Why Doesn't Obama Just Ram Health Care Reform Through?
Or:
Obama's Bipartisanship "Strategy"
Or:
Disdain for Genuine Bipartisanship on the Left
I keep running across the following:
(a) Folks on the left complaining about the fact that the Dems won't just ram bills through Congress,
and
(b) Folks on the left discussing the inefficacy of Obama's bipartisanship "strategy" or even "shtick."
For chrissake, this is not a difficult puzzle.
Obama does not have a bipartisanship "strategy," let alone a "shtick." He genuinely believes that bipartisanship is important. If you've read much around these parts, you know that, FWIW, I agree.
He apparently recognizes that autocratic action and bullying cause polarization. Winning on one or two bills in that way generates bad will that lasts a long time. And bad will has wide-ranging and far-reaching effects.
Obama genuinely wants to end or at least mitigate the vicious polarization in Washington.
Now, of course, one might reasonably point out that this polarization is not the Dems fault (unless perhaps one goes back to the Bloody Eighth...and I think that matters, actually...) One might say that trying to work with this GOP is not going to work and probably never will.
Perhaps not--but that's a different point. The first point to keep in mind is: Obama genuinely thinks bipartisanship is important. And if I read him right, he'll stick to that view for a long time, trying to make it work.
Will it work? Well, it better. We can really only go two other ways here. Either the Dems become as viciously partisan as the GOP, in which case we are doomed, or Obama pulls both parties toward a recognition that we have to be willing to work together and compromise.
For one thing, we have to break the pattern of the last sixteen years in which the Dems elect moderates and the GOP refuses to recognize them as legitimate presidents, then the GOP elects hard-core conservatives who charge to the right like a bull in a china shop. And that involves coaxing Republicans to calm down. And that's a long-term project that's going to take patience.
Or:
Obama's Bipartisanship "Strategy"
Or:
Disdain for Genuine Bipartisanship on the Left
I keep running across the following:
(a) Folks on the left complaining about the fact that the Dems won't just ram bills through Congress,
and
(b) Folks on the left discussing the inefficacy of Obama's bipartisanship "strategy" or even "shtick."
For chrissake, this is not a difficult puzzle.
Obama does not have a bipartisanship "strategy," let alone a "shtick." He genuinely believes that bipartisanship is important. If you've read much around these parts, you know that, FWIW, I agree.
He apparently recognizes that autocratic action and bullying cause polarization. Winning on one or two bills in that way generates bad will that lasts a long time. And bad will has wide-ranging and far-reaching effects.
Obama genuinely wants to end or at least mitigate the vicious polarization in Washington.
Now, of course, one might reasonably point out that this polarization is not the Dems fault (unless perhaps one goes back to the Bloody Eighth...and I think that matters, actually...) One might say that trying to work with this GOP is not going to work and probably never will.
Perhaps not--but that's a different point. The first point to keep in mind is: Obama genuinely thinks bipartisanship is important. And if I read him right, he'll stick to that view for a long time, trying to make it work.
Will it work? Well, it better. We can really only go two other ways here. Either the Dems become as viciously partisan as the GOP, in which case we are doomed, or Obama pulls both parties toward a recognition that we have to be willing to work together and compromise.
For one thing, we have to break the pattern of the last sixteen years in which the Dems elect moderates and the GOP refuses to recognize them as legitimate presidents, then the GOP elects hard-core conservatives who charge to the right like a bull in a china shop. And that involves coaxing Republicans to calm down. And that's a long-term project that's going to take patience.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:19 AM
15 Comments:
When you have this kind of language coming from the other side, it's hard to imagine there can be any kind of compromise that would satisfy the Republicans:
Democrats are choosing to “go it alone” without the country if they opt to pass healthcare reform on a party-lines basis, one Republican congressman accused Thursday.
“If they go it alone without the Republicans, it also sounds like they want to go it alone without the American people,” Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) told a conservative news radio program in an interview.
We'll see if the majority party shoves it all down our throats, DA. "Consent of the governed" is not synonymous with a parliamentary majority---and thank the Lord for our system of government and not Europe's, see below.
And so to our host's remarks:
And that involves coaxing Republicans to calm down. And that's a long-term project that's going to take patience.
