|
OBAMA DOESN'T NEED GLASSES--WE DO, PART II
This entry was posted on 8/30/2010 10:37 AM and is filed under uncategorized.
NOTE: Well, Lord knows when I posted Part I of this series, I did not intend to wait two weeks to post Part II, but a routine out-patient procedure at our local hospital went awry and wound up making me VERY ill for a week to ten days, but I'm back now and feeling fiesty, so let's get on with it.
With the last blogpost, I was criticized (mostly over at TPM Cafe) for using as my primary source, the book, THE PROMISE: President Obama, Year One, by Jonathan Alter. The book was compared to a similar flattering book written by Bob Woodward of the Bush administration's run-up to war with Iraq. However, if you really bothered to actually read the entire post, you would see that there were other sources referenced than just this book. It is still my primary source but not my only one, and it is a particularly good one for today's post, because it so thoroughly went behind the scenes during the tense, confusing, and often messy process of passing some of the major pieces of legislation to come out of the president's first year in office.
I will also quote, as well, from the major article by Todd S. Purdam in Vanity Fair, "Washington, We Have a Problem,"
There will be other sources, of course, as well. My purpose for writing this is to make clear to disgruntled liberals and questioning Independents the true choice that is before us come November--not the false ones so often trumpeted on cable TV and the blogosphere--and why it is important that we not lose heart at this critical time, because so much more has been accomplished than most people realize--but it is JUST THE BEGINNING. I think understanding how those accomplishments came about against overwhelming odds is an inspirational story but also an instructive one as we continue to fight for those things we strongly believe in.
First of all, much has been made of the Bush legacy. If you are as big a political junkie as I am you spent eight miserable years watching his administration dismantle and damn near destroy our government--the only reason they didn't get more done was because they finally lost the congress to the Democrats in '06. The government was turned into an arm of the Bush Reelection Committee and then the RNC, and every aspect of it was considered to be at the administration's disposal to use for the purpose of setting up a "permanent Republican majority," as Bush's closest advisor, Karl Rove bragged from his office just outside the Oval Office.
During that time, the fiscal irresponsibility was beyond imagining in its scope and depth. Never before in our nation's history had we, (well, first of all, invaded a country that presented no real threat to us)--but mainly, gone to war and instigated a massive tax cut at the same time. We went to war in two different countries to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every month, and no way to pay for it. In fact, the real cost of the wars was hidden from the budget altogether and funded with Emergency bills, paid for by borrowing almost the entire amount from China.
China was happy to bankroll such follies and make us dependent upon them while, at the same time, undermining us by bribing government officials in both countries for oil, gas, and mineral rights--thus negating Cheney's primary purpose for starting the wars in the first place.
In other words, the Chinese plan was for American boys and girls to fight, bleed, and die in these foreign lands so that, when the wars inevitably died down, not only would we owe them several more generations of our young people in massive loan interest and principal, but they could move in and make off with the spoils of war we made possible for them.
In other words, they played Dick Cheney and his cronies, who thought WE'D make off with all those riches.
The only American entities to get rich off of war were the private contractors who had been bankrolled in no-bid contracts by their friendly CEO vice-president and president. Private contractors provided everything from food and laundry services to the military to dignitary security to pig-trough purging of "reconstruction" contracts that seldom built anything except mega-mansions for their company executives and massive donations to the GOP.
These policies, along with the Republican-led rubber-stamp earmark-palooza extravaganza of No Bill Left Behind, bankrupted the country before President Obama even raised his right hand and took the oath.
As Obama told Alter in an interview, "We have been left with a financial ruin, okay? Let's not bullshit ourselves. We are limited by what George Bush's policies did to the fiscal condition of this country. Our options are capped, confined. Before we even get to health care, to cap and trade, we are dealing with Bush's legacy."
Most of the howlers on the far right don't even realize that the $800 billion TARP Wall Street bail-out they so abhor was not done on Obama's watch--it was a Bush/Paulson policy, signed into law by him before he left office. And if it hadn't been for a Democratic congress insisting on some controls, they would have passed it based on a simple three-page memo written by Paulson and stating, among other vagueries, that none of the entitites involved could be held accountable by the law.
So let's not forget the towering, cascading flood of Bush-caused problems that came pouring down on this administration the first day they were in office, before they'd delegated office space or even gotten the White House computers up and running.
