After several weeks of gathering as much information as possible, President Obama is reportedly within a few days of announcing his revised approach regarding the war in Afghanistan. Obama has come under a lot of criticism for his alleged “dithering,” as some political opponents have famously put it. Maybe the president could have come to his decision one month earlier, but personally, I would prefer to have him “dither” for a little too long than to make a decision of this importance without first considering all the relevant information and the perspectives of his chief military and civilian advisors. I do not know what the president’s decision will be, but there are two certainties:
Most observers seem to believe that President Obama will opt to send more American troops to Afghanistan, but probably less than the 40,000 requested by General Stanley McChrystal. Even if this is true, that still leaves open a lot of questions regarding where the military personnel will be specifically deployed, and what will be the focus of their mission.
With my usual disclaimer that I have no personal military experience and have little knowledge of military affairs, I am of the opinion that it is time to scale down the mission. Fighting terrorism is important, and I generally supported President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and bring down the Taliban regime that provided a base to Al Qaeda. I thought that it was most unfortunate that Mr. Bush switched his emphasis in his “war on terror” from Afghanistan to Iraq, because we might have had much more success in Afghanistan without the very expensive sideshow in the Middle East. However, as noted above, there is no turning back the clock, and President Obama has to deal with the situation as it now stands, rather than what we might think it should have been.
Advocates of a troop surge in Afghanistan, with a change in strategy focused on protecting the civilian population, note how well this approach worked in Iraq. If I believed that this would work as well in Afghanistan, I would probably support it. However, I am persuaded that an additional 40,000 troops –or even double that amount – will be nowhere near enough to do the job in Afghanistan. Compared to Afghanistan, Iraq is a very advanced country, with a well educated population and a strong middle class. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is hopelessly corrupt. Given the tribal nature of the Afghan population, Mr. Karzai is effectively not much more than the mayor of Kabul. He does not come even close to being widely recognized as the legitimate leader of his country.
One of my major objections to President Bush’s actions in the name of fighting terrorism was that, even if we assume honorable motives on the part of Mr. Bush, he was fiscally reckless. It seems amazing that, while the supposedly “conservative” George W. Bush was president, both the White House and its allies in Congress completely ignored the idea that wars are expensive and have to be paid for. Again, previous events cannot be reversed, but it has to be recognized now that there are limits to most resources. When it comes to the ability of the federal government to spend additional funds, those limits were unacknowledged several years ago, and as a result are more severe today.
This does not mean that we abandon Afghanistan as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences, but it does mean that we have to factor into the decision the costs involved, and honestly explain how we will pay for it. This was largely ignored throughout the Bush years, but there is no excuse for ignoring it any longer (the same principle applies to health care reform and any other major spending proposals, but the subject for today is Afghanistan).
The way I see it, we cannot afford a counterinsurgency strategy of the type used in Iraq. I do not believe that the 40,000 additional troops requested by General McChrystal would be enough to make an effective difference. Besides that, our military forces have already been overcommitted. My impression is that doing the job “right” in Afghanistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and that is not going to happen. It is far too expensive, and in any case cannot be accomplished without resuming a military draft. I strongly doubt that there is much of an appetite for that among most Americans.
If General McChrystal or anybody else can make a convincing case that a maximum addition of 40,000 additional troops will produce lasting and positive results by the end of one additional year, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, we have to scale down our goals. We should continue to pursue known terrorists, and otherwise try to work with the less odious factions of the Taliban. America and its NATO allies might find it easier to work with local Afghan groups if it is clear that our presence there is diminishing. What about the argument that reducing the mission from the previously loftier goals to a more simple counterterrorism would mean that so many lives of brave Americans (and our allies) will have been “wasted?” Unfortunately, we cannot get those lives back, no matter what we do. What we can do is to stop compounding past mistakes.
The story from Rhode Island about the bishop and the congressman is very interesting. The Roman Catholic bishop in Providence has publicly requested that Rep. Patrick Kennedy not take communion, because Mr. Kennedy's pro-choice position on abortion rights is contrary to church doctrine. Mr. Kennedy, of course, is a son of the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, and a member of possibly the most famous Catholic family in America. Bishop Thomas Tobin has not only made this request to Mr. Kennedy, but he has ordered that all Catholic priests in Rhode Island refuse to offer communion to the supposedly wayward congressman.
I have no personal stake in this story. I am not Catholic, and while I am generally pro-choice regarding the permissibility of abortions, I do not have a problem with the government's authority to impose some restrictions after the early stages of a pregnancy. Besides that, I do not have daughters, so the issue is not likely to affect me personally. I say this not to take up the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but only to note that the outcome of the controversy about the bishop and the congressman does not directly concern me, except as an outside bystander.
It seems to me that in America, clerics of any denomination should be cautious about how they wander into political issues. The messages to their flock should focus on how they can do their best when it comes to their personal conduct. Be the best spouse/child/parent/friend/neighbor/etc. that you can be. Recognize that nobody is perfect, but emphasize that people should do the best that they can. The point is that the sermons and other messages should guide the members of the congregation on their personal behavior, not their political beliefs. If Congressman Kennedy was actually performing abortions, or paying somebody else directly for that purpose, I could understand the bishop's response. Instead, the bishop is taking this action because Congressman Kennedy supports others to have the right to make that decision (whether or not to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy) for themselves.
If the reader will excuse the cheap shot, it is my strong impression that in the numerous reported incidents of Catholic priests sexually molesting young boys, the usual reaction of the bishops was to cover up the crime, and quietly transfer the religiously devout child rapist to another unsuspecting community, hoping that the priest had learned his lesson. The lesson? The lesson appears to be that raping a child is a minor embarrassment, which they can hopefully cover up. Conversely, advocating a purely political position that conflicts with church doctrine is a major offense.
Congressman Kennedy is not about to ask for my advice, but in case he does, my suggestion is that he tell that bishop to get a hobby, but only one that is limited to consenting adults.
The general impression I get from watching news programs these days is that Barack Obama’s popularity is slipping away, and that conversely, Sarah Palin is more popular than the Beatles and Elvis Presley combined at their respective primes. For those of us who admire Mr. Obama and hold little regard for Ms. Palin, it would seem that we are headed for some politically bleak times. This picture may not be completely false, but it is probably much less true than it might seem at the moment.
