The endless effort to pass a health insurance reform bill will go down as one of the great debacles in U.S. political history. In early 2009, Democrats had wide lead over Republicans in the matchup for congress and overall party identification. The Republican administration had left a deep recession and rising unemployment. However, after passing a needed, but insufficent, stimulus bill, Democrats promptly stopped focusing on the need to reduce unemployment and correct the policies that led to the '08 financial collapse, and through most of their energy and effort into passing a health insurance reform bill.
That was their mistake. Just check the polling over the last year. By comparison, when FDR came into office he focused solely on economic recovery and economic regulation. It was not until 1935 that social security was passed. However, rather than keeping the focus on the economy, which is what most of the general public wanted, and from which Democrats could have reaped political benefits by keeping the focus on the Republicans' responsibility for the mess, Obama and congressional Democrats focused their effort and energy on an issue which they should have known would inevitably divide the party and the public.
To make matters worse, the administration threw the issue into the lap of congress where, even in the best of times, Democrats are known to be fractious. Rather than setting forth a plan that would have provided a guiding light for congress, and fighting for that plan, the administration hid behind congress and played coy and cute. Obama kept saying he "preferred" a public option, but was not willing to fight for it. He did so to keep progressives on board, knowing full well that in the end he would ditch the issue. Making matters worse was the fruitless effort at bipartisanship, and the decision to let Max Baucus take the lead in the process. The result was a bill with no public component, and one with an individual mandate and excise tax, both of which were opposed by Obama during the campaign.
Having backed themselves into a corner, the Democrats are now faced with the choice of passing a bill which is not popular or not passing a bill and looking ineffective. Both are politically problematic. I believe passing the bill will be worse. Others disagree, many of whom have genuine substantive reasons for favoring it.
Then there is what I call, "the pass any bill" crowd. They want a bill passed just to pass a bill. Either because they, incorrectly in my view, believe that it is a politicaly necessity or because "people will die" if we don't. Which is a form of Godwin's law. Dropping a bomb on the discussion. Moreover, they have sought to demonize anyone who stands in their way. Dennis Kucinich, who has always marched to his own drummer, is villified daily on these pages, most prominently by the host of this site who appears to now favor the very bill he had previously opposed. When Michael Capuano, a solid progressive who should have been the Democratic nominee for Massachusetts Senate, indicated he might oppose the bill, the pass any bill crowd began to go after him like Faux News after ACORN. The same with the leader of the progressive caucus, Raul Grijalva. Even the criticsm of Bart Stupak, much of it justified, has taken the form of demonization. Despite the fact that when it comes to most other issues, particularly economic issues, he has a rather progressive voting record.
To make matters worse, the pass any bill crowd keeps raising faulty historical analogies in support of their position. The most prominent is social security. They say progressives did not get everything they wanted from the original social security legislation. However, while that may be true, social security was, and is, a public program, one that was added onto as the years went by. There is no public component to the current bill, and therefore nothing to build upon. If Democrats, with the majorities they currently have, cannot include a public option in this legislation, what makes anyone think that can pass one anytime in the foreseeable future? Not to mention single payer or Medicare for all. Failure to include a new public component in the proposed bill will be the Democrats' Stalingrad. Much like the unsuccessful effort to privatize social security was the Republicans'. If we can't get the meager public component passed by the House, the prospect for further progressive legislation in this are, and in general, is not good.
In the end, the effort to pass health care legislation has only served to divide the Democratic party and embitter the netroots. That might have been worth it if in the end we actually got a decent bill. But we've ended up with a bill which forces some 30 million people to buy policies from the very people who are the problem when it comes to health insurance, and which taxes guality health plans, the end result of which will be that millions will end up with worse coverage than they have now.
Despite this, the argument of the pass any bill crowd is that since we've come this far, and spent all this time on the issue, we have to support the senate bill because, well, we have to pass something. Regardless of the consequences. If the party suffers from it, so be it. Passing this (flawed) bill is more important than keeping control of congress and the future of progressive legislation in general.
I cannot agree with this "we must destroy this village in order to save it" mentality. There are good reasons to oppose this bill, both substantively and politically. Passing a bill just to pass any bill is not a good way to make public policy. And those who do so will inevitably suffer the political consequences.