The Annals of Always Doing the Right Thing…
posted at 3:53 pm on December 13, 2009 by CK MacLeod
[ Healthcare ] printer-friendly
…after exhausting all of the other alternatives – an American tradition perhaps worth latinizing into a national motto, even if it was first articulated by an Englishman – may soon have a new entry, if Bill Kristol’s speculation on a Health Care denouement proves prescient:
[I]t might be that the easiest way for everything to collapse in the next couple of days would be for a gang of six or whatever to emerge–say, Lieberman, Nelson and Blanche Lincoln, and John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Judd Gregg–who would agree to work together in the new year on bipartisan legislative efforts to pass sensible incremental reforms with substantial bipartisan support. Word leaking out of one meeting of such a group would put the Reid legislation out of its misery.
The idea – which Kristol asserts is strongly in the interest of the Democrats and the President – underlines the great missed opportunity of Obama’s first year, in which, for whatever set of reasons, whatever overdetermined disadvantages of the new president’s advantages, an overreaching effort to avoid wasting a crisis turned into a great waste of effort and an extended crisis of overreaching.
Imagine if, in victory, instead of closing out the defeated, divided, dispirited Republicans, the President and his people had on their own own insisted on such a “bipartisan legislative effort” on health care and the rest of Obama’s agenda, entering the negotiations with a show of grace and generosity, but from a position of tremendous relative strength. Did the Obamaites squander a rare historical opportunity to re-align American politics – akin to Reagan’s missed opportunity in 1984 or Bush’s following 2002 – or was the possibility of such a re-alignment always a mirage, and their mistake the fact that they ever believed in it?
We can’t say what would have happened, and we may spend years trying to explain why the President instead offered himself and his 70% approval ratings as hostages to Pelosi, Reid, and the forces to their left. The intermediate destination reached on the road that was taken is plainly visible in today’s widely noted Rasmussen “Passion Index” tracking poll:
In stock-trader terms, that’s a breakdown in OBAM, though cautious traders, even the ones who’ve been “short” for months, might want to wait for confirmation in the form of new highs on the red-line to go with the plunge to new lows on the green.
Yes, there’s a long way to go in Obama’s term, and reason to wonder whether an attempted pivot to the right could rescue him or would more likely finish him, but whichever way he goes, if Kristol’s suggestion or something like it comes to pass, then the real mandate of the November election, for a leftward correction in the wake of exhaustion and disarray on the right, would be realized and submitted to the test. There is every reason to suspect that “sensible incremental reforms with substantial bipartisan support” will be insufficient to address either health care problems or the larger fiscal problems of which they’re a major part. Such reforms might simply be another set of not-right-enough alternatives to be exhausted, but at least they’d be less likely to make matters irretrievably worse, and more likely to lay a groundwork for more difficult and ambitious decisions down the line.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
They’re leftists. What you suggest isn’t even a remote possibility to them.
rrpjr on December 13, 2009 at 4:37 PM
When you say “they’re leftists,” who are “they” supposed to be? You don’t think that the people Kristol names, among others, are capable of acting in their own political interest rather than as pure ideologues? I’m not sure that there even is a pure ideology available to them.
CK MacLeod on December 13, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on December 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM
They had to overreach. They could not help themselves. Like the Scorpion, it’s in their nature.
MB4 on December 13, 2009 at 6:32 PM
I mean Obama and the people around him. Aren’t they the prime movers, and wouldn’t they continue to be, in any legislative alliance such as Kristol imagines? Would this be something these senators would attempt on their own? The energy to attempt such work does not arise in a void, cannot be sustained in the face of utter White House uninterest. Or can it?
I think Kristol is ascribing a prodigious and wholly unrealistic level of initiative to such people as those senators, and sadly, typically, betrrays more lack of comprehension of the Left among the Right punditocracy.
In any case, there is no more “exhaustion and disarray” on the Right. The Right is newly energized. Whether this has reached into the fusty corridors of Washington – not sure. But, to me, the most likely result of the defeat of Obamacare will be bitterness and disarray on the Left, and a kind of grim, battle-hardened hunkering down among GOP senators in 2010.