President Obama’s halo is a bit tarnished, which is inevitable for almost any new president, especially one who entered office accompanied by such high expectations. He has made a few missteps (which will be the subject of a later essay by yours truly) during his first year in office, but nothing he cannot recover from. As long as unemployment remains high – and realistically there is no quick fix for that – President Obama will get the blame. It appears that the economy is already in recovery, and when unemployment goes back down to more tolerable levels, it will likely get Obama’s public approval ratings back to the solidly favorable range. It may not happen soon enough for his party to avoid getting clobbered in the mid term elections next year, but it will happen.
As for Sarah Palin, she is going to make millions of dollars selling her book, but I cannot see her as a credible candidate for President in 2012, or any other year. There is an old cliché about how we underestimate her at our peril. I believe I used that line myself, in reference to Palin, during the campaign last year. Some of Palin’s conservative admirers like to compare her to Ronald Reagan, who also showed great skill with a right wing populist appeal, and was also underestimated by his political opponents. One of my favorite conservative pundits, Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, has a great column comparing Sarah Palin with conservative patron saints Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Here is a link to that column:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1119chapmannov19,0,4222240.column
To me, Sarah Palin more closely resembles Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, and in my opinion, Ms. Palin combines the worst qualities of each of them. Mr. Nixon had what I believe psychiatrists would call a paranoid personality. He was obsessed with the idea that anybody who criticized or disagreed with him was a personal enemy, and therefore, because he was the president, a traitor to the U.S. The fact that Nixon was also very bright, well read, and hard working was not enough to compensate for the serious deficiencies in his character. Mr. Bush was (is) almost the opposite of Mr. Nixon. He is more at ease with himself as a person, but was one of the most intellectually lazy presidents we have ever had. He acted out of a gut feeling of what he thought was right, and (being the “decider” as he famously put it) pursued his policies without much serious analysis. When he did receive advice that did not fit into his preconceived notions, he ignored it, often with tragic consequences. Sarah Palin has managed to combine Nixon’s persecution complex with Bush’s incredible ignorance and lack of curiosity .
Ms. Palin has a devoted following – enough to make her a rich author, and if she wants it, she could probably get a very lucrative job at Fox News. However, while perhaps 20% of the country absolutely loves Sarah Palin, I cannot see her ever making serious inroads on the other 80%.
Liberal pundit E. J. Dionne has an excellent column in today’s Washington Post. Regarding the ongoing health care reform efforts in Congress, there has been a lot of chatter about “perfect” becoming the enemy of the good. This has been a concern of mine for some months. Here is a link to Mr. Dionne’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111122256.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
If any kind of health care reform does get passed into law, the one certainty is that the final product will not be ideal by anybody’s reckoning. I have said in previous blog posts that the biggest obstacles to health care reform are those who insist that the bill contain certain characteristics, such as a “robust public option.” These people – including former Democratic Party leader Howard Dean and interim U.S. Senator Roland Burris (the choice of disgraced former Illinois Governor Blagojevich to fill the unexpired senate term of Barack Obama) – have made clear that they would rather see all reform efforts fail than to have what they believe is half-hearted reform pass. In a way, I have more respect for somebody like Senator Jim DeMint, who at least makes no serious pretense to being anything other than a political enemy of President Obama. If Obama’s presidency fails to achieve its major goals, it will be more due to his supposed allies (such as Dean and Burris) than to his overt opponents (such as DeMint). Reform can pass without any Republican support, but in order for that to happen, the Democrats have to able to unite behind something. As a practical matter, this means accepting the reality that many Democrats representing relatively conservative states and districts cannot support all the provisions favored by their more left-leaning colleagues.
If there is going to be any kind of health care reform bill that clears Congress, it will almost certainly contain some degree of restriction on taxpayer-financed abortions, and it will quite likely not provide for a public option, except perhaps one based on future contingencies. It would still be a major achievement, both in terms of politics and public policy, to get health care reform that extends coverage to all Americans, is fiscally neutral, and controls overall health care costs. This can be done, but not if side shows about the availability of abortions and the public option control the debate.
One of the points made by President Obama in his speech to the joint session of Congress to advocate health care reform was that he would be receptive to good and constructive ideas from any source, including Republicans who oppose nearly everything he does. It was a fine speech, and it succeeded in raising the prospects of enacting some kind of significant health care reform. If he really meant what he said about considering good ideas from the political opposition, he should make that more clear.
Without a doubt, health care reform is a very difficult challenge. As the saying goes, if it was easy, it would have been done long ago. Obama’s allies in Congress (the Democrats) have major differences among themselves, regarding the merits of different aspects of reform. The Republicans are almost 100% united in opposition, both for sincere ideological reasons and for pure political motives. Obama would like to have a bipartisan bill, but (with very few possible exceptions) congressional Republicans will refuse to back any bill, even if it contains several provisions to their liking. By temperament and political background, Obama has always tried to build a consensus, but neither party in Congress is in the mood. What is a president to do?
In apparent opposition to all conventional wisdom, I still believe that the best solution – both for policy and politics – would be a moderate health care reform bill that uses some of the better ideas from both parties. For the reforms to work, they will have to expand access and reduce overall health care costs, regardless of how payment of those costs is distributed. Reforms that focus on one of these issues while ignoring the other will ultimately fail.
With my usual disclaimer about not being an expert on this or any other subject, the best health care reform at this time would have the following characteristics:
1) No legal resident of the U.S. can have his/her coverage denied or revoked due to personal health issues. [The issue regarding illegal residents is trickier. My inclination is to believe that illegal residents should be included, but I would not insist on it as a condition to support an otherwise good bill.]
2) All persons eligible for coverage must be covered. There can be no “opt out” for individuals or families. Tax credits or similar assistance should be available for those who are too poor to afford coverage, but they have to get the coverage. If insurance companies must accept all applicants and all preexisting conditions, then it makes no sense to allow healthy Americans to stay out of the system before the need for insurance becomes obvious.
3) The tax favored treatment for employer-sponsored insurance should be ended, or at least sharply reduced. People who cannot get health insurance through work should not be disadvantaged the way they are now.
4) Individuals and small groups should be able to join large risk pools, in order to remove cost distortions due to underwriting.
5) Sensible tort reform is necessary. This includes caps on non-economic damages and an effective distinction between ordinary and gross negligence. In return for setting limits, the medical profession must do a better job of policing its members. The current practical necessities of defensive medicine and huge malpractice premiums greatly add to overall health care costs, while doing very little for patient well being.
