Head-banging time on healthcare

[babylonsister]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/jun/22/obama-administration-congress-healthcare-bang-heads


Head-banging time on healthcare
Michael Tomasky


snip//

And the heads Obama is going to have to bang are on the shoulders of Democrats. As Paul Krugman notes this morning, "relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America."

Krugman isn't wrong about that – many legislators look back to an era before nonstop partisan political warfare, the era of the 1940s to about the mid-1980s, and long for that time.

But I'd rank a different reason first.

Simply put, legislators are rarely courageous. They're not leaders. They're followers. They don't like doing risky things. They like doing things they know are popular.

Think about it. When a case emerges that puts a new twist on, say, child molestation, legislators rush forward with new laws meant to address the problem. The public will back them, and child molesters don't have a lobby.

But changing the country's healthcare system? That's big, and terrifying. It requires taking chances, doing things a new way. Legislators hate that.

snip//

The fact is that if healthcare fails, it won't affect only Obama. It will affect lots of Democrats in swing district and states. And if it affects enough of them, the Democrats could, over the next two or three elections, lose their majorities, meaning it will affect every Democrat.

Five months ago, Obama's theory was to let Congress take the lead on healthcare, not make the mistake Bill'n'Hillary made in presenting the legislature with a take-it-or-leave-it package. That was the right call. But now he's giving Congress too much leeway. It's time to take control.

[joeybee12]

1. I read this...he really nails what politicians are all about...followers,

not leaders...they're also insulated from the "real" world and don't seem to realize the "real" world is changing.

[babylonsister]

2. I think Obama does need to scare them, if he can. Or introduce them

to their future reality if they don't cooperate, and listen to the people, their constituents.

[joeybee12]

3. Yup...maybe summon the ghost of LBJ and really twist some arms...n/t

[joeybee12]

4. Yup...maybe summon the ghost of LBJ and really twist some arms...n/t

[Still Sensible]

5. There's truth in the description, but I think in some cases

it is even a little simpler than that. To some of these people, the perceived risks of facing negative campaign ads next year in somewhat conservative districts is believed to be greater than the perceived risk of backing health care reform that includes a public option. That is not to say that perception is accurate.

While that does probably explain some of the milquetoast democrats, in some cases it is because they have received a lot of support ($$$) from those with a stake in the status quo. A small number are against the public option in protection of some businesses in their own jurisdictions--Connecticut as an insurance hub for instance.

The best news is that clearly the polls indicate the country is ready for a real change. With enough effort, we can get enough senators on board eventually. It appears the house had broad support for public option and if others can be convinced it is really viable and desirable (i.e. less perceived risk), it has a chance.