Disappointment and outrage at Obama from progressives is understandable. But giving up on him and talking about whom to support in 2012 is misplaced, I believe.
They are convinced that a better health care reform bill could have been passed if he had really pushed for it. I would like to have a better health care reform bill. But I think it is debatable whether Obama could have made it happen in the current dysfunction that is the senate. And it's past the time for that now, other than perhaps some tweaking in the reconciliation process. Don't expect major changes. Everyone's too locked in to their positions.
Here's my modest proposal. Instead of turning against Obama, go after the real culprit in this situation: the dysfunctional senate rule that gives a single narcissist with a hissy fit the power to kill major legislation -- in spite of an electoral mandate to pass it.
It's time to change the filibuster rule. It's not in the constitution. Defeatists say: how can you change it when it would take 60 votes to do so? It wouldn't. According to Paul Krugman, the senate adopts its rules on the first day of a new session by simple majority vote. Democrats could change the rule with 51 votes.
Let's concentrate our outrage where it belongs and push them to do that.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're absolutley right that Congress is dysfunctional. But it was dysfunctional, and operated under the same rules, when Bush was president and he(unfortunately) was able to get his legislation passed. So it is about Congress, but it's about lack of leadership skills, too.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about Lieberman, too. But Lieberman claims Obama never pressured him to support a public option or a medicare buy-in.
The healthcare bill, the Afghanistan 'plan', an Education plan that mimics No Child Left Behind - there just aren't a lot of policies Obama is pushing that a liberal can support.
More importantly, his process of governing, where you give up your values and compromise first, is not one that would lead anyone to conclude he would suddenly start supporting liberal policies.
I didn't leave Obama.
He left me.
richard
This has been a difficult time for people who wanted a better health bill not to complain and point fingers of blame. It's always easy to pass judgement or have different opinions especially after the fact. I only hope that new senators like Senators Brown, Whitehouse, and Franken will put their heads together to change the terrible problem of always having a 60 vote to prevent a filibuster. Joy
ReplyDelete1. Bush didn't face the same kind of obstructionism from Democrats that Obama does from Republicans. Much as they were against him, they did not as a group dedicate themselves to his failure in a way that would hurt the country. The Democrats just didn't go that far; but since they gained marginal control of the senate in 2006, Republicans have used the filibuster or threat thereof in 70% of the major controversial bills. That is dysfunctional in a way that it never was when Bush was president.
ReplyDelete2. Republicans are usually more united in their party line votes than are Democrats. Partly that may be strong leadership, but a lot of it comes from an ideology that appeals more to independent thinkers and to their more inclusive representation.
2. Bush never asked Congress to make the hard choices that Obama is doing. Bush pushed tax cuts and spending (two wars, seniors' drug benefits, education reforms) without funding them. It's easy to get stuff passed if they don't require tough choices. And in the one tough choice (the Iraq war), he lied about it to try to make it seem like an easy choice.
Clarification: in my second paragraph above, the "strong leadership" referred to Republicans; but the rest of the sentence ("independent thinkers" and "inclusive representation") was meant to refer to Democrats.
ReplyDelete