As Alter points out, Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a $236 billion budget surplus, and George W. Bush was leaving office eight years later with a $1.3 TRILLION deficit, severely limiting the new president's options in the years ahead:
"If health care costs weren't brought under control, there would soon be little money left for anything else. The nation was at at war in two countries, with shadowy struggles against al Qaeda under way in a half-dozen more. Nuclear technology was spreading to unstable regions and climate change threatened colossal disruptions. With all due respect to Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, the Obama team liked to say, he didn't face crises both at home and abroad. If Obama's predicament was less desperate than FDR's, it was also a lot more complicated." (emphasis mine)
As Todd S. Purdam points out in Vanity Fair:
"We think of the presidency as somehow eternal and unchanging, a straight-line progression from 1 to 44, from the first to the latest. And in some respects it is. Except for George Washington, all of the presidents have lived in the White House. They’ve all taken the same oath to uphold the same constitution. But the modern presidency—Barack Obama’s presidency—has become a job of such gargantuan size, speed, and complexity as to be all but unrecognizable to most of the previous chief executives. The sheer growth of the federal government, the paralysis of Congress, the systemic corruption brought on by lobbying, the trivialization of the “news” by the media,the willful disregard for facts and truth—these forces have made today’s Washington a depressing and dysfunctional place. They have shaped and at times hobbled the presidency itself."
This is why constant comparing of Obama to previous presidents, whether FDR or LBJ--mostly by starry-eyed liberals angry that he has not delivered the utopian progressive society that they somehow expected (in spite of the fact that he made it clear in his books and campaigning that he was a pragmatist and not an ideologue)--is lame. What Obama has faced, not just with a legislative branch unwilling to work across the aisle in the interest of what's best for the country, but with a media environment described by Purdam as "the most hyperkinetic, souped-up, tricked-out, combative media environment ever."
As I have pointed out before, no other president in our history has had to face an entire "news" network dedicated to destroying his policies, his legacy, and his chances for reelection 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No other president has had to deal with a so-called "news" network which deliberately employs as their headliners men and women who are planning to run for office AGAINST that president, have PAC funds already set up, and use their media megaphone to raise funds for those PACs. Nor has there ever been a "news" network that actually donates a full MILLION BUCKS to a political opposition organization in the midst of a political campaign.
And yet that same "news" network enjoys a front-row seat in the White House Press Room, where they are permitted to ask questions based upon the rumors ginned up by that same opposition network (rather than the current events all the other reporters ask about)--thus putting those same rumors into the mainstream as legitimate "truth"--and thus provoking yet another faux outrage or fake controversy for the media to obsess over.
Nor, it might be pointed out, has any American president had to face a 24/7 news network and Internet commentary from his own side who, in their stated attempt to "hold the president accountable," instead wind up howling at least as loud as the opposition does, thus creating a Criticism Sandwich where this president is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, and damned for things he hasn't even thought about doing, and probably never will.
(I will get into that aspect in more detail tomorrow, in Part III.)
The fact that he has managed to accomplish anything at all under these extraordinary circumstances should have those in his own party shouting those accomplishments from the rooftops, but instead, they choose to obsess about this aspect or that angle that didn't play out as they would have wished in a perfect world.
Perhaps, if they'd had a better idea of what was going on behind the scenes, they would have held back some of the worst vitriol and trusted the man to at least do the best he possibly could. And if the White House was less than forthcoming about that process at the time it was going on, perhaps it was because they were reluctant to feed more reason for the howlers to find fault while they were busy working their asses off in 80-hour weeks against impossible odds.
For example--before screaming about "back-room deals," it helps to understand how they came about. As Purdam explains in Vanity Fair:
"Perversely, as the filibuster has become theoretically easier to break,it has been threatened more and more often, simply because the minority party wants to bring business to a halt. In the years since the Republicans were relegated to minority status in the Senate, in 2007,cloture filings, which are often used in response to filibuster threats,have nearly doubled. Because 60 votes are now needed to pass almost anything of significance, this gives wildly disproportionate power to a small number of senators whose swing vote can make the crucial difference. Hence the administration’s desperate—and, ultimately,vain—effort to win the support of Republican senator Olympia Snowe, of Maine, in order to give the health-care bill a veneer of bipartisanship,or the initial decision (later rescinded) to grant Nebraska $100million in Medicaid benefits in exchange for the support of conservative Democratic senator Ben Nelson."
As Rahm Emmanuel pointed out to Purdam, yes, liberals complained that Obama needed to be more like LBJ and "twist arms," but, “If we ever did even attempt to do a third of what Lyndon Johnson did—or Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton—we couldn’t do it.” Indeed, Emanuel told Purdam, such efforts would probably have prompted "not just unflattering stories but a special prosecutor."
Another criticism faced by the president and his team was that they entrusted too much to congress, especially when it came to writing the health care reform bill. (To which I always want to reply, What, you think that if he'd presented a bill ready for approval he'd've had more luck than Hillary did when she tried it?)
