? Do we allow reform that fails to create the real competition or any legitimate alternative for those who are frustrated with healthcare that commits murder by spreadsheet and puts profits ahead of patients? Will we get 51 votes for the public option?
I'm willing to do everything I can, but the chances of Bob Corker or Lamar Alexander supporting a public option are slim to none. What can we do in Indiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Nebraska?