When Barack Obama was elected President in November many commentators suggested that besides the Republicans he was going to likely wind up doing battle at some point with another chunk of American’s polity: his own party’s progressive wing.
And that is precisely what seems to be happening now, as the debate over the ‘public option” in health care reaches a fever pitch. Will he or won’t he go to the mat for it? (The feelers are being put out now that he won’t). Was he stringing other Demmies along all the time? Was he sincere and does the dropping of the public option — if it takes place — mean he is a ‘failing” President?
Did he “lie” to his base all along? Or could it be that Obama operates with a different political style — to go for the gold and battle for it, but then settle on a silver (or bronze) which is still far better than not getting a prize at all. But, then opinions differ on that. too: is it better to hold out for the original ideal or better to opt for practicality and take a big step forward, leaving the ideal for later?
People will debate these questions (and answer with absolute assuredness depending on which side of the political ocean they’re anchored on). But what is now happening is like a prophecy come true:
It now seems that Obama will indeed be at odds with his party base. Will Democratic progressives decide all is not better than nothing? Will this be one more example of the contrast in parties: Republicans will follow the leader and act as if they have a big majority, even when they don’t have one; Democrats will buck the leader, and act like a minority party or split party, even if it risks holding on to the power they worked so hard to achieve for years.
One certainty: passions on both sides are riding high in town halls, on websites, talk radio and blog comments.
The LA. Times puts the passions aside and gives an assessment suggesting that in terms of getting an overall package Obama stands to gain by deep-sixing the public option:
By dropping his insistence on a public insurance option in an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system, President Obama angered some liberals but took a big step toward winning over moderate Democratic lawmakers — a trade-off that sharply improves the chances Congress will approve the overhaul.
By backing away from the “government plan” — which would have offered consumers an alternative to private medical insurance — Obama also moved to neutralize one of his opponents’ most effective arguments, namely that the president wants the government to play a bigger role in individual healthcare decisions.
Obama’s tactical retreat improved the odds of passage for other key provisions: easing small businesses’ efforts to cover workers, for example, or prohibiting insurers from denying or canceling coverage because of medical conditions.
The political gain on Capitol Hill was clear in the reaction today of Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, one of five Democrats to vote against the bill when it passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July. Boucher said backing away from the public option had strengthened Obama’s hand among conservative Democrats and other skeptics without compromising the basic goal of lowering healthcare costs and insuring more people.
Obama will have to pick and choose — but the real drama that will play out will be the party’s liberal wing picking and choosing. In the end, could health care reform fail in a way so that Republicans can point to Democrats and say: “Don’t blame us. Members of his own party hated the plan, too.” And, if so, what does that mean for both parties’ prospects in 2010?
If a plan emerges with an alternative to the public option it will not be welcome to some conservatives (some don’t trust other parts of the plan, others have serious and thoughtful questions about what they have heard so far, and others are part of the talk radio political culture that considers Obama a political extremist in disguise) and it won’t please his party’s liberal wing. If that happens — and it will be argued about whether the result is good or terrible — by power of elimation and due to his maneuvering through a political pincer, it will be more of a centrist plan. But being centrist could mean he will be reviled by both left and right.
The answers to many of the above questions are yet to come…..(but we suspect some readers will offer plenty of them in comments below..)
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.