Blogs and Stories
So What If Obama Fails?
Alex Brandon / AP Photo
The “Obama making mistakes” narrative is at fever pitch, but even if his health-care plan falters, Matthew Yglesias says, we shouldn’t consider the president a failure. Our system makes reform almost impossible.
Major legislative change is hard, so it should come as no surprise that Barack Obama’s drive to comprehensively reform the American health-care system is running into some problems. By contrast, Monday-morning quarterbacking is easy, so it also should come as no surprise that these problems are inspiring a massive wave of second-guessing.
Perhaps the most exhaustive version of the “Obama making mistakes” narrative was unleashed this weekend at Politico by the potent team of Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei, who accuse the president of trying to do too much too soon. In their telling, the administration has relied on a fallacious “big bang” theory of political change, in which economic crisis and an electoral mandate create a good moment for sudden and massive reform of domestic policy. There’s some truth to this. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel talked during the transition about how it would be a shame to let a crisis go to waste, and liberals have developed a narrative about sudden bursts of political change under Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson that are a bit at odds with the facts.
It’s not only Clinton who failed to accomplish comprehensive health-care reform—his effort joined reform charges by FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter on the ash heap of history.
At the same time, critics of the Obama administration’s alleged tactical errors should consider that their decision-making has been heavily shaped by the perception that Bill Clinton’s drive for health reform was brought down by poor White House decision-making. Thus, while Clinton had the White House develop a detailed plan that was then presented to Congress, Obama outlined broad principles and deliberately left hugely important decisions to the Hill. While Clinton opened with centrist gestures on NAFTA and budgetary balance, only turning to health care seriously in his second year, Obama leapt out of the gate with an effort to tackle health. Clinton proposed large, systematic change in the way health care would work for everyone, hoping to achieve broad-based support for a better system; Obama has promised a risk-averse population that most people’s insurance will stay the same.
What Clinton tried didn’t work, in other words, so Obama’s trying it another way. Now the United States Senate looks reluctant to pass a comprehensive plan, so people think Obama is making mistakes. But looking back at American history, it’s not only Clinton who failed to accomplish comprehensive health-care reform—his effort joined reform charges by FDR, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter on the ash heap of history. Johnson, arguably the most accomplished legislator in American history, was too scared to try and brought us Medicare and Medicaid instead. It defies plausibility to suggest that president after president after president is blundering or inept. Rather, we should just admit the obvious—people keep trying and failing to reform the health-care system because reform is hard to do.
It’s hard because most people already have health insurance. It’s hard because the segment of the population most likely to worry about health care—senior citizens—already benefits from a generous Canadian-style system. It’s hard because the people worst-served by the status quo are also the people least likely to vote. It’s hard because the interest-group pressures—not just from insurance companies but also doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, vendors of medical equipment, and labor unions who’ve already secured generous benefits for their workers—are intense. It’s hard because the issue is complicated and it’s hard because we don’t have one “health-care system” that can be reformed; instead, the population is segmented into a series of very different situations.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Politically Scandalous Deficit Fixes
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Brilliant Speeches Only Get You So Far
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
How to Win 2010
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
mcmchugh99
He's not going to fail. About 80% of what's in the five bills is going to pass quite easily, including expanded Medicaid, private insurance reform, and more money for public hospitals and GPs. These parts of the bill hardly generate any controversy or discussion and might even get some Republican votes when the time comes.
It's the public option that will have to be split off and passed on a straight party line vote, not the bulk of what's in the bills.
They could follow Bernie Sanders suggestion and just have 60 Dems vote to cut off a filibuster, then pass it with 51 votes, including Joe Biden's. That gives cover to ten conservative Dems who can vote "no", which should be enough.
It is not an abuse of power for the Democrats to do this. they have a duly elected majority and are going to pass various reforms that were properly put before the public and discussed in an election that lasted two YEARS. If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would not be making all this silly arguments about how it's improper to pass anything without the votes of the opposition.
If that is true, then any law passed on a party-line vote in American history is illegitimate, and I don't think anyone wants to open up a can of worms like that.
Glenda1976
The Democrats don't have the onions to go it alone. That's why they are begging for Republican cover. Both Conrad & Lieberman have come out against reconciliation.
GM2009
Lieberman doesn't count for squat.
ElLamer
I think this delay might have a silver lining, the GOP has shown that it is willing to fight against a lot of good thing tooth and nail. I know a lot of republicans either don't know or don't seem to care but a lot of the middel of society does care and I think at the end of the day the GOP will be punnished for blocking health care.