6) End the interstate prohibition on selling medical insurance. Most states need more effective competition among its potential health insurers. Allowing the sale of insurance across state lines would be a big help.
7) Emphasis on prevention, as opposed to treatment and cure, needs to be a component of health care reform. There needs to be financial incentives for people to participate in wellness programs and annual physical exams.
8) For all the talk about “death panels,” the fact is that a large chunk of health care costs take place in the last six months of the patient’s life. I am not about write off somebody for being terminally ill, but there needs to be more honest discussion about the costs associated with extraordinary measures to keep somebody breathing for a few extra months, or weeks, or days. I don’t know what the appropriate answer is, but this is a big element of the national health care bill, and the issue must be faced with more honesty than it has had so far.
9) The public option is not as great an idea as its advocates suggest. This is especially true if there is an “opt out” provision for each individual state. It would likely have the effect of denying coverage for many vulnerable Americans. It will do nothing to contain actual costs, and the notion that it will “save” money by paying doctors at Medicare (or Medicaid) rates makes no sense. Doctors and hospitals can presently treat Medicare as a loss leader item, pushing up the costs to everybody else. They cannot do that if there is no everybody else. The public option either works like Medicare, providing a short term illusion of cost saving, or it works like a private insurance company, with no saving. The “trigger” provision suggested by Olympia Snowe and some other senators, where the public option would be created something like five years in the future if demonstrated to necessary by conditions at that time, might make sense.
Anyway, the status quo cannot continue indefinitely. We need to have some sensible health care reform, but we need to get something that can pass both the House and Senate. Passing a feel good measure that passes only one house of Congress is useless. I believe that a health care reform bill with the characteristics outlined above would be good public policy, and can pass Congress if President Obama makes clear that this is something he supports. It may seem to be too much of half-hearted reform for the liking of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but even a half-hearted reform now leaves open further reforms in the near future, if those are believed to be needed. The reverse is not true. Failure to pass something now will almost guarantee a very long delay in passing any reform. It will also seriously weaken Obama’s presidency. I do not want that to happen.
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear a case involving alleged misconduct by prosecutors in Iowa in a case dating back to 1977. An editorial today in the Washington Post titled The right not to be framed provides useful background on the case. Two black men convicted of murdering a retired white police officer are suing the prosecutors for fabricating evidence to frame the two men, who each spent 25 years in prison for the crime. The convictions were overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court, which concluded that the star witness was a “liar and a perjurer.” One of the two defendants was cleared. The other one initially sought a new trial, but eventually agreed to a conviction, with the sentence limited to time served.
It appears that the prosecutors are not seriously disputing the allegations of their own misconduct, because they are emphasizing not their innocence, but rather that “there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed.” According to the allegations, the prosecutors knowingly coaxed supposed witnesses to fabricate testimony against the suspects. The justification for claiming immunity to lawsuits based on malicious prosecutorial misconduct is based on the idea that if you let this suit go forward, then you would have to allow it for every acquitted defendant and every defendant whose case was subject to minor mistakes by the prosecution. That is ridiculous, and the U.S. Supreme Court should say so.
Prosecutors are an important part of protecting the public from the bad guys, and they should be immune from lawsuits based on innocent errors and “gray area” incidents of possible wrongdoing. Sometimes, the wrongdoing is apparently clear in hindsight, but seemed reasonable at the time it happened. Personally, I am not sympathetic to lawsuits based on alleged misdeeds of this kind. For a lawsuit based on prosecutorial misconduct to have legal standing, the alleged misconduct must far exceed the usual kinds of activity that might be of dubious legality. For the lawsuit to be successful, there should be a high burden of proof by the plaintiff. However, it is outrageous to suggest that such a lawsuit should never have legal standing, no matter how badly the public official abused his authority.
Readers of my past OFA postings might recall that I was opposed to bringing criminal charges against President Bush and/or Vice-President Cheney, as some of my fellow bloggers were inclined to do. As deplorable as some of their (Bush and Cheney) actions were, they can at least make the credible argument that they acted with the motive of protecting the American people from terrorists. I believe that some of their methods were illegal, and they deserve a very harsh judgment by future historians, but I have never thought that criminal charges against them would be appropriate. I mention this now, in order to make clear that I am not a big advocate for legal punishment of government officials for abusing their office. This appears to be one case where it is appropriate.
Here is a link to the Post editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110101950.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Some weeks ago, The Washington Post announced an op-ed writing contest, where non-professional writers were invited to submit an essay of 400 words or less. The essays would be judged by the clarity of writing, and content with an interesting message, but not on whether or not the editors agreed with the content. There were thousands of submissions, including one from yours truly. Out of these thousands, only ten of these amateur writers would advance to the second round, and the process would gradually whittle down to a single winner, who would get the honor of contributing a regular column for something like ten weeks. The winner would receive a fairly modest fee for his/her columns, but the main prize would be the prestige, not the money.
My essay was not one of the ten that made it to the second round, and of course, I was well aware that my odds were very remote. Anyway, now that I am officially out of the running, I would like to share my essay with my fellow OFA bloggers:
With multiple international crises and a serious economic recession to address, along with an ongoing effort to accomplish major reforms in healthcare, other issues have understandably been set aside for now. It can wait awhile, but I hope that some time before the end of Barack Obama’s presidency, there will be a serious examination of the various laws enacted, and enforcement methods used, in the name of “getting tough on crime.” We have the infamous war on drugs, which generally criminalizes the casual possession and use of various drugs, some of which are relatively harmless. We have the “three strikes” laws in many states, which in some circumstances impose long prison terms for minor offenses. Capital punishment is as popular as ever. Politicians frequently try to outdo each other in the contest to appear tougher on crime, because that perception is always a big advantage in elections. Conversely, an American politician who dares to suggest that these measures are ineffective in combating crime have as much chance of getting elected as would a candidate for the Iranian parliament who publicly doubts the existence of God.
I have no problem with being tough on crime, but I believe that many of the actions done with that supposed objective are ineffective at best, and in some cases counterproductive. Smarter and wiser people than yours truly may disagree, but let’s at least challenge some of the cherished assumptions.
