I'm aware that the Obama administration pulled out every stop to try to avoid the mistakes Clinton made in approaching the inexplicably controversial issue of improving health care. That's what led them to a quasi-Maoist approach, opting to let a thousand flowers bloom, turning the whole process over to Congress, and standing back.
The one thing that might have made that approach worthwhile -- since Obama campaigned on a theme of greater bipartisanship -- was a measure of cooperation from Republicans, which did not materialize. Even with that hope in mind, though, it was foolhardy to trust in Congress, or in his own fractious party, to produce a viable plan. It appears now that there was a disconnect between the desires and expectations of the President, and those of his party's chieftains Pelosi and Reid.
I've frequently offered the opinion that Congress is too parochial to be relied upon for anything of broad scope or national value; it's a group that needs adult leadership, and that can only come from the Executive branch. Today, though, I would refer readers to Steven Pearlstein's column this week in the Washington Post, which makes similar points in a convincing way.
In a related vein, Morning Fog has mentioned from time to time that relying too much on Congress wasn't the only procedural mistake the Obama White House has made; there has also been a noticeable tendency to go for the ideal outcome, uncurbed by political reality. (The whole question of Guantánamo is one.) But the White House staff is not monolithic; Dana Milbank makes the case that, rather than blaming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for the lack of progress, Obama ought to have heeded his realistic political advice -- after all, let's recall that Obama worked hard to get Emanuel to take the job; he must have had reason for doing so. Assuming Milbank's facts about who advocated what are correct, his argument is persuasive.
Comments