As Alter writes:
"Besides, he knew something about the vanity of legislators. If a bill didn't seem to be coming from them they would slow everything down and pick it to death. By letting Congress take the lead, he gave lawmakers the ownership necessary for genuine action. One of the oldest adages in civics is that people support what they help create. Had Obama not applied that idea to the stimulus and health care, he would have had much less to show for 2009." (emphasis mine)
I think at least a portion of the landslide of criticism facing the president was provoked by a simple lack of understanding of the legislative process by many of his critics--especially those who were too young to remember what it was like when major landmark legislation was passed. Without a context to set the process into, or some strong background of previous policies, it was too easy for many to expect everything all at once, as they demanded--for example, with health care reform.
Jonathan Alter puts it this way in THE PROMISE:
"Health care had a thousand moving parts, and Obama was determined not to follow Hillary Clinton's course in 1994. He would not develop a big plan, drop it on the Capitol steps like "a stone tablet," and refuse to bargain. That, he told aides, would be the worst of both worlds: "I'd get all the political pain for putting out all the details, but also hit for not fulfilling campaign promises." Most important, the barons of Capitol Hill would feel they had less ownership of the issue. As with the stimulus, if they didn't own it, they wouldn't move it.
"This would mean that after many years of precut deals Congress would have to get back into the messy and often unseemly business of actually legislating, an ongoing and complex process that voters didn't comprehend and the press had trouble covering. It was more comforting, if less realistic, to believe, as many progressives did, that if Obama would simply lead, the docile Democratic Congress would follow." (emphasis mine)
Had Obama indulged in some of the loud, angry, broad political gestures that many Dems wanted him to do in order to show some sort of Bush-style "leadership," he would have likely alienated an already skittish Congress and lost the opportunity to reform anything.
As Alter put it, "Obama wasn't into gestures. He wanted to win."
It is instructive here to point out that many liberal complaints about health care reform are based on the false assumption that THIS IS IT--that the bill, as it stands, is permanent and not subject to any redefining or expanding, and that therefore, failing to go after EVERYTHING we wanted when we had this chance means that the entire bill is worthless.
Again, this is based on a lack of understanding about the legislative process. Let's compare this bill with FDR's crowning achievement of the New Deal: Social Security. Most people assume that Social Security, as it exists now, is the bill that Roosevelt passed in the early '30's, but the truth is that, were he to somehow come back from the dead for a day, he would be astonished at the benefits now available through the Social Security program compared with what he was able to pass in his presidency.
These changes are spelled out in this article, "What Social Security Can Teach Us About the Future of Health Care." As Richard Kirsch points out:
"The history of Social Security after it became law was a great comfort to those of us who watched as the health care bill was continually weakened during the Congressional debate. It’s easy to forget now just how limited Social Security was when it first was enacted. The Act included meager payments to a limited set of workers and left out job categories that included most women and minorities. The NAACP said that it was “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through. ” However, over the next 15 years Social Security was expanded to include surviving spouses and dependent children. Jobs that were dominated by women and people of color were added. The miserly benefits were enhanced over time too but it wasn’t until 1972 that cost of living adjustments became automatic."
So, yeah, even with the longest-serving president in our history overseeing it, Social Security as we know it took shape in increments, over the years and decades, as the original bill was expanded and improved. There is no reason to believe that the same thing cannot be said of Health Care Reform, especially as benefits kick in and people not only begin to enjoy the improvements it has made available to them, but as the worst nightmare-scenarios put forth by the opposition fail to materialize.
Kirsch's article is worth a read in its entirety because it addresses many of the problems expressed by liberal opponents to the bill as it exists, and explains how those problems can easily be worked out, especially because already, it is less toxic a topic than it was before it was enacted, because benefits are already becoming available and people like them.
Other issues with health care reform's legislative process can be boiled down, in large part, to the screaming outrage expressed by many on the left when the bill was passed without a public option--and to address that, I'll let our blunt and outspoken vice president have the last word. Alter says Vice President Biden told him he had more than a few "Don't Bullshit Me" conversations with many of his former colleagues:
"Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," the vice president told them. With progressives, he used what he called the 'Don't Bullshit Me' conversation: "I've known you for twenty years and talked health care with you endlessly in the gym, and never once until this year have I heard you mention the words "public option." Now you're telling me it's the most important thing in the world? Please."
Because of health care reform, some of the most egregious sins committed by Big Insurance on the American people will now be prevented, and common sense reforms are already taking place, such as allowing your grown children to stay on your family health plan until the age of 27. I remember well my son's "aging out" of our health insurance policy while he was still a college student. There was no way we could afford a private plan just for him under the old rules, and even when I found a plan available for students, provided by the university, its coverage was terrible and the process for filing claims a nightmare. For one thing, you had to pay all the hospital and doctor bills yourself and then file for reimbursement, a clumsy and unweildy process that seldom paid off in the long run.