Problems with the war on drugs include wasted resources (police, courts, jail), drug classifications which defy common sense (tobacco cigarettes are legal, marijuana is not), enrichment of organized crime (because lawful merchants cannot supply the people with what they apparently want), and the lost opportunity for excise tax revenue.
The three strikes laws remove the ability of a trial judge to use common sense in sentencing a convicted defendant. By imposing a mandatory twenty year sentence (for example) when a much shorter sentence is appropriate under the circumstances, the prisons become overcrowded with inmates who should not be there.
The usual justifications for capital punishment are false. They do not generally deter crime or save the taxpayers money, nor can we be sure that an innocent person is never executed. Execution undeniably does serve one purpose, which is to satisfy our collective thirst for revenge for an especially gruesome crime.
Let’s have some open an honest debate on these issues.
Now, back to the present day (11/2/09). I wrote the above words about a month ago. The Post editors had to sift through thousands of submitted essays – most of them undoubtedly well written – and it cannot have been easy to select the ten best. For the second round, they asked the would-be pundits to write a 750 word essay, on a different subject matter from the one they used in the first round. Two examples are provided in today’s on-line edition of the post:
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/mara.gay/2009/11/mom_in_chief.html
http://views.washingtonpost.com/pundits/contestants/darryl.jackson/2009/11/sarah_palins_second_act.html
The OFA blog today contains a post from somebody, apparently with the moniker “Worship,” with an interesting message:
While I respect the sincerity of people whose admiration for President Obama seems to extend to the level of elevating the president into a deity, I cannot share the attitude. I want to be clear about my own attitude. I do admire Barack Obama as a person. He is the first presidential candidate to get any direct financial support from me. His campaign was also the first, since I was an idealistic high school student forty years ago, where I volunteered my time. I shared in the excitement of his 2008 election victory. This was not merely a victorious candidate who got my vote, but also (for the first time in my life) my enthusiastic support.
To be realistic, however, it is far too early to be sure that Obama will be a great president, let alone the greatest world leader the world has ever seen. For one thing, a great man (or woman) who happens to be the president is very different from being a great president. The qualities are not the same.
President Obama has, in my opinion, qualities that potentially can make him a great president. He is highly intelligent, a well read student of history, and trained to understand and appreciate competing viewpoints regarding a particular issue or problem. He is secure enough about himself that he does not take political attacks personally. He understands, maybe to a greater degree than nearly any of his predecessors (on a level with the senior President Bush), the role of diplomacy in international relations. While not historically a good predictor of presidential performance, Barack Obama is also (by all available evidence) an excellent family man who lives by an admirable personal moral code. Maybe that is not very important, but if nothing else, the absence of any scandal in his life at least precludes his being a target of personal blackmail. It also could give him some additional credibility when he is trying to push some moral cause.
Great presidents have to be excellent politicians. This means sometimes compromising with ideals in order to achieve something important. It sometimes involves choosing the least bad of several unappealing alternatives (the war in Afghanistan comes to mind). It involves making mistakes. Most historians have judged (correctly, in my view) Franklin Roosevelt as one of our greatest presidents. Despite that, however, there is absolutely no justification for FDR rounding up large numbers of Japanese-Americans and putting them in concentration camps. That is just one example. Jimmy Carter had, and still has, many of the same admirable personal qualities as we see in Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Mr. Carter was not a successful president.
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has an excellent op-ed in today’s (10/21/09) Washington Post. Ms. Parker is generally conservative, but not right wing, and this column concerns the Obama administration’s decision that the federal government will not interfere with states which permit the use of medical marijuana. I think it is an excellent column, because it articulates the case I have been trying to make in some previous blog postings, but in this case with the skill of a professional writer. She praises the administration for making the first step toward sensible drug policy, but she also advocates going further.
The usual arguments in favor of legalizing (or at minimum, decriminalizing) weed note that it is less harmful and addictive than some other currently legal products, that its illegal status means a huge waste of police/court/jail resources, and various other ways that the “war on drugs” is counterproductive, at least regarding marijuana.
In addition to these things, although the foolishness of the “war on drugs” has a long bipartisan history, self-described conservatives should oppose the long standing U.S. policy on ideological grounds. It is a case of government interference with an individual’s choice regarding a recreational activity. Besides that, it is (or at least was, when the supposedly conservative George W. Bush was president) a case of the federal government overruling the states on matters of social policy. True conservatives should be appalled by such arrogance of big government.
Anyway, here is a link to Kathleen Parker’s column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/20/AR2009102003084.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009102003110
I have zero respect for Fox News, and in my own opinion, that organization deserves nothing but contempt. Then again, I can say that, because I am nobody of significance. For President Obama’s top White House aides to say it is quite different. Contrary to the assertions of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, Fox is a news organization. It may be highly slanted and lacking in integrity, but it is still a news organization. It contains legitimate journalists, in addition to the ranting pundits. In my opinion, it is a big mistake for the Obama White House to openly carry on a campaign against Fox News. In doing so, he lowers himself to their level. Maybe I don’t personally think so, but that is the way it looks to a lot of people.
One of the qualities I most admire about Barack Obama is his ability to stay above most of the petty verbal trashing. There can be no serious doubt that at least some of the anti-Obama rhetoric is based on racist motives. By “some,” I do not suggest that most is based on racial fear or anger. A lot of opposition to Obama’s policies is based on pure political differences, and would be no different than if the same policies were being articulated by a white president. On the other hand, I doubt that the ridiculous “birthers” would have gotten much attention if Obama’s ethnic background was similar to mine. Anyway, despite the likelihood that some of the unfair attacks on Obama are based on racism, Obama has never made that accusation against any of his political rivals, nor has he said or implied that the opposition from ordinary voters is based on racism. This is very much to Obama’s credit. Of course, racism still exists, but President Obama is right to never use racism as an excuse for political difficulties or defeats.
So why does he declare war on Fox News? It just makes Obama – or his White House staff, which amounts to the same thing – look as petty as Nixon and Agnew did when they basically accused much of the press of being unpatriotic. Obama should not bring himself down to Nixon’s level. During the campaign, Obama did an outstanding job of remaining good-natured and calmly shaking off the taunts of his political opponents. As a result, he was the one who looked like a statesman, while the others looked like low-class political hacks. President Obama should remember how Senator and presidential candidate Obama handled political attacks.
