I think some of the criticism levelled at those of us who have been angry and frustrated with the White House is completely off the mark, and bordeline dishonest in some cases.
The most frequent criticism of people like me is that we are inveterate liberals who are angry that Obama didn't deliver on his strategically made campaign promises. Sometimes this criticism is supplemented with the argument that we think Obama should have imposed all these grand liberal ideas by fiat and don't understand how the constitution or how Congress works. This latter argument strongly implies that those of us crticizing Obama are basically a bunch of fucking clueless idiots.
So, if you make this argument -- as many Obama die hards here do -- frequently -- do not be surprised if the person you are directing the criticism to reacts angrily at the insult.
In fact, the argument is so toxic and, frankly, ad hominem that I think it should be an HR offense to make it. But that is another issue.
[Jump]
In any case, all of these arguments are completely wrong and do not accurately describe the problem Obama has with folks like me. I -- you see -- am a pragmatist. I backed Obama over Hillary Clinton because I thought he could expand the Democratic base, refresh the Democratic brand, and would be a liberal "Ronald reagan" in the sense that he would articulate new liberalsm, and be a modern President. I was wrong.
What I expected from Obama was not miracles. It was not that he would achieve every one of his promises. I knew he wouldn't. What I expected, though, was a bold, articulate and determined President who would forcefully advocate for our side. Someone who would push good public policy and try to turn the politics of any issue in our favor. I knew he would not win every battle. But, I expected him to actually fight.
What we all got instead was someone who gave too much credit to the other side, didn't have enough confidence in his mandate to seek bold change and fight for it, and someone who's uncertainties about how to lead demonstrated weakness that his enemies took advantage of. And, eventually, when confronted by the ferociousness of the right to his mostly modest policy changes he backed down thus feeding their self-confidence and demoralizing his most ardent supporters.
The problem I have with Obama is that -- as Keith Olbermann said -- he didn't seem to want to even try hard to fight for what we elected him to do. We could all accept compromises to policy decisions if they were made after all reasonable attempts to do better were exhausted. [That's what, ironically, Teddy Kennedy was masterful at]. The health care debacle is just the most obvious and damaging aspect of his leadership.
There's a reason why health care reform has not gotten passed in 50 years. It's not just because there are a lot of entrenched interests that have a huge stake in the current system. That's important. But, it is also because that any such reform worth the name was something those entrenched interests would fight tooth and nail. In other words, if you were able to get the entrenched interests on board with something called "health care reform," it was likely not going to be real reform that actually achieved what health care reform was supposed to achieve. And that's what we got.
The easiest part of health are reform to get passed (even Mitch McConnell would have supported this) was the elimination of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, etc. That was always achievable. The hard part was getting universal coverage and cost containment.
The supporters of health care reform keep touting how the new law will expand coverage to 94% of the people! And they ask -- why aren't you giving Obama credit for that wonderous achievement?
Well...because the way he got that "universal" coverage was by forcing everyone to buy health insurance! People only vote in this country -- at best -- at a 60% rate. But, we could achieve "univerasl voting" by fining anyone who refuses to vote $10,000 or threatening them with jail time. I bet if we did that, voting would ho up into the 90th percentile. But, is that really "universal voting?"
Moreover, health care reform was also supposed to achieve cost savings. Well...where are those cost savings coming from? Not out of the pockets of insurance companies. It is coming out of medicare and (if it ever happens) Dr. reimbursement rates for the most part.
There may be some minimal cost savings through the local exchanges. But, the point of both these examples is to show that health care reform isn't as big an achievement as it's made out to be. Even Howard Dean thinks the individual health care mandate will eventually be repealed, if it is not struck down by the Supreme Court. And when that goes, there goes the "universal coverage."
I have said, rhetorically, that the health care law everyone is saying is such a wonderful achievenment, is one that John McCain or George W. Bush could have passed if they wanted to. And, ironically, had Bush or McCain proposed it -- I am confident that the vast majorioty of Obama supporters here would have blown their stacks at how lousy the bill was.
What galls Obama crtics, though, is not so much the questionable Insurance Company Profitiability Protection Act of 2010 -- but the fact that Obama didn't fight for the things that would have made the bill better than it was. And, once he invested in this thing, he decided that not passing it would be a sign of weakness rather than strength. I went back and forth on this myself. I eventually decided that it would be better to pass some of the achievable reforms quickly and move on to fighting unemployment. But, this thing was dragged out interminably and gave the forces on the other side time to mobilize opposition to the bill. One thing any good negotiator will tell you is that you have to be prepared to walk away from a deal if it doesn't meet your bottom line. If you have to make a deal, no matter what, you are screwed and the other side will roll you.
Also, Obama signalled that he wasn't serious about things like the public option from nearly the beginning. Saying it was his "preference" and that he thought it was the best way to chieve cost savings, implying there were oher ways he would be willing to accept. That is just very bad negotiating. The White House never developed a good communications strategy to sell the Public option. people in Congress like Anthony Weiner said it should be called the "medicare for everyone" option, but the White House never took up that obvious and (as polls showed) effective message because they wanted a deal at any cost. They never fought.
That's what we object to.
Now, if Obama had made these compromises -- and they were politically popular -- at least his supporters would have an argument that these compromises were politically necessary. But, Obama compromised away good public policy -- and what did he get for it? He was called a socialist anyway, and his approval rating is in the mid to low 40's. Not only that, the Democratic brand is destroyed and the Dems are on the verge of suffering an historic defeat in the 2010 midterm elections. If it were not for the massivge unpopularity of the GOP and teabaggerism nominating crazy people in many states, the situation would be even worse.
Explaining my frustrations with Oama would take, frankly, a 30 page New Yorker essay. But, this is just a sampling of it. If nothing else, please stop arguing this is 100% about policy, or that we are all a bunch of unsophisticated dummies who don't know how our Gvt works.
This is about tactics and politics and pragmatism. We all know that Obama had to make some compromises. We all know about the filibuster, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. We all know that. But, there's a difference between compromise after you have fought the good fight and making the best deal possible -- and complete capitulation. And, after you capitulate -- wondering why your supporters aren't enthusiastic about how you sold them out without a fight.