Or job is to talk to anyone and everyone about what is actually at stake.
solarjetman
I don't think any bill described as "health care reform" will pass easily. The Republicans believe they benefit politically from health care reform failing (they're probably right about this), and so they will unanimously oppose whatever the Democrats bring to the table. They will find a way to generate controversy about any provision they want to; the "death panels" insanity proved they're capable.
It's possible that the Blue Dogs will whittle the reform down to its most corporate-friendly elements and sneak past a filibuster with 60 votes, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Chicago48
He's new and fresh. And coming with different ideas. The American public is afraid of change or experimenting unless it's scientific. I would rather have someone young, new, fresh, full of ideas and vigor in office than an old poop who would continue to play by the same old games. So what if he fails?
Brixtonville
How is he fresh and new? He hasn't changed the face of anything in DC. Instead of railroading his progressive agenda through Congress he's fetishizing bipartisanship with a hostile minority.
Maybe he thinks he can demonize them to gain a supermajority (which he technically already has), but if he doesn't actually start pushing some legislation by which the public can measure his performance, he's not going to win re-election and some of the GOP crazies are going to creep into new seats.
OHNOTAGAIN
Yes.....if you go along with the nay sayers.....all 50 million of them. We must remember that more than 50 million voted for President Obama. He is doing what he can within the statusquo and believe me they are not making it easy for him. Integrity was all but lost, now we may have a chance to get our integrity, our National integrity back. But the 50 million nay sayers will always be there.
wikwox
Bernie Sanders is this Atheists god, thats GAWD! to those of you in the south.
ThinkAgain
You can bet your spinning little head that the republicans will definitely be using this option in the future since the democrats are now making it the standard... and sure as the sun rises tommorrow you'll be screeching that same spinning little head off when they do!
BullMoose
Goose and gander worls for me. Why are left wingers genetically predisposed to take from others instead of earning their own way?
Humor-In-Uniform
What about those voting in disregard to their constituents? They will have a high price to pay....hence guys like Reid, well behind their opponents for the next election?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
GM2009
Polls are fickle. You should know that by now. Remember when Giuliani was way out front in the polls? Where is he now?
BullMoose
Robeet Byrd is not well as far as his health i have heard. Then you have the Senator from the South Dakota who still has problems and can not get to the senate floor to vote. Throw in Joe Lieberman and the so called Majority looks smaller, even without the Blue Dogs.
Kiss Obamacare for bums and illegals goodbye.
BullMoose
Harry Reid is trialing both contenders from the Republicans, and Nevada is chock full of Libertarians. It is not just Harry either, Dems are being exposed for the theifs they are.
Can not wait to crow next November,2010.
AlanD2
"...liberals have developed a narrative about sudden bursts of political change under Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson that are a bit at odds with the facts."
Since Matt didn't mention the facts that he finds at odd, let me just mention a few of the things passed by LBJ:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. Medicare in 1965. Medicaid in 1967.
All of these represent major political changes. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were huge changes in a country that was at the time more polarized by racial issues than we are today by health care.
LBJ was one of America's great Presidents. Without Vietnam, he might be in the top 3 or 4. He wasn't necessarily a likable person, but he sure knew how to get legislation passed.
bcaldwell
There is a big difference between Obama and LBJ. LBJ had been Senate Majority Leader before becoming VP. He had been in Washington for over 20 years before he became President. So he knew the players and had worked with them for many years. He knew what made them tick. Knew what alcohol they drank and what was going on in their districts- personally. he did not have to rely solely on aides to fill him in on the action.
Transpose this with Obama, who was in Washington for about a year and a half before he decided to run for President. He was a junior Senator from Illinois and before that a little known state Senator. He was never in the House, etc. Speaking just from a strategic standpoint, it helps to have that experience if you are going to try to get something as broad ranging like healthcare through.
Actually, from a likability standpoint, many people did like LBJ on a personal level-at least in D.C.. Many of these pols drank with him, hung out with him, got strong armed by him, etc..The same cannot be said for Obama- he just was not around long enough before becoming President. When LBJ campaigned for something, it was on a personal face to face level . He knew how to "make sausage". He also understood people even if they did not always understand him. He understood give and take in the legislative process. he knew how to give people what they wanted so that he could get what he wanted. I'm not sure that Obama understands this way of horse trading. I'm not sure that many in government today understand that type of horse trading whether they be Republican or Democrat on any issue. the last person to somewhat understand it was Bill Clinton and even he had a hard time with big issues getting passed. Actually, if Obama wanted to learn how something can get done (not that I want this plan in any way), he should also read up on how Reagan worked people as well. Remember his tax cuts, whether you were for or against in 1981 was passed because of Democrats in the House . It's a personality thing, normally the pols we despise the most are despised because they know how to get serious legisaltion done. Anyone can get transparency in government and loose nukes passed, but it is an art to get something passed when it pertains to radically redefining an aspect of the relationship between the governed and those that govern.
piktor
bcaldwell -- Hillary had a $100 million campaign war chest by Dec. '07.