Here is a link to an essay by somebody who apparently does not agree with me. The writer says the White House is acting appropriately in “fact checking” the various lies by Fox News. That statement may be true, when it comes to false statements of apparent fact, but that does not extend to general disparaging characterizations about Fox News. That goes far beyond fact checking.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910090010
I have not seen anybody discuss the issue so far, so maybe the answer is so obvious that it is not worth the brief time to address this question: Is it really necessary for a healthcare reform bill to get the support of 60 senators? I understand the business about filibusters and cloture votes, but the press has implicitly assumed that, without exception, every senator who does not support the Senate legislation will automatically support a filibuster against the bill. Maybe this is true, but have our Senate leaders (along with former Senators Obama and Biden) even considered the possibility that one or a few senators might behave differently from what is assumed?
One famous TV newsman, who should know better, brought up the issue again yesterday about Barack Obama's "present" votes while in the Illinois State Senate. The implication was that Obama was too much of a weasel to vote for or against a proposed bill, so he voted "present" in a cynical attempt to avoid committing himself. The context of yesterday's reference was in relation to Obama's taking some time to consider his alternative courses of action if Afghanistan. In the Illinois state legislature, "present" has a specific meaning, of which most of Obama's critics are either ignorant or else willfully distorting the picture. In effect, "present" means the same thing as "nay" (or "no"), but is basically a signal that the legislator supports the intentions of the bill, but that the bill as written is too flawed to support. I bring this up now, only to illustrate that what may seem obvious is not necessarily so.
Back to the subject of getting healthcare reform through Congress, it appears that the House will pass some kind of a bill, the Senate will pass a very different kind of a bill, and hopefully a conference committee will work out some unified bill that the president can sign. This process is clearly difficult, and it is not yet certain that anything will eventually pass both houses of Congress. It would be a difficult task in any circumstances, but it is made much more difficult by the fact that a determined group of 41 senators can block any legislation. Even getting unity among the Democrats in the Senate seems impossible. Some of the progressives have indicated that they will absolutely refuse to support a bill that does not contain certain provisions, while some moderates in the same party apparently will refuse to support a bill that does contain those same provisions.
Is it at least possible that a small number of senators could be persuaded, even if the bill that emerges is personally disappointing to them, to invoke cloture? In other words, they might not vote in favor of the legislation itself, but they would agree to kill a filibuster that would prevent the Senate from voting the bill up or down. President Obama's popularity may not be as high as it was when he first took office (those poll ratings were never going to be sustainable), but he is still by far the most popular and admired politician in the country. There have got to be some senators who owe him, at minimum, the opportunity for a Senate bill to come to a floor vote. In addition, some "blue state" Republicans, most notably Olympia Snowe, might find it to their own political advantage to kill a filibuster, even if they do not support the bill. The Senate bill may not really need 60 votes.
I have previously written about my own preferences about what healthcare reform bill I would like to see enacted into law, but I will not rehash the arguments here, because that would confuse the more basic issue. Politically, Obama needs some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass, and I would rather see a disappointing healthcare reform bill pass than to have no healthcare reform pass. While the task is difficult, I believe it is at least possible that support by a slightly under 60 senators could be enough.
In a famous Sherlock Holmes story, one of the important clues was a dog that did not bark. In evaluating the early stage of the Barack Obama presidency, one of the significant achievements may be the depression that did not happen. Sure, unemployment is 9.8%, the highest rate since Ronald Reagan's first term, and the U.S. economy at this time is hardly the backdrop for bragging rights. What we will never know for certain is what would have happened in the absence of some of the controversial measures taken by Barack Obama during the first year of his presidency. The U.S. has experienced a nasty recession, but it could have been a great deal worse. It looks like the recession may be technically over, in the sense that the economy could show positive growth in the quarter that ended Sept. 30, 2009. The numbers are not in yet, but it looks likely that the recession is over, or about to be over. High unemployment will continue to be a fact for some time to come, and for those who are unemployed, it has to feel more like a depression than a mere recession that may be technically over.
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney tells anybody who will listen at Fox News that the previous administration kept America safe for 7+ years after the "9/11" terrorist attacks in 2001. Given the rest of the legacy of that administration, there is little to brag about. The most significant achievements of the Bush "43" record are the tax cuts and the Iraq War. Both were presented to the American public on a foundation of lies, although I really do not want to rehash the arguments here. My point is that the main positive legacy that Bush "43" officials emphasize is the disaster that did not happen: a major terrorist attack in the U.S. after 2001. I have always thought that this was an overblown claim, and that their careless disregard for constitutional rights was not a necessary component for keeping America safe. Still, for the sake of the moment, let's concede the argument that Bush-Cheney kept us all safe from the terrorists after you-know-what. It is obvious that Bush administration officials, who want to portray their record in as positive terms as possible, are counting on the absence of later terrorist attacks in the U.S. as an important positive element of their legacy. Their biggest credit, in other words, is not for something that actually happened, but for something that did not happen.
In a similar line of thinking, I believe that a major achievement of the first year of the Obama presidency is a disaster that did not happen: an economic depression reminiscent of the 1930's. There has definitely been a serious recession, and unemployment will remain uncomfortably high for many months after the resumption of positive economic growth. The recession was brought on by the collective actions of governments, companies, and individuals over a long period of time. President Obama inherited a bad recession, and irresponsible stewardship from the federal government during both Republican and Democratic administrations contributed to the problem. A long period of very low interest rates discouraged saving and encouraged increased debt. In effect, presidents and congresses continued to put off the needed changes, because it was easier to put off the day of reckoning and let their successors get the blame than to assume the responsibility themselves. It does no good for Obama to blame his predecessor(s) for the conditions confronting him. He knew what he was getting into, and he wanted to be president anyway. The U.S. economy is badly in need of certain adjustments, and there is no way to make those adjustments painless.
The U.S. economy may be starting to recover, but it will not feel very satisfying for quite some time. This would be the case, no matter who was president. Where I believe that Obama deserves some major credit is that the recession did not turn into a 1930's-style depression. It could have happened. The stimulus bill, which I thought was basically a good idea but not well executed, is criticized for being ineffective. It may have been ineffective in bringing down unemployment, but its main effect - and I don't know if Obama will ever get credit for this - is that it prevented a far worse economic downturn than what actually happened.
