This is a lonnnnnnnnng post. This is three weeks worth of frustration and rants on the misconception seen in the Great Blogosphere Civil War of 2009 and political realities.
First, I just want to point out a few misconceptions by some independents and some our my purist liberal friends who have become bill killers of late due to the dropping of a weakened public option and a medicare buy in compromise. The complaint I heard most often was that Democrats should and must be more like Republicans with respect to their sterling and seemingly unchallenged ability to get their legislative priorities passed. It is as if, to them, President Bush and the Republican majorities from 2001 to 2007 got everything they ever wanted. Really?
Yes, I forgot that they privatized Social Security in 2005 (which was then subsequently destroyed in the Collapse of 2008). I forgot that Bush’s immigration reform was rammed through. I forgot about the drilling in ANWR. I forgot about the Federal Hate Amendment being added to the Constitution. I forgot about that Flag Burning Amendment too.
Yeah, Bush and his allies in Congress did not get everything they wanted. The four big pieces of legislation that got passed and which leave the impression that Bush and the Republican Congress got what they wanted were 1) the 2001 tax cuts; 2) the No Child Left Behind bill; 3) the Iraq War Resolution; and 4) the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit.
The reason why they got those bills passed was not because the GOP are more skillful legislators who can ram their agenda down the throats of the opposition, but because the opposition (then the Democrats) helped them pass each and every one. Sure, these four bills were not all unanimously backed by the opposition Democrats, but each got, in today’s reality, significant opposition support. Indeed, NCLB passed the Senate 87-10. The 2001 Tax Cuts got 62 votes in the Senate. You can argue that the Democrats of this period worked with the majority Republicans because Democrats have always been the more responsible party in terms of governance, and thus sought to compromise so that legislation could be passed. You can also argue that it is hard to filibuster or vote against tax cuts or war, and that the other two pieces of legislation involved healthcare and education, issues Democrats are very interested in and thus would rather be at the table seeking to shape policy rather than obstructing it.
At the time, a lot of rank and file Democrats and liberal bloggers, including myself, declared such participation in government by the opposition Democrats to be weak and spineless. We chastised our Democratic leaders for working with those evil Bush Republicans with our calls for a loyal opposition opposed to everything that that illegitimate stealer of an election pResident proposed. It is ironic, then, that what we wanted then is what the GOP is doing now. The GOP has decided that their idea of loyal opposition is outright obstruction of everything and anything, including funding our troops in a time of war. The only time you can say the Democrats obstructed anything was during the 2005 Social Security battle. Otherwise, they behaved like a responsible loyal opposition, balancing between being an active participant in government, seeking compromise with the majority where possible, while steadfastly opposing that you find too abhorrent to your principles or too bad for the country. I have kinda digressed here, but the point is the reason why the GOP got some things they wanted passed is because the Democrats didn’t obstruct them.
The GOP is obstructing us now, using every procedural delaying tactic in the books and inventing every lie they can think of, which a willing and compliant conservative corporate media is willing to pass on, and still we are about to pass a universal healthcare bill.
That is a stunning achievement that is unmatched by a President or the Congress since 1965 at least, when Medicare and the Civil Rights Act were passed, and I would argue that such a feat is still the greatest progressive accomplishment since the creation of Social Security in 1933.
Does this bill have everything I want? Of course not. It lacks a robust public option. Even the House version of the bill lacks a robust public option. So for bill killers like anonone and Markos Moulitisas, your cries now are disingenuous since you were not crying when the House passed the bill with a watered down public option. And if you think back to when the House passed HCR with a public option but also with that Stupak Anti-Choice Anti-Woman amendment, we all knew the PO was going to be very difficult if not impossible if not impossible to pass the Senate.
Indeed, our hopes were for the Senate to pass the bill without the PO, so that we could amend it in conference and then pass the PO in reconciliation if need be. That political reality remains unchanged. I think the tactical mistake the netroots and supporters of the PO made was the lobbying push for the PO. We went all out for it to be included in the base Senate bill, especially after Baucus kept it out of his Finance Committee Bill. And we won the small victory when Reid merged the HELP committee’s bill and the Finance Committee’s bill: the PO lived! Even though it wasn’t a real robust public option. The netroots became identified with the PO and vice versa, and thus Lieberman and other conservative Democrats took much glee in opposing and defeating the PO, because they were defeating their tormentors, the netroots. Yes, they are that small minded.
