In his latest anti-Obama Op-Ed, Paul Krugman calls Obama "naive" for saying that he supports a "big table" approach to changing the health care system--one that includes Big Pharma and the insurance companies.
Other that stating the obvious--that drug and insurance companies will be "implacably oppposed" to any changes, Krugman does not offer any concrete suggestions for an alternative strategy.
He then refers to Obama as the "anti change" candidate and claims that America is ready for a "populist campaign", inferring that John Edwards is best positioned to wage that fight.
In publishing a number of articles critical of Obama, Krugman may be personalizing his dispute with Obama, but I am not going to criticize him for this article--he is expressing his opinion. However, since this is more of an opinion piece rather than an analytical one, I feel free to challenge his conclusions with opinions of my own.
The biggest thing that struck me was Krugman's assertion that Obama is "naive" because he favors a "big table approach":
O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform.
As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms.
These are not exactly blinding visions of insight, but they are valid points of discussion. Since Krugman does not point out any other alternatives, my question is: does Krugman actually believe that a President is going to be able to dictate the terms of a new health care plan without talking to the drug and insurance companies? That Edwards is going to pull a populist health care plan out of his expand-a-file, and send it over to them? Talk about being naive.....
We all know that we are in for a big fight if a Democrat wins in 2008. Undoing the damage of bush regime will be a full-time job in itself. Thumping your chest and stomping your feet does not mean you are a better fighter. There are going to be tough negotiations with all kinds of entrenched interests.
Obama has consistently held the position that you can listen to all sides and still make the right decision. I am stealing a quote from Just Angry's great series of diaries on Obama's background:
"They're not enemies, he used to tell us. They're both working for their constituents, and they have to do this," recalled Loretta Augustine Herron, a founding member of Obama's Developing Communities Project. "Whoever can help you reach your goal, that's who you work with. . . . There are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies."
In his entire legislative career, Obama has demonstrated the ability to work with friends and opponents alike to achieve legislative success without compromising his prinicples.
Krugman then goes on to talk about the opportunities for a more populist approach:
There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the country was "Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington."
He ends by saying he sees no evidence that Obama understands the "bitterness" or if "he will fight" against established interests.
Certainly, Krugman is not alone is arguing for a more vocal populist approach, both in the campaign and in future government. I understand the argument and do not minimize the economic wreckage caused over the past 20 years by corporations, in league with republican social darwinistic and crony capitalistic policies.
But I also don't see where closeting yourself with a group of like-minded individuals and relying on anti-corporate rhetoric is all that effective. As the FISA bill debate is clearly showing, the next President will not only have to deal with entrenched republican and corporate opposition, but a sizable segment of Democrats as well. As much as I like Edwards, I have to question whether he can exercise the political leadership necessary to support his rhetoric. Picking a fight is one thing--winning it is another.
I will admit I am taking Obama with a certain leap of faith, that while he is willing to talk to all sides, he will keep a clear focus on the essential values important to progressives (and America). But Obama has demonstrated his ability to do just that--and I think that gives him a better opportunity to achieve meaningful change.