Economics columnist Robert Samuelson, who is hardly an apologist for Barack Obama, has an interesting column on the subject. Most of us, including yours truly, are not old enough to remember the 1930's, so we may sometimes be naive in characterizing a modern recession as being similar to the depression. This is not at all the case. Here is a link to Samuelson's column in today's (10/5/09) Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/?nid=top_opinions
Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst ("You lie!") during President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress this week was extremely inappropriate by any standard, and in my opinion, such conduct should be reprimanded in some manner. Even if the president was George W. Bush, and the congressman was somebody who I normally liked, there is no excuse for that kind of extreme rudeness on the part of our high government officials. The president is both head of government and head of state (kind of like the combination of temporary monarch plus prime minister). To some extent, I believe in the idea of respecting the office, even if not the office holder. I am not trying to legislate my idea of good taste. People who know me personally know that legislating "good taste" is just about the last thing in the world I would want to do. Hate mongers such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have the legal right to carry on with their rants about Obama supposedly being a racist, or drawing idiotic comparisons to Hitler. Limbaugh and Beck have counterparts on the left who engage in similar over-the-top verbal attacks against so-called conservative leaders. In spite of the LEGAL rights of these people, which I have no intention of curtailing, I do think that it is reasonable to expect some degree of decorum by our elected officials. Joe Wilson clearly violated that principle. He can think whatever he wants, and if he privately trashes the president while talking with friends/family/congressional staff, I do not think that is a big deal. Within the halls of Congress, I expect better behavior by our esteemed representatives. Actually, I kind of wondered if Mr. Wilson was tempted to throw his shoes at the president. Maybe he was too far away to get a good shot, or maybe he did not want to lose a perfectly good pair of shoes. Mr. Wilson did apologize privately to Mr. Obama, and the president graciously accepted the apology. Then again, it also appears that Mr. Wilson's apology was very half-hearted, and he has indicated that he meant what he said. I think he also owes an apology to Congress, because his outburst is (or should be) an embarrassment to Congress as a whole.
The irony in all this is that Mr. Wilson's chosen moment to accuse the president of lying was in a context where the president was certainly not lying. This was over the question of whether or not the federal government would be forced to include illegal immigrants in its "universal" coverage. Some of the scare mongers make this claim, but it is not true, according to any of the pending bills in Congress, and President Obama made this clear. "You lie" was the shouted out response by Joe Wilson. Besides being in such poor taste, Mr. Wilson is also objectively wrong. I could even say that Wilson is the one who is lying.
One claim made by President Obama that I do find hard to believe is that passage of his proposals will not add to the government's deficit. While I would certainly not suggest that he is lying, I think it is fair to suggest that he is quite possibly being overly optimistic. The truth is that we cannot know with certainty what the effect on future government finances will be as a result of Obama's proposed health care reforms becoming law. I hope that he is right, that we can achieve all these desirable health care goals in a budget-neutral way. I believe that this is not very likely, and I know that nobody in the White House can say with perfect knowledge that this will not add to future deficits.
To take an example from recent history, recall that President George W. Bush assured us all back in 2001 that the budget surplus that he inherited was so structurally solid that his major tax cut legislation would, at most, merely reduce future suplusses by half. Mr. Bush and his top economic advisors were absolutely certain of this, and to emphasize the point further, he said that all this even provided for an economic downturn plus some other as-yet-unknown crisis (today is September 11; I am trying to think of what kind of unknown crisis they might have contemplated in the early summer of 2001). We all know how that turned out, don't we? The point is not that Mr. Bush was lying in his belief that the government would continue to be in fiscal surplus for years to come, but rather that he had no legitimate basis for his tone of apparent certainty. Maybe Obama has better economists than his predecessor did, and maybe their analysis is carried out with greater objectivity. Maybe, but not to the point where I am likely to believe any statements of apparent certainty about the long term future of government finances.
Despite the unfounded hysteria (regarding alleged death panels, illegal immigrants, required abortion services, etc.) about the health care reform proposals, there are legitimate concerns regarding how the program will be paid for. I want to see President Obama meet the issue more forthrightly than I believe he has up to now. For many reasons, I am rooting for health care reform to succeed, but I do not personally believe the program is likely to be neutral on the budget. Hey, I like President Obama. I strongly supported him in his campaign, and I generally give him favorable marks on his performance during his first several months as president. If a supporter such as yours truly does not believe his proposals will not add to the deficit, what must the opponents be thinking? On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, very few of those in Congress who now emphasize the fiscal concerns with health care reform in 2009 expressed any skepticism in 2001 when they were told by Mr. Bush that his tax cuts would not lead to budget deficits. Call them partisan hypocrites if you want to, but the issue is still a matter of legitimate concern.
You may want to sit down to read this one ....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html
I do not know what President Obama is going to say in his address to the joint session of Congress tomorrow, but I am convinced that the success of his entire presidency is likely to depend on his ability to achieve some kind of health care reform by the end of this year. It is not critical that he get something passed that is as far reaching as he has sometimes suggested that he wants, but he badly needs something that can credibly be called health care reform... at least a good start in that direction. I am beginning to wonder if President Obama, who ran such a brilliant campaign for the presidency just last year and who possesses such extraordinary public speaking skills, has already become so isolated in the White House that he is losing his political touch just a matter of months into his presidency. I really hope that I am wrong in my suspicions. I cannot think of another public figure in America that I admire as much as Barack Obama, but he has not handled the health care reform issue very well. He avoided the Clintons' 1993-94 mistake of trying to dictate a detailed plan to Congress, but he went too far in the other direction by having Congress work out all the details. Now, it appears that we have multiple plans with irreconcilable conflicts, and the very real possibility exists that there will be no health care reform at all. I do not mean to dwell on mistakes already made, beyond noting that Obama should learn from the experience, and hopefully do a better job with his next major initiative requiring congressional approval.
What I want the Obama White House to do is to face certain facts. First, Obama has effectively staked the prestige of his presidency on accomplishing health care reform during his first year as president. Second, any mistakes (or political miscalculations) already done cannot be undone. The political situation is less favorable than it was a couple of months ago, but there is no turning the calendar back. Third, major reforms are often done in stages. Think of the landmark civil rights bills of the 1960's. There were several bills, passed over a period of a few years, enacted to give all Americans certain rights that for many had previously existed in theory but not in practical effect. Fourth, passage of some health care reform bill now, even if more limited than many of its boosters would like, would make possible additional reforms later. Fifth, in contrast to the immediately preceding point, failure to pass any health care reform this year will almost certainly make any reform impossible for many years to come.
