Massachusetts - What Now?
Wednesday, 01/20/2010 - 1:30 pm by Bo Cutter | 3 Comments
Shaping the future with today’s choices.
This is not the end of the world for President Obama, not even close, but it is the end for this particular health care effort.
For the last couple of weeks, as a Brown win seemed more and more possible, the Democrats in Congress have been discussing how to get this health care legislation through without 60 votes in the Senate — alternatives included slow walking Brown’s certification, voting fast, or sending the Senate bill as it is through the House and directly on to the President. I thought the Democrats would win this one until friends started sending me exit polls around 2 PM, but I also thought any fantasy of the Congressional democrats along the lines that if Brown won they could still force the issue on this legislation was nuts. Well, one of the first press releases after the Brown victory came from Senator Jim Webb of Virginia — one of my senators — who said that Democrats should reconsider any effort to force this legislation now. My guess — based on a very quick count — is that if this legislation were pushed right now it would only get about 53 votes in the Senate; and it probably would not pass the House.
But there is a far deeper reason why this legislation is dead — any effort to jam it now would be catastrophic for President Obama, he knows this — probably knew it a lot earlier than anyone else in his White House — and he isn’t going to push it. Congress’ approval ratings are somewhat less than my shoe size; so there is somewhat of a view in Congress of “what could we possibly lose?” But President Obama’s approval ratings aren’t all that bad, considering everything he has had to do, and where we are in the recovery. If he joined the effort to force it, we as Democrats and President Obama’s Administration would be confirming absolutely everything the polls are suggesting (see David Brooks’ column). As the French observer who watched Pickett’s charge apparently said, “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.” Now is the time for the tacticians that every White House is full of, for whom the long run is breakfast today, to retreat and allow an actual strategy to be developed.
There is a confirmation of a law of nature here: since I don’t know the Republican side, I have to state the law in a restricted form — very large Democratic majorities are bad for Democratic presidents. A president and his people wind up having to negotiate with their friends, with Democrats, not Republicans, and that is a very different kind of negotiation — the lines are never clear, and the possibilities for misunderstanding are enormous. Moreover, the majority begins to develop a certain arrogance, a tendency to do things just because they can, and a sense that they really don’t need the President except to say “yes” at the end of the negotiations. The perfect make-up of Congress for a President is a small majority in both houses forcing everyone to negotiate with the President.
How is that feasible, when the Republican minority is dedicated to opposing any negotiations whatsoever with the President? Can one name a SINGLE item on which Republicans were willing to negotiate with the President in the past year? Including when the negotiations started from positions that incorporated previous Republicans ideas or suggestions?
The Republicans do not have to negotiate with the President; they’ll be perfectly happy to shut down the government if that’s what it comes to.
Posted by James Call | January 20th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I have to agree with the above comment, in so far as small majorities are only ideal when some members of the other side are willing to compromise and cross over. The current Republican minority is voting in lockstep and using the filibuster to hold Congress hostage.
Arlen Specter was one of the few GOP senators willing to work across party lines, and that created so much backlash from the conservative base that he fled the caucus. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are the Democrats’ last great hope, but even Snowe proved that she’s willing to choose party over principle when she objected to the health care bill on the grounds that it was being “rushed.”
However, while I think it is unfortunate that Senate Democrats used their super-majority to accomplish precisely nothing, losing it may wind up having more of a political upside. As you note, the Democrats have spent the last several months negotiating and compromising with each other, and the Republicans have been able to sit back and claim that their opponents have shut them out of the legislative process. Now that the Democrats are incapable of breaking a filibuster on their own, it’s possible that the Republicans will finally be held accountable for their obstructionism and be forced to articulate a platform beyond blanket opposition to the president.
Posted by Tim | January 20th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Progressives consider this a bad bill. Moreover, progressives consider the Democratic Establishment that has intellectually and politically captured the WH and taken Congress hostage to be corrupt, continuing Bush’s crony capitalism.
~25% of MA Dems who voted cast their ballot for Brown, and a goodly number of Dems didn’t vote. The truth is that Democrats were decisive in electing Brown, apparently to send a message. I hope the Dem Establishment hears it and changes course immediately.
The Dems must force the GOP to put forward their alternative and then put forward a bill based on Democratic principles. Then, let’s see what the public supports.
But let’s not let the Dem conservatives and liberal fiscal doves cloud the issues in the debate by buying into the “fiscal responsibility” meme based on gold standard thinking that no longer applies under the current monetary regime. The nation can easily afford this expenditure for available goods and services, based on the monetary system now in place that is not financially constrained, as Marshall Auerback, Randy Wray, Scott Fulwiler, Warren Mosler, and others have been pointing out relentlessly.
Let’s hope that Arianna Huffington is correct in thinking that could be a blessing in disguise, forcing change now and avoiding a calamity in 2010.
Posted by Tom Hickey | January 20th, 2010 at 4:55 pm