(Then again, it is conceivable that McCain would once again try on the Quixotic Maverick garb to save Obama.)
rrpjr on December 13, 2009 at 7:06 PM
rrpjr, I don’t think it takes a whole heckuva lot of initiative to say “our bipartisan group will come up with something.” Someone will take the heat from the nutroots for destroying their once in a generation chance etc. etc., but sending it to bipartisan-land gives them a way to deflect the blame. Instead of stoppping health care reform, they can claim they saved it against a total rout.
At this point, the Senators named on the D side – and you could add Webb to the group – are ALREADY taking hits from the far left.
Passing failed initiatives to a “gang of n” Senators is one step removed from the even hoarier standby, the “bipartisan commission.” Anyway, it’s one possibility among several, but it gives the besieged forces a face-saving exit. They may grab it or something like it.
As the Ø-man, I don’t see he and his people driving this process at all. He’s the mermaid on the prow of this ship, but so far he’s been happy to let the others handle the helm, the rigging, and everything else.
CK MacLeod on December 13, 2009 at 7:28 PM
CK — good points for sure. But respectfully you may be underestimating the leftist fever gripping the democrat party in our time, of which Obama is the living symbol (still more than a mermaid, even with declining popularity). His seeming passivity in all this is a bit of a ruse, I think: a skill of dissimulation that has been essential to his rise. Anyway, for those senators to go from failed Obamacare to championing “incremental, bipartisan reform” would not subject them to mere “hits,” but to biblical wrath. Would they have the guts to deal with that? I don’t think so.
rrpjr on December 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM
rrpjr – The holdouts don’t seem very feverish to me, and there’s a lot of biblical-level wrath stored up on the anti-bill side, too – more prevalent and among high turnout groups (seniors). If popular opinion, the bill itself, or Obama’s “leadership” was working in favor of the bill, I’d have less reason to feel optimistic about it failing. If 2 out of 3 were on its side, it would already have passed.
Instead, it seems to be moving forward out of sheer fear of embarrassment and an abstract notion that having anything passed, no matter how insane, will be better for the left than having failed.
We’ll see – and however this stage works out, we have not yet begun to fight!
CK MacLeod on December 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM
I think the leftwingers just got too greedy. They really thought they could enact all their wet dream social agendas from the last 40 years, and being so close, they were compelled by their own radicalism to go for total victory without any compromise.
The irony is that, as you strongly implied, a “Gang of Six” strategy really would have worked. Indeed, that would have been the approach taken by GW Bush — but therein lies the problem, for Obama was determined to be the “anti-Bush” at all costs. And so it came to be.
jwolf on December 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Right on. But I’ll make a few predictions.
Obamacare, Reidcare, whatever — it passes in the next 10 days. Lieberman, Nelson, et al, cave. These are senators, and by nature cannot stop making their sausage, or leave this much of a mess standing with no sausage to show for it.
As 2010 unfolds, the political fig leaves on the bill fall away or are torn away. As it is revealed to the wider public as a scandalous monstrosity, the mid-term elections become primarily a referendum on accountability and redress over healthcare. We descend to new lows of political viciousness as the Left tries to defend the indefensible.
rrpjr on December 14, 2009 at 11:07 AM
He really did blow it.
I was thinking about this, and Carville’s “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation” last night and thought to myself how quickly Barry, Pelosi and Reid killed that dream, and how Hillary would never have screwed up this bad. She’s probably thinking the same thing.
Too bad, so sad!
Rae on December 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Any way to slow down this legislation will go a long way to killing it. The idea of a gang of 6 is brilliant.
The entire complexion of government will change in the face of an election year. If this gets dragged out into 2010 (and its a streatch) The “Comprehensive Healthcare Bill” is D.O.A.
Bill Kristol should get the Nobel Peace Prize for this.
Check-Mate
SayNo2-O on December 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM
It was some of the voters’ mistake that they believed in it.
Schadenfreude on December 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM
No way. They are uncorking the Nuclear Option in the back room as we speak. They know if this craters they are finished, and they know they may as well throw up a Hail Mary or suffer 3 years of lame duck.
Punditpawn on December 14, 2009 at 3:08 PM
We DON’T need a Gang of Six or whatever with McCain, Snowe, and some Democrats to rescue this pig of socialized medicine, just to hand Obama a Pyrrhic victory of sorts with which he will inevitably toot his own horn.