No doubt you've seen those studies that our political leanings have a correlation to our temperaments. That you could give a psych test and then make a semi-reliable guess as to left or right.
I think that's roughly accurate, altho not perfect.
But perhaps it's a philosophical temperament. The progressive insists things could be better, the conservative insists things could be worse.
Both are correct, of course.
Just opening up a door here: "knowledge" of history [human events] or of human nature, etc., etc.
Or Unstoppable Forces vs. Immovable Objects, whatever.
I believe I'm in the zone here, WS---positive change can't happen without passion, but negative change can't be thwarted without it either. That's the way it is.
Our current predicament has brought both to the fore. But it was James Madison who argued [and argued strongly] in Federalist 61 [or 63, whatever] that senates cool the passions of houses of representatives.
Not only do I think cooler heads prevail, but in the end, "the people" are thankful for our system that put such immovable objects---or at least "cooler heads"---into our American system.
I'm [duh] a conservative, which is best defined per Edmund Burke as an opposition not to liberalism, but to radicalism.
I hate radicalism. But I'm a liberal too, fer crissakes, per Burke:
"A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation..."
I'll have to put my trust in our Senate then, I reckon, the most conservative establishment---per Madison---in this here US and A. God save us.
[It was Federalist 63:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=15]
[Oh, and if the Dems become the party of "calming us down," after 8 years of BDS, that would be a welcome thing.]
[8-plus years, starting after his "selection not election", from before his inauguration, and continuing to this very day in 2009. And Cheney is the new Kissinger, the war criminal thing, which should provide a Get-Out-of-Wee-wee card for Democrats for at least a generation.]
[Can Demos/the left calm us down? Demos mebbe, although doubtful. Lefties, positively not. They are already creating a Fifth Column against President Obama. That's why both Canada and Britain have a third party of unsatisfiable leftists (15% or so) who are content to grouse and gripe against whoever is elected to govern.]
"[Oh, and if the Dems become the party of "calming us down," after 8 years of BDS, that would be a welcome thing.]"
BDS LOOOOL
There's no such thing as BDS, Tom. Or at least there wasn't much of it.
Being against someone after he steals an election, lets the 9/11 perps walk, lies us into a strategically disastrous war etc. is a rational response. It's no kind of DS at all.
Hating someone frothily, before they've even taken office (see Clinton, Obama)...that's DS for you.
We'll see if the majority party shoves it all down our throats, DA. "Consent of the governed" is not synonymous with a parliamentary majority---and thank the Lord for our system of government and not Europe's, see below.
"Consent of the governed" is a political theory stating that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is, or ought to be, derived from the people or society over which that power is exercised. This theory of "consent" is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. A key question is whether the unanimous consent of the governed is required; if so, this would imply the right of secession for those who do not want to be governed by a particular collective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed
No, but when a party has a majority in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, there is nothing in our system that makes a vote almost or entirely by that majority invalid, as long as it's a majority of each chamber, whether it's greater than or equal to 51 votes in the Senate, or greater than or equal to 218 in the House of Representatives.
That is our system of government.
Can you name any bills that passed the Congress and were signed into law(or were passed with enough votes to override the Presidential veto) that were 'shoved down the throat of the American people'?
Bipartisanship, if it doesn't meet the infamous definition enunciated by Karl Rove: "bipartisanship is date rape" is an admirable goal, but when the parties are so far apart, bipartisanship isn't possible, and, as various people liked to remind people such as WS and I from January 2001 to 2008, (I leave you out of "various people" because I can't imagine such a straightforward statement coming from you) "elections have consequences".
Can Demos/the left calm us down? Demos mebbe, although doubtful. Lefties, positively not. They are already creating a Fifth Column against President Obama
Gersh, I'm glad you channel Andrew Sullivan and equate principled opposition to a Presidential stand with treason, at least I don't have to worry about you calling WS and I Obamabots.