I do not believe that any of these points can be seriously disputed. In case any explanation of the last two statements is necessary, look back to the early years of Bill Clinton's presidency. A huge health care reform bill was crafted in the White House, and was presented to Congress with the message, in effect, "Take it or leave it." We know how that turned out. The proposal was rejected, and the 1994 mid-term elections swept the Republicans into control of both the House and Senate, and no health care reform of any kind was even possible for the next fifteen years. If no health care reform passes this year, I think it is very likely that we will see similar political developments. Whether Obama serves four or eight years as president, he would be badly weakened by the failure to pass health care reform during his first year. On the other hand, passage of a health care reform bill, even a bill that omits some of the provisions that many advocates would like to see, will strengthen Obama's political standing, and will keep open at least the possibility that further reforms could be passed later.
The people who argue, as Howard Dean keeps telling us, that "health care reform without a public option is no reform at all" have it all wrong. In my opinion, the members of Congress who hold that attitude are the real enemies of health care reform. This is presumably not their intention, but it is their effect. We have already seen what happens with insisting on "all or nothing." They get nothing. Actually, it is worse than nothing, because the cause of reform is set back for many years, due to adverse political developments that follow this kind of political defeat. President Obama has some very smart political advisors (Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, etc.) who should understand these things, and I hope they are counseling the president appropriately.
What kind of health care reform should still be achievable this year? Drop the public option. Whether it is a good idea or not, it will not pass this year, and its continued presence in the debate makes any kind of reform nearly impossible. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. We are trying to encourage competition, but the current prohibition is a major impediment to competition. Allow all Americans to join large risk pools. This should have the effect of removing most, if not all, individual underwriting issues. Prohibit all companies selling health insurance from discriminating against any members or prospective members due to their personal health issues. Health insurance in America can remain mostly under private enterprise, but only on the condition that nobody's coverage can be denied or revoked due to personal circumstances.
Health insurance reform that has these characteristics, even though it does not contain the public option, would be a substantial achievement, blowhards like Howard Dean notwithstanding. There are other aspects of health care reform I would like to see, but they are less critical for immediate purposes. I would add them if doing so would help pass the bill. If not, I hope they can be put into place in the near future. In the long run, health care reform will only succeed if it has the effect of reducing overall health care costs. Enact some meaningful tort reform. Among other things, this should help attract Republican support to the cause. That would be good politically, but I also favor the measure on its own merits. Excessive malpractice insurance and defensive medicine add significantly to health care costs, without any incremental benefit to patient care. Make it easier to get rid of bad doctors. There are three major hospitals within five miles of where I live. I know of one sadistic and/or incompetent doctor who was booted out of one of the three hospitals. He transferred to a second hospital, then was booted out of that one, too. Now, he is practicing on unsuspecting patients at the third hospital in our area. I really do not know if this kind of situation is subject to a legislative cure, but something has to be done to prevent bad doctors from simply moving to a neighboring hospital with a clean slate. End the tax difference between health insurance from an employer versus individually purchased insurance. A tax credit to individuals should replace the current system where most employer provided health insurance is tax deductible for the employer but not taxable as a benefit to the employee. For people whose incomes are too high for Medicaid, but too low to afford private health insurance, provide tax credits or subsidies. It is bound to be difficult trying to determine the details that make the best sense, but as a general principle, some Americans will need some kind of subsidy.
Anyway, all this has been my effort to make the case that health care reform can still succeed, but at least for the short term, the public option has to be dropped. I hope that President Obama will make a good case to Congress tomorrow, keeping in mind the political realities he faces. In the Sept. 8 Washington Post, Matt Miller has a good essay on the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702070.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR
AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE REFORM
http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com
Phone/Fax (712) 239-0992
Direct Questions to:
americansunitedhcr@cableone.net
Press Release
9 A.M. CDT, August 31, 2009
AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE & INSURANCE REFORM RALLY & March in Washington, D.C. Sept. 13, 2009
Sioux City, August 31, 2009: A rally/march will be held in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 13, 2009 between 12N – 5pm in support of the administrations health care and health insurance reform goals. It is the goal of Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform to let congress know that all Americans need health care and insurance. Over 47 million Americans are uninsured and millions more are underinsured or at risk of losing their health insurance
The rally/march will begin at the Lincoln Memorial and march to the steps of the Capitol Building via the National Mall. This rally/march will be peaceful.
Robert Reich has given his support to this rally and march, “….I just want Congress to know how many Americans want universal health care and will settle for no less than complete coverage and no less than a public insurance option, to keep private insurers honest. So I’m happy to lend my support to whatever you are doing.”
Americans have enjoyed the freedom of movement, speech and employment. It is time that American citizens have the freedom that comes from knowing they have affordable health care for themselves and their families. Health care is not just for the privileged but it is a fundamental right.
Other groups marching on September 13, 2009 for health care reform are Congressman Fattah’s “March for Healthcare”, “Medicare for All”, and “March on Washington for Health Care.”
We invite all those who wish to participate visit our web blog at http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com and register to rally.
For more information please see our web blog (address above)Please direct all questions to our committee at americansunitedhcr@cableone.net.
Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform is not affiliated with Organizing for America or the Democratic National Committee or affiliated with any other groups, special interests or lobbying forums.
It is not easy to take the side of the Bad Guys, but on the subject of possible prosecutions for alleged Bush-era torture of captives by CIA operatives, I might be playing for what I would normally consider the wrong team. Attorney General Eric Holder has apparently seen some new information that leads him to believe that prosecutions in some cases might be warranted. Of course, I do not know what his new information is, but I would strongly advise against prosecuting the interrogators themselves, unless there is strong evidence that they went far beyond even the guidelines of the Bush Administration Justice Department. The Bush Administration, as we know, did everything they could to restrict the definition of "torture" as only applying to the most extreme forms of torture, and then basically said that anything short of that was acceptable as "enhanced interrogation techniques." If CIA or military personnel clearly engaged in what even the Bush Justice Department agreed was torture, then I can see a case for prosecution. More likely, the interrogators followed the guidelines they were given, but the guidelines themselves were later (and correctly) revised to prohibit certain actions that had been deemed acceptable under President Bush. Where that is the case, it would be wrong to prosecute the interrogators. Legally, they should only be judged based on the standards in place at the time of their actions.