Or consider the case of Christopher Reeve. If you ever read any of the poignant and inspiring books he wrote after the accident that left the former "Superman" a quadraplegic, you will know that one of his ongoing worries was that they would reach the cap on their insurance plan because of all his expenses, and he would no longer be able to pay for his own care, leaving his family destitute. If this can be a worry for a movie star, imagine what it is for regular folks--and now, thanks to health care reform, they don't have to worry about it.
No more can you be turned away from coverage because you have a pre-existing condition, either--something that trapped many people in miserable jobs they hated but could not leave because they had to have the health insurance or risk losing it when changing providers.
Or, if you are a senior citizen dependent upon help with the Prescription Drug Program, you've lived with the ongoing anxiety of knowing that once you reach a certain level of coverage, you would lose it and be out thousands of dollars before re-qualifying for those same benefits--the so-called "Donut Hole." That has now been closed.
These are just several of important changes that came about because of health care reform--all of which would have been lost if the purists and ideologues who were insisting on everything being just right and included perfectly in this bill had had their way. People like Jane Hamscher of Firedoglake would have thrown out the entire bill--and I guarantee you we would have lost the chance to make even modest changes for the next decade at least--which would have caused great suffering among the millions who will be affected by the changes that WERE passed.
As Rahm Emmanuel put it to Jonathan Alter:
"Let's be honest. The goal isn't to see whether I can pass this through the executive branch of the Brookings Institution. I'm passing it through the United States Congress, with people who represent constituents...I'm sure there are a lot of people sitting in the shade at the Aspen Institute--my brother being one of them--who will tell you what the ideal plan is. Great. Fascinating. You have the art of the possible measured against the ideal."
In Purdam's Vanity Fair piece, he mentions the "long time line" demanded by durable achievement; how complex problems demand complicated solutions that take time beyond the 24-hour news cycle or even the next election, as Obama has pointed out many times.
Emmanuel, again, expresses the frustration of making those "durable achievements" against a backdrop of complete media indifference (as described by Purdam):
"They all work punishing hours, because the entire executive branch funnels through the White House. They tolerate, cultivate, and accommodate special interests of all kinds—at once using and being used.They handle congressional prima donnas of every conceivable shade, and make backroom deals they’re not proud of. They manage the press—or try to, in the shortsighted way that the press itself demands—and thus contribute to the spiral of triviality. They acknowledge all of this frankly and, by and large, without whining, as if these are simply things that must be done, and, yes, it’s all worse than ever, and that’s life. Sometimes, too, they get completely caught up in it. Rahm Emanuel—describing how the administration had managed the Afghan surge,which deeply divided Democrats at the very time it was counting solely on Democratic votes to get the health-care bill through the Senate,without either effort derailing the other—works himself into the ultimate insider’s amazement that “not one journalist out of 150” in“this entire fucking town” took note of the White House’s skill. “Nobody put two and two together,” he goes on. “Sometimes I feel like I’m painting by dots around here.”
Purdam goes on to say:
"And yet, to a remarkable degree, Obama has been consistent in pursuing the agenda he said he would pursue. In a speech at Georgetown University in April 2009, he said that he would address health care, access to education, the rules governing the financial system, and energy. He has won passage of significant legislation on the first three—together with the $787 billion economic-stimulus package and a rescue of two of the three big automakers. Rahm Emanuel took pains to remind me that the health-care overhaul, which seemed to go on forever, in the end was passed in just a year."
Just as many in the general public have difficulty understanding the nuances and complexities--and sheer brutalities--of the legislative process, so, too, do many of the reporters covering these events.
The media circus surrounding the modern presidency is unprecedented in its make-up, because it has no gatekeepers outside the major mainstream outlets. During the days of Woodward and Bernstein bringing down President Nixon, the rules were unbreakable--two outside sources had to confirm every quote, and most of them had to go on the record.
Those rules seem quaint by today's frenetic, noisy, white-water pace, and consequently, it has become virtually impossible for a White House to shape the day's events by, say, scheduling major announcements just in time to make the evening network news broadcasts. Adversarial by design, the modern press has become almost oppositional in nature as each outlet attempts to beat the other in breaking big stories--most of the time, with very little vetting or checking of sound sources, as we saw with the Shirley Sherrod debacle, and it's hard for most any White House to avoid being caught up in the rapids.
I will go into that in greater detail tomorrow, in Part III.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