Proverbs 26:11, KJV:
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
I think you are wrong on this one Winston. The Republicans are willing to take what they can get, when they can get it. And the rest of time they are out of power. Treating with them when they are out of power in no way changes their incentive to play this game--it's the classical prisoner's dilemma, where the logical behavior is for both sides to betray. Where we are now is the republicans are playing "betray always", and the dems aren't even playing tit-for-tat. I don't think the Dems have any choice, unless they genuinely are happy as Norquist's "neutered pets."
-mac
Can you name any bills that passed the Congress and were signed into law (or were passed with enough votes to override the Presidential veto) that were 'shoved down the throat of the American people'?
Surely you're not saying there's never been a bill passed and signed that didn't have the support of 51% of the American people.
But to move on, the Senate has the 60% rule, but Demo leaders are considering bypassing that through "reconciliation."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102280111
Plus the polls are not in favor, so yes, it could happen in this case.
Further, there's a difference between the tyranny of the majority and consensus, the latter being the best governance. The Senate functions as a cooler on the passions of the day. I went into it further per the Federalist papers in a comment that I must have submitted wrong.
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold told a large crowd gathered for a listening session in Iron County last week there would likely be no health care bill before the end of the year - and perhaps not at all.
Good.
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/print.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=10027
Surely you're not saying there's never been a bill passed and signed that didn't have the support of 51% of the American people.
No, I'm sure that even a facile researcher could come up with examples matching your rephrasing of my question, or perhaps I should state that a bill passed and signed that didn't have 51% of the American people doesn't meet your original formulation.
And, don't call me surely.
But to move on, the Senate has the 60% rule, but Demo leaders are considering bypassing that through "reconciliation.
No, the Senate has a tradition of the filibuster, it isn't in the Constitution:
U.S. Filibuster History
Early use
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until the late 1830s. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end debate via majority vote. Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other Senators backed King, and Clay backed down.
Are you assuming I didn't watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington at some point in my life?
Plus the polls are not in favor, so yes, it could happen in this case.
I don't think you have to worry about the "death panels" being passed and signed into law under this Congress and Administration, and I'm glad we can find something to agree on, that's the whole purpose of bipartisanship from a certain point of view.
As for what the electorate wants:
Without Public Option, Enthusiasm for Health Care Reform, Especially Among Democrats, Collapses
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Just 34% of voters nationwide support the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats if the so-called “public option” is removed. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
Who are we to believe, you or that lying Rasmussen poll?
Further, there's a difference between the tyranny of the majority and consensus, the latter being the best governance. The Senate functions as a cooler on the passions of the day. I went into it further per the Federalist papers in a comment that I must have submitted wrong.
I'm reminded of the dictum by Jim Hightower:
There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos.
* There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos (1998)
Of course, I also remind you that political parties, or as they were termed, 'factions' were detested by some of the Founding Fathers.
Furthermore:
As you are not a Republican legislator, I cannot accuse you of hypocrisy in your quest for consensus, as you term it?
Speaking on Fox News last night, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claimed that health care reform should not happen because it doesn’t enjoy “bipartisan” support, adding that a bill cannot be bipartisan unless it garners “somewhere between 75 and 80 votes.” Watch it:
Hatch is hardly the only conservative senator to float a 75-80 vote supermajority requirement for health reform. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who is currently blocking attempts to fix the health care system, told the Washington Post that “[w]e ought to be focusing on getting 80 votes.” Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) demanded “a bill that 75 or 80 senators can support.”
Hatch, Grassley, and Enzi all sang a very different tune when they were in the majority, however:
– Tax Cuts For The Rich: In May 2001, the Senate passed President Bush’s budget-breaking $1.35 trillion tax cuts with only 58 votes. Nevertheless, Hatch announced that he was “extremely proud of this bipartisan bill.” Grassley praised the tax cuts as “built upon bipartisanship,” and Enzi praised the Senate for passing the bill in a “bipartisan fashion.”
– Subsidies For Drug Companies: In November 2003, the Senate passed a prescription drug plan for seniors that was strongly backed by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry with only 54 votes. Nevertheless, Grassley released a statement praising himself as the “lead Senate architect of the bipartisan legislation” creating this plan.
