Through the long debate over health care, it had always seemed to me that the President was less fully engaged than he might be in pushing a specific vision, and in countering attacks against reform. Undoubtedly part of that reticence was an effort to avoid the errors of the Clintons -- if they were criticized for trying to dictate a plan from the White House without input from "interested parties," then this time around, let there be a thousand points of light. And so there were...a confusing welter of different plans and different ideas originating from Congress and elsewhere. The lack of a center in turn made it easier for opponents of reform, better-organized and generously funded, to pick apart ideas one by one, and to seize the politically effective low ground (i.e. "death panels" and "government takeovers").
We know from before his election, and even before his decision to run for President, that Obama counts himself a pragmatist. No harm in that. Politics is the art of the possible, and compromise is always required. But pragmatism need not imply a lack of leadership. While Obama continues to say he "prefers" a public option, for example, he has clearly placed it in the "expendable" column. Could he have effected a different outcome on this point by being more engaged, by grabbing lapels LBJ-style? Or has he wisely avoided too deep a personal commitment, waiting for his party's liberal wing to come to terms with the political impossibility of the idea? Is this a young, inexperienced President misjudging the ground, or a canny master of persuasion who will confound the expectations of his opponents? We don't know yet; we may never.
The test will be what emerges from the Capitol Hill sausage works at the end of the day. If key goals (reducing the rising costs of health care, covering everyone or nearly everyone) aren't achieved, and we're left with a few marginal improvements (nobody can be denied for an existing condition), we've expended a lot of heat and light for an outcome that could have been achieved with a single match.
All manner of pundits and politicos from both sides of the aisle assure us that there will be "some kind" of health care reform bill this year. Some analysts suggest that the passage of a bill - any bill - is the key to Obama's maintaining some momentum and his ability to complete other legislative initiatives. But that's just a fig leaf. Passage of a weak bill will be a recognizable defeat for the administration, and will embolden obstructionists in other areas (energy, climate control). Maybe Obama still has a rabbit or two to pull out of his hat. In the meantime, I'd offer the following thoughts for pragmatism in the next battle:
- Congress needs adult leadership; it seldom comes from within.
- Pragmatism must guide the actions of both sides on any issue; that's not currently the case, as the Republican party remains steadfastly disinterested in engagement.
- Corollary: Know your opponents. There is little excuse for being blindsided by them, as White House staff admitted they had been.
- Attacks, especially false ones, should be countered.
Comments