Perhaps the most disconcerting result of Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election have been the reactions of progressive House Democrats like Barney Frank, John Larson and Anthony Weiner, and more centrist Democrats like Jim Webb. These Democrats are suggesting a range of options, none of which involves going ahead and passing the Senate Health Care bill because it’s good for the country.
If the President and the Democratic caucus believed that passing a bill was good the day before the election, it is still a good decision after the election. Are we Democrats so weak-kneed and so lacking in conviction that we are going to jettison a major part of our agenda just because we lost one special election? Would the GOP act this way? We all know the answer to that one. This health care debate is no longer about public option v. no public option, Cadillac health care plan taxes v. income taxes por subsidies v. mandates. It is now about whether Democrats can make tough decisions and do the job of providing leadership and governing. It is about whether Democrats should ever be trusted with power.
Unfortunately, the various wings of the Democratic Party do not seem to grasp just how defining a moment this is. They are cowed by fear, mired in minutiae, with some being more motivated by self-interest than that of the party, and are showing scant regard for the consequences of inaction.
There is plenty of criticism to go around for all wings of the Democratic Caucus, but here is how I would characterize it:
- Progressive House Democrats Who Still Think That They Can Continue to Bargain and Get Their Way
I would put Anthony Weiner, Raul Grijalva and others in this category (including many commenters on this site). These progressives essentially want to force the White House and Senate to use reconciliation to pass a House-Senate conference bill that includes the changes that were negotiated last week with organized labor to narrow the differences between the House and Senate bills.
These members openly state that they cannot vote for the Senate bill under any circumstances and are openly rejecting the ‘ping pong' approach. I am dumbfounded that Weiner and Grijalva would act as if it is ok to kill reform unless they get what they want. It is curious logic indeed to believe that progressives actually have more leverage after Brown’s victory to shape the legislation than they did before. Any bill that has to go back to the Senate for a vote will be filibustered and killed by the GOP. Reconciliation would essentially be challenged at every turn, reducing the bill to tatters and causing substantial delays and confusion as to what will actually become law. There could be no more impractical suggestion than that offered by Weiner.
These Democrats also constantly criticize and demonize the Senate health care bill, even though this bill provides substantive, meaningful change. As someone who has actually read the bill, I find this infuriating. You cannot tell me or any intellectually honest person that eliminating pre-existing conditions, eliminating rescission, providing state based exchanges to purchase insurance, expanding Medicaid eligilibility and providing funding for community health clinics are bad things. In fact they are good, worthwhile and necessary things. They are also the items that are capable of being passed now, and in reality the Senate and House bills are quite consistent in these areas, yet these Dems act as if the two are as irreconcilable as oil mixing with water. The failure to pass the Senate bill means that no bill gets passed. If no bill gets passed, Obama will have failed in one of his signature agenda items and we will most certainly be soundly defeated in the 2010 elections. Ping pong is the only strategy that will work. The fact that these progressives do not see, nor care about, the connection between passing a bill and retaining the majority is baffling. It suggests an immaturity which provides fodder for critics who think that Democrats cannot govern.
- Liberal Democrats who want to read Scott Brown’s election as a rejection of the Health Care approach and simply want to back away until a Republican joins them.
Barney Frank and others of the Mass delegation represent this group. These folks have become weak at the knees and don’t want to push this bill anymore until a GOP member joins them. That effectively gives the GOP a veto, which they will exercise vigorously. The whole point of winning the majority was to push the country in the right direction and let the voters judge us. To back away now just because we lost a special election shows manifest weakness and a lack of conviction. Do we believe what we say or not?
- Moderate Democrats who want to slow down, start over, or just not take any votes until Brown is seated.
Jim Webb is in this category as are a number of House blue dogs like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin who did not vote for the legislation in the first place. This criticism from the center-right is generally reflective of the progressive wing’s argument that centrists don’t want to draw distinctions, take clear stands and fight for what they believe in. The reasons why we should not be Republican-lite, or give the GOP an effective veto on our signature issues are clear.
- Stupak-Crats - Abortion or bust.
We know about abortion intruding in this debate. The debate between Stupak and Nelson on this is inane, because both are equally abhorrent policies in my view, but necessary compromises to make to get the votes. Nelson’s amendment is slightly less bad, but the Stupak-crats may now feel they have leverage to demand changes, and they may now feel that they can afford to see the legislation fail because their conservative districts don’t like it anyway. That would be foolish because the GOP will brand them as socialists anyway, and it would be better to defend an actual policy that does good things for the people than to defend no policy that you failed to enact and are unwilling to defend. You can’t out GOP the GOP in rural America and expect to win.
- The President and being good Soldiers.
The truth is if the GOP were in power and suffered this defeat involving a signature GOP issue like tax cuts or war, the GOP would not back down. They would move ahead with what they thought was right and let the voters judge them on election day. The problem with the GOP is that they have bad policies, and that is why they are out of power. However, they’re pretty good at standing up for what they believe in and are unafraid of losing. We have better policies but are afraid of fighting and are arrogant about what specific elements should comprise those policies. The American voter will gladly choose the GOP and hope they improve from a policy standpoint than favor a feckless party that cannot get anything done.
At the end of the day, it is the President that is going to have to bring the Democratic caucus together. Obama is going to have to tell House Dems from safe seats that they should support the ‘ping poing’ idea because it will get something enacted quickly and they can afford to take that vote. Obama also needs to tell moderate members that they need to stick with their process and prior votes in order to maintain credibility with the voters and have a chance at retaining power after the 2010 midterms. I also think base Democrats need to weigh in and tell their legislators that they need to follow the President’s lead and stop fighting him. In times of turmoil, we need to rally behind our leader. We can have spirited debate but at some point when a decision has to be made, it is the President’s to make and legislators need to fall in line. The time for spirited debate is over. The time for leadership and unity is now. If we cannot do as the President asks, then it is hard to tell Americans that they should elect Democrats as their leaders.