– Nuclear Option: Four years ago, when Senate Democrats filibustered seven of President Bush’s 205 nominees to the federal bench, conservatives deemed the filibuster unconstitutional and invented a tactic known as the “nuclear option” to ram the blocked nominees through the Senate. Hatch and Grassley were on the vanguard of the movement to block any attempt to require judges to be confirmed by a supermajority. Hatch described the filibuster as “unconstitutional,” and Grassley described judicial filibusters as “an abuse of our function under the Constitution.”
Now that conservatives make up only a tiny minority of the Senate, however, they’ve decided that even the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold isn’t a strong enough barrier to block much-needed reform. Instead, Hatch, Grassley, and Enzi now want to impose a 75-80 vote superfilibuster standard that will effectively kill any health care plan they don’t personally approve of.
As for Feingold, I've not heard that he has any special insight to the future, and if you're happy with a system as outlined this entry in the Wikipedia:
Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). The WHO study has been criticized, in an article published in Health Affairs, for its failure to include the satisfaction ratings of the general public.[13] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries. The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of assurance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/without_public_option_enthusiasm_for_health_care_reform_especially_among_democrats_collapses
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/20/superfilibuster/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_health_care
I can only sit in wonder before the implications of your complacency.
@TVD: the senate doesn't have a 60 vote rule. It has the filibuster for cloture. If the republicans want to filibuster, by all means let them.
But that is very different from 60 votes. It's keeping "discussion" open 24-7, even while outnumbered 57-38, more or less.
-mac
Yes, but Jefferson started the first "faction," as you recall.
The Senate does have the 60% rule, and I think we'll find the polls are far short of 51% support for this health care insurance initiative.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/summing_up_the_new_health_care.php
Believe your lying eyes.
If you read the article on Russ Feingold, along with Lindsey Graham, he's already looking at less ambitious initiatives. Although he's far to my left, I consider Feingold an excellent senator.
WS asked in his title, "Why Doesn't Obama Just Ram Health Care Reform Through?" I gave some reasons. They may or may not hold, we'll see. Perhaps they will "ram it through," but if they do, I expect electoral consequences, and well the Dems know it, especially the Blue Dogs.
Mike Enzi, one of three Republicans ostensibly negotiating health care reform as part of the Senate's "Gang of Six," told a Wyoming town hall crowd that he had no plans to compromise with Democrats and was merely trying to extract concessions.
"It's not where I get them to compromise, it's what I get them to leave out," Enzi said Monday, according to the Billings Gazette.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/mike-enzi-gang-of-six-rep_n_269447.html
The first graf is the HuffPo writer's editorializing, the second is what Enzi actually said.
The educated consumer of information knows the difference. If it doesn't have quotes around it, preferably in context, ignore it.
There are many compromises to be made to expand health care for the American people, without instituting a government-run health care insurance scheme.
Some know the difference between those two as well.
TVD, which part of the first paragraph contains editorializing?
The description of the senator as one of the Gang of Six?
I think not.
The accurate description of his refusal to compromise, which they confirm by quoting him in the second paragraph?
The educated consumer of information knows the difference. If it doesn't have quotes around it, preferably in context, ignore it.
But it does have quotes around what he said.
I'm out of here, TVD, if you want to continue to write arrant nonsense on this issue, be my guest.
That's OK, DA. I'm done wiping the floor with you. Until next time. Only 41% of Democrats and 24% of all voters favor "ramming health care reform through." My faith in the American People just had an uptick.
That's OK, DA. I'm done wiping the floor with you
Nah, you didn't even come close, but thanks for demonstrating what a delusional state of mind looks like, as do about 78% of your posts here.
The 22% factor is what I call "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes."
Only 41% of Democrats and 24% of all voters favor "ramming health care reform through."
The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.
Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.
But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.
The poll, of 895 adults, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Mr. Obama and many Democrats have argued that a public plan would be essential, in the president’s words, to “keep insurance companies honest.” But Mr. Obama has also signaled a willingness to compromise for Republican support, perhaps by establishing member-owned insurance cooperatives instead.
It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.
But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.
Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade. Nearly 6 in 10 said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, with 4 in 10 willing to pay as much as $500 more a year.
And a plurality, 48 percent, said they supported a requirement that all Americans have health insurance so long as public subsidies were offered to those who could not afford it. Thirty-eight percent said they were opposed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home