Republicans don’t have the votes to defeat it on their own, but they need to be reminding centrist Democrats of the huge costs and the voting power of seniors and those with private health insurance, to drag this out beyond Christmas without a cloture vote.
If the current version is defeated, THEN Republicans can float their own plan, with (at a MINIMUM) serious nationwide caps on malpractice awards, portability of insurance across state lines, open insurance markets (people can buy insurance from any state), allowing catastrophic-coverage-only policies, and authorizing PRIVATE for-profit insurance-buying co-ops. From there, negotiate with Democrats to provide subsidies for LOW-INCOME people ONLY to buy PRIVATE health insurance only, WITHOUT any government-run health insurance.
Steve Z on December 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Steve Z your right on target.
SayNo2-O on December 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Great idea, CK, although I also agree with Steve Z.
Had the Democrats offered one single thing mentioned in his final paragraph (or, furthermore, not gone ahead with the mindless link that they established between abortion and healthcare), then healthcare would be a go.
But their hubris wouldn’t allow them to do so, hopefully now dooming the whole bill.
Track-A-'Crat on December 14, 2009 at 3:32 PM
“Why did you sting me?”,
Said Turtle to Scorpion.
“It is what I do…”
Haiku Guy on December 14, 2009 at 3:38 PM
The Democrats mourn,
As the Crisis goes to waste…
To the Next Crisis!
Haiku Guy on December 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Not fair. She already had her own pooch-screw in 1994. there are whole new bunch of statists that need to be schooled.
alexwest on December 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM
The Obamacrats’ goal never was sensible healthcare reform or even a halfway sensible European-type system; they want a total takeover. Bringing as much of the American economy under direct government control as fast as possible has been the only consistent part of Obama’s agenda so far. He’s been extremely successful.
modifiedcontent on December 14, 2009 at 4:17 PM
If Nelson votes for this he’s gone. Nebraska will throw his butt out!
I wish Kristol would shut up!
We sure as hell don’t need Juan Mccain securing defeat from the jaws of victory. Reaching across the isle to rescue Obama and the Dems like he did with TARP.
Arizona get rid of the RINO!
If Lieberman and Nelson are against and Snowe said she is then let it die until after Christmas.
dhunter on December 14, 2009 at 4:36 PM
One cannot realign the country unless one segment or the other sells out. Not likely to happen when one side is American and the other Marxist
JIMV on December 14, 2009 at 4:50 PM
It’s true that Obama has missed a great opportunity (although the Alinsky method isn’t about compromise, it’s all about thuggery – so we shouldn’t be surprised by Obama’s tactics), but Obama is not a hostage of the Left. He is the Left, and (for example) Harry Reid is taking his vision for health care and running with it.
Buy Danish on December 14, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Buy Danish on December 14, 2009 at 5:52 PM
You’re probably right about Obama himself: By his background he’s through and through left wing, and left to himself he might revert to the democratic socialist tendencies he ran with in the ’90s. But he’s president now, has a coalition to manage, and a re-election and/or legacy to secure. Under the proviso that we don’t of course know how it’s all going to turn out, in overreaching he may have pushed his goal further away rather than bring it closer. It still leaves open the question of why he handed the ball to creatures like Reid and Pelosi – the most obvious explanation being that, regardless of ideology, he was totally unprepared to for the job he won.
CK MacLeod on December 14, 2009 at 6:08 PM
In any case, my original emphasis was less on Ø, and more on the working of the whole system – I mean the whole American social and political system as its muddled its way forward for more than two centuries, and within which the implications of the Obamaist agenda would represent a dangerous aberration.
CK MacLeod on December 14, 2009 at 6:15 PM
I think Obama would be willing to martyr himself by getting his “progressive” agenda enacted and thus secure his “legacy”, even if it means risking a 1 term presidency.
He doesn’t need to compromise because ObamaCare will probably pass even if it appears to be in a diluted form, and that’s all he needs to “fundamentally transform” this country (just as he promised during the campaign) with things like the “public option” added incrementally once the bureaucracies are in place.
Buy Danish on December 14, 2009 at 7:00 PM