Quietism in Service of Success.

(x-posted from U.S. of J.)

Judging from the reactions I’ve read today, I think I’m one of the few progressive bloggers who isn’t particularly bothered by President Obama’s reluctance to spell out exactly what he wants in a health care bill.  That is, I understand why progressives would be upset: by (some) Senate Democrats’ own admission, Obama’s silence — especially on the public option — has made negotiations more difficult for public option proponents, who don’t have much to use as leverage against their conservative colleagues.  On the other hand, it’s obvious that the White House is trying real hard not to box themselves in with regards to what counts as a “victory.”

The simple fact is that the Obama administration is extremely clear-eyed about how much leverage they don’t have relative to the most conservative senators in their caucus.  Even a forceful endorsement of the public opinion on part of President Obama is not enough to bend the “problem caucus” of Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.  Indeed, you can easily imagine a scenario where President Obama invests a ton of political capital in pushing for a public option that is then cut from the final bill as a concession to one of the public option opponents.  In this world, a public option loss means that the administration can’t reap the full political benefits of passing a bill, as the press will paint it as something akin to a Pyrrhic victory, even if the underlying bill is quite good.  By contrast, silence ensures that whatever passes can be counted as an unambiguous win.

The downside, of course, is that this gives conservative Democrats plenty of room to water-down the bill further, secure in the knowledge that the administration will do little to chastise them.  Even still, it’d be silly to blame Obama for this.  That Obama has to bend to the wishes of a small minority has more to do with the failure of the Senate as an institution than it does with any spinelessness on the administration’s part.  All the rhetoric in the world doesn’t change the fact that in the Senate, small minorities are empowered to force tremendous concessions on any piece of legislation.  If you’re looking for someone to blame for a weak health care bill, look no further than the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Jamelle

Jamelle Bouie is a writer for Slate. He has also written for The Daily Beast, The American Prospect and The Nation. His work centers on politics, race, and the intersection of the two.

You can find him on Twitter, Flickr, and Instagram as jbouie.
  • I tend to agree with you, but for the sake of argument I feel like I have to point out that basically what you seem to be saying is that people shouldn’t be disappointed because O is doing what’s politically wise, even though the downside of doing so is that it gives “moderates” more power to water down the bill. Which is kind of *why* people are disappointed, isn’t it?

  • BugEye

    While I think Obama’s position (or lack there of) is understandable politically, it is also unfortunate. I think most of us have come to the realization that whatever health care bill gets passes – it won’t have a public option – and the rest of it – while an improvement of what we have now – won’t be ideal either. I don’t think the blame should be focused on Obama, the issue here is the senate itself. It’s a ridiculous, undemocratic institution that essentially gives specific minority groups – like people who live in South Dakota – an equal say to huge majorities – like the people of California. It makes no sense to me that a state with under 1 million people has equal say as a state with 36+ million. We don’t need the senate, the senate has always been a place where progressive legislation goes to die, and this is exactly why. Even though the majority of people support a public option, it can’t make it into the final bill because of a handful of conservative senators. It’s a travesty and should make people really, really angry.

  • I can’t understand why the President decided to make the health care issue his 1st priority walking into office. The economy and the two front war should have been settled first. When the economic turnaround took hold – he could have rode that into a second term and then come out swinging on health care. If the economy continues to sputter along, or takes another dip – which many economists say it will, Barack will be a one term president.

    • But he did tackle the economy first; have you already forgotten the massive stimulus program that he pushed through?

      And the argument the White House has been making is that you can’t separate the economic situation from healthcare.