This was a topic of hot debate a few months ago, and I thought the issue had faded away. Now, it is back, which cannot be welcome news for President Obama. I wrote a blog post back on April 29 on this subject, and so far, I stand by my earlier essay. In case anybody is interested, here is the link:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/georgemartin/gGxpby
One of Barack Obama's heroes in history, Abraham Lincoln, made clear during the Civil War that preserving the Union was his top priority. As for freeing the slaves, Lincoln said that whichever alternative best served preserving the Union (in effect, winning the war) would guide his decision, even though he personally would prefer to abolish slavery. If his main goal of winning the war would be best served by freeing all the slaves, he would do it. On the other hand, if his main goal was best served by freeing none of the slaves, or freeing some and not others, he would act accordingly. In modern terminology, Abraham Lincoln was a practical politician who recognized that achieving his top priorities might sometimes have to come at the expense (whether temporary or otherwise) of his secondary considerations. I raise this issue not to debate the merits of Abraham Lincoln and his priorities, but because his dilemma from the 1860's has been faced by most of his successors, albeit usually in less dramatic circumstances.
Fast forward to 2009, and President Obama needs to focus on his top priority, and what is needed to achieve it. It is apparent that, aside from averting the potential for the recession to become a depression reminiscent of the 1930's, healthcare reform is Obama's top domestic priority. If the general economy was in better health, Obama would probably have a much easier task in accomplishing significant healthcare reform. Unfortunately, we have this recession, and even if it is technically over now (with positive economic growth for the current quarter, and it is not yet clear if this is the case), unemployment will remain high for awhile, and it will be at least several more months before the American people in general will feel good about the general economy. In these circumstances, it is a major uphill battle for any major reforms.
While any reasonable person would have to admit that the success or failure of healthcare reform in 2009 does not have quite the same ramifications as the outcome of the Civil War, President Obama has staked his reputation on accomplishing some meaningful healthcare reform. In my own opinion, it would be better politically for Obama if he is able to achieve healthcare reform with legislation that has bipartisan support. Subsequent efforts to accomplish other goals, such as a good immigration reform bill, will be easier to attain if at least some Republicans participate in the process. On the other hand, if the Republicans are determined to oppose anything and everything supported by Obama, and the signals on this matter are mixed, courting Republican support becomes a waste of time. Democrats have comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate, and if the Democrats can unite behind one healthcare proposal or another, in theory it should not matter what the Republicans do.
The problem is that the Democrats are not even close to being united. The moderates and progressives seem to be insisting on mutually exclusive conditions (I intend no value judgments on the labels "moderate" and "progressive" and I assume equal moral standing to the motives of each group), and it seems highly questionable as to whether or not they can reach a consensus.
I suggest that the fate of Obama's presidency is very much at stake. He needs to achieve healthcare reform, and as a practical matter, he needs to achieve it before the end of this year. Obama is still the most popular political leader in the country, and is far more popular than any congressional Democrat. Obama has indicated a preference for a bipartisan bill, but it is not clear that this is possible. While attracting at least some Republican support is desirable, it is not absolutely necessary. It is essential that the moderate and progressive Democrats reach an agreement that both subgroups can agree on. Obama has got to meet with representatives of each faction and pressure them to reach an agreement. The essential points are as follows:
1. Obama is by far the most popular Democrat in the country.
2. Obama's political strength, or weakness, in 2010 will determine the outcome of many congressional elections next year.
3. The success or failure of healthcare reform in 2009 will be a big factor affecting Obama's (and congressional Democrats') political standing in 2010.
4. Democrats' control of both the House and Senate means that if healthcare reform fails to pass, it will be only due to the inability for Democrats to agree on a bill to pass. Blaming the Republicans for the failure will not come across as believable.
5. The main goals of healthcare reform are health insurance coverage for all Americans, which cannot be denied or revoked due to personal health issues or the change or loss of a job, plus containment of healthcare costs.
In case he reads these pages, my advice for President Obama is to become more directly engaged with congressional leaders than he appears to have done up to this time. He may have to sit down, for example, with Senator Conrad and Speaker Pelosi together and tell them: "I need some kind of healthcare reform bill to pass. My personal preference is closer to what the House is working on, but I need something that will pass both the House and Senate. This will necessarily require compromise from both the moderates and the progressives. If you fail to deliver this, you will wreck my presidency, and if that happens, you and all of your fellow Democrats in Congress stand a good chance of losing your power and influence after the 2010 elections. You could also have the effect of shifting control of Congress to people whose agendas are far different from all of ours. You have the power to prevent this from happening, but if you insist on sticking to provisions that will be impossible to get through, the best opportunity for healthcare reform in 15 years will be wasted. Our party will get clobbered in next year's elections, and it will be richly deserved. I am not trying to dictate the details, but you have got to get this done! I was elected president last year by a sizeable margin, and with long coattails. You and your fellow Democrats in Congress owe me this."
Again, this is a little bit like Lincoln and the slavery question. Lincoln's attitude about race was not very enlightened by modern standards, and his emancipation proclamation in 1863 came after he had already been president for over two years. Even then, it did not apply to the slaves in the border states that were not part of the confederacy. Still, his actions set in motion the ending of slavery by constitutional amendment just a few years later. Obama needs a political victory regarding his healthcare reform efforts, and he needs it badly. If what he gets in the short term is less than what he and his progressive supporters like, he should take his proverbial half a loaf now. Those who argue that "healthcare reform without a public option is not healthcare reform at all" are missing an important point. The public option is a means, not an end. If a more limited form of healthcare reform passes this year, it will be reasonably possible to get the more comprehensive aspects of reform next year. Conversely, if nothing passes this year, no meaningful reform will pass for many years to come, and as I suggested above, Obama will be politically weakened and the Republicans could well retake control of Congress after 2010.
As for the more limited healthcare reform that might become law, I think that Obama can credibly call it a major achievement if a bill passes that assures practically all Americans of access to decent health insurance, regardless of a person's employment, income, or personal health. If a bill that addresses these issues can be passed and signed into law, it will be a major step forward. Even if the bill that passes this year seems incomplete, if it achieves these objectives, or at least goes a long way toward achieving them, it becomes an important political victory for the president, and makes possible other valuable accomplishments in the future, on this and other issues.
