Having closely followed the health care reform debate thusfar, it seems clear that President Obama has indeed brought fundamental change to Washington. As he indicated during the campaign, however, this change is more about process than it is about policy.
In other words, the President stubbornly and insistently tones down the rhetoric and embraces the idea of compromise, not as a last resort but as an important aspect of every major policy goal.
A prime case in point is the "public option" component of health care reform. The combative wings of both parties -- those who insist that politics is a battlefield -- have made the public option their line drawn in the sand. If the public option stays, progressives win. If it goes, Republicans win. President Obama, meanwhile, doesn't put it in such black or white terms, reminding the public in his speech to Congress that the public option is just a "means," with the "end" being an insurance market with affordable premiums and sufficient choice and competition for the public.
In so doing, the President robbed hard core progressives and conservatives of their opportunity to do battle against one another on ideological (read: inflexible) lines. Some on the left have come to believe that any bill lacking a public option is automatically worse than no bill at all. Many conservatives, meanwhile, see the public option as nothing more than the first large step on the slippery slope toward total socialization of health care.
It's also important to note that while the President does seem willing to compromise on the public option, he's stated that he will only do so if the purpose for the public option is accomplished by other means.
What I'm trying to say here is that President Obama does not get enough credit for being progressive, and this is because he's trying to strip progressivism of some of it's dogmatism, and this smells to some progressives an awful lot like triangulation or capitulation. In fact, though, Obama's insistence on flexibility and openness to compromise reflects a staunch loyalty to a broader goal that is rarely articulated in the national debate. That goal is competence.
A competent government is one that does not swing back and forth wildly on an ideological pendulum driven by agressive claims and distortions of the opposition's arguments. A competent government must learn to work together and compromise. It must be run by statesmen and stateswomen who believe in the decency and good intentions of those on the other side of the aisle.
When Obama stands up -- as he did in his speech to congress -- to passionately argue the need for health care reform, he is being the best progressive he can be. He is trying to change hearts and minds. And by refusing to draw a line in the sand on the public option, he is recognizing the potential, at least, for compromise that still accomplishes the most important objectives. That is American. And, if you believe that an honest, respectful and open-minded debate naturally favors justice, Obama's strategy is also very much progressive.
These are the lessons that I hope progressives remember as the debate over health care rages on, and as we gear up for Employee Free Choice. I can imagine a situation not too many months ahead in which progressives and conservatives once again get ready to do battle over card check. What if Obama considers a compromise that allows, for example, employers to continue to demand secret ballots, but within a very limited time frame and with new regulations preventing abuse? At that moment, will the left become knee-jerk opponents of the president, or open their minds to innovative compromises that enable forward movement?