I also believe, in retrospect, Harry Reid made a mistake in giving the netroots that small victory of including the PO in the base bill. In hindsight, he should have cut a deal with Snowe for her support of the base bill with a triggered public option. With her vote secured, he wouldn’t have had to make so many concessions to Nelson and Lieberman, and we’d have a triggered public option going into conference. We may have had to deal with Lieberman’s ego anyway, and may have had to drop the PO as a result, but with Snowe onboard, Lieberman’s vote becomes less crucial. The less important Lieberman is, the less Lieberman feels the need to fuck things up.
So really, after months of lobbying and activism, nothing much really changed from the House vote to now.
So, why was there a left wing blogger revolt? I think President Obama was right recently when he said the Public Option took on more symbolism than it deserved. It did. The Public Option, and its subsequent demise, became the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Democratic and liberal left has had to put up with a lot of disappointments over the last year. No war crimes or torture investigation and punishment of Bush Administration wrongdoing, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and the Wall Street friendly bailouts were tough pills to swallow. Some on the left just decided, out of pure anger than anything else, that enough was enough. And the frustration and anger are understandable. You work for years, decades even, on a host of liberal issues, and work for a candidate that you think best represents those issues and can do the best to move those issues forward, and then that candidate wins, and you expect immediate payoff on your wish list.
The problem is a wish list is not a reality list. The problem is that many liberal activists do not understand politics, and even when you explain it to them, they push you aside as a defender of the status quo.
Given Republican obstruction and their intent to filibuster everything and anything in the Senate, the political reality is President Obama can’t pass anything that doesn’t have the unanimous support of all 58 Democrats (which includes at least five conservative Democrats in Lincoln, Bayh, Pryor, Nelson and Landrieu), one bitter bastard from Connecticut, and one real Socialist from Vermont. This forces him to govern to the center and make all his compromises with conservative Democrats and/or the two Republican women from Maine. This gives veto power to every single Senator, but most importantly to people like Lieberman and Nelson who like to use the veto power to garner attention. And if a liberal Senator uses his veto power, then Obama has to move the whole legislation to the right to garner what votes can be had out of Snowe, Voinovich and Collins.
The left is immensely frustrated with this political reality, so much so that they are ready to use their own nuclear option in eliminating the filibuster. But, really, what can you do? Liberal activists, and especially the netroots, do not help the situation by insulting the centrists, since in our political reality, the centrists hold all the power. But that is what we know. We see right wing anger at politicians intimidate Senators and Representatives of both parties into voting for what the right wing wants. So when the netroots and the blogosphere started, it was the tactic we used. It is not working any more, if it ever worked. And the proof of that is that Lieberman switched positions on the Medicare Buyin compromise (which he had supported one month prior) only because he heard that a progressive Congressman liked it. What replaces insults and bullying and threats? My only idea is denial of fundraising to the recalcitrant and primarying them, but really, aren’t those threats in and of themselves? The real and best answer is an answer not likely to soothe those who are already upset by the speed of progress: over time we must simply elect more of ourselves. More progressives, rather than centrists or moderates.
Which leads me to another political reality: politicians are practical and pragmatic by their very nature, and thus are willing to make centrist compromises. Thus, it is very rare to have a liberal and pure activist get elected, for too much compromise is always involved.
Catch-22.
When you take all of this big picture into consideration, the political realities of the moment, and how far we have come with a health care reform bill given these realities and obstacles, you would have to be absolutefuckinglutely insane to now say you want the bill killed because it lacks a public option. A public option is the next step we will take forward. It is not forgotten. It is not defeated forever. Yet, because of a minor setback, you would throw a whole lotta good overboard. Yeah, screw that. You bill killers (which includes such progressive illuminati like Markos and Howard Dean) need to sober up. Or read this post again.
In the end, you pass the bill, and work to fix it next year and the year after that and so on if need be. If the bill does not pass now, it will not be passed in 2010, an election year. It will not be passed in 2011 due to expected Republican gains in Congress or 2012 as it is another election year. Like I said, screw that. I understand that we all have our roles to play, and Markos and Dean are likely flipping out strategically to preserve progressive gains in the bill that remain. But you pass this bill.