She had the backing of the Democratic Party Machine, etc.
Obama bankrupted her by early February and went on to collect $700 million and crush McCain/Palin.
Obama was a junior senator different from your run of the mill politician. These are different times.
Witness Betsy McCaughey, debunked by a comedian on a comedy show and fired the next day by her employer. She's the one that derailed the Clinton healthcare reform in the 90's.
bcaldwell
piktor...running a campaign is far different from legislating. Obama did an unbelievable job against Hillatry because he was smart enough to focus on the caucus states and win big in those contests which forced Hillary to fight in later primary contests.
What needs to be understood in legislation is that there is a give and take in it. What is Obama offering Heath Shuler's district in North Carolina for him to push for something that many of his constituents may not want and that could cost him his job? LBJ would have known what was important in the North Carolina district besides health care-maybe a defense contract...who knows. LBJ would have known it because he had been in Washington for decades and he knew the players.
There is something to be said for being there. Also, LBJ was humble, yeah he took credit for his acheivements, but he down played his greatness or coolness or whatever it was he had. Obama is not sufficiently humble. He's the smart guy in the room and he wants you to know that and in fact he runs up to you to tell you that. Works good in an election, but when you deal with other pols who have their own jobs and have been there and seen that, it gets...annoying.
Read about LBJ or rather yet, Obama should read on him-hopefully he does not.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--alcamadusGM2009
Dream on. You are out of power where you belong and we intend to keep it that way.
Republicans continue to prove daily that they are no longer fit to govern.
AlanD2
alcamadus: 6 months into an 8-year presidency, and Obama is already failing? Give the poor guy a chance. At least we liberals gave Bush two years before we started complaining about the Iraq war.
GrannyRob
Obama's got it all -- everything ... except the people who voted for him who now have buyer's remorse. He can push through any bill he wants, or so we're told. I can't fault him for being what he is in his political philosophy, a Marxist. But I can fault the numbers of people who voted for him without exercising due diligence and allowed themselves to be fools.
ukeman
the article merely pointed out how the system is against him; and in that sense, it is against the people who voted for him.
How you can call that foolish indicates you are shouting from a hole.
Maezeppa
This wimpy article left a bad taste in my mouth.
galeso
Kennedy was considered to be a successful president, but he got very little passed.
flyoverland
It is a shame that the goal has been so blurred. the goal should be to cover all American citizens. There is plenty of runway to land that plane. The goal isn't to socialize the healthcare system. Liberals are being pigs. As Liberman said over the weekend, we should take what is possible today, i.e., prohibit denial for pre-exisiting conditions, demand insurance is able to be sold across state lines, tort reform, expand Medicaid, etc. In other words, make affordable insurance available to everyone and let them buy it, subsidize those who can't and leave the rest alone. He would be a hero instead of a goat.
GM2009
Liberals are being pigs?
For wanting to provide health care to all Americans, rich or poor. There is a pig I would kiss, with or without lipstick.
Why do republicans hate their fellow Americans?
AlanD2
A Republican cannot stand the idea that some other American is going to get some of his (or her, as the case may be) money.
ThinkAgain
Maybe if Democrats got off their fat lazy asses, they could make themselves some money instead of whining about republcians not giving them their hard earned money.
AlanD2
ThinkAgain: No way. You're stuck supporting me for the rest of my life.
(Or at least the rest of yours.)
Llplo99
You are ignorant and don't seem to be paying attention to what is going on with healthcare. Those who have it right now may not have it in the future because the cost of insurance is rising rapidly and 1) they may not be able to afford it in five to ten years time and 2) employers may decide to stop providing it to their employees. Reform needs to happen now so all and not just the uninsured can get healthcare. Republicans need to start paying attention instead of trying to bring Obama down.
This fight for healthcare reform is not over.
clemmieo
Hmmm! Visions of "Mission Accomplished." Already making excuses if this doesn't go through? I think it probably will go through. I certainly hope for all Senior citizens it goes through and for those who can't afford any kind of health care. We will be very derelict as a nation if we cannot pass health care that will benefit those who already pay too much, and those who cannot pay at all. I guess the fascination for me is that one administration is like another. No specifics and no transparency.
Brownbourne
If the Public Option isn't worth the political capital it'll cost, the President should at least force the Republican Attack Machine to allocate its scarce resources towards health care for the next few weeks as he moves the chains on a number of other lefty "inside baseball" pet issues.
This was the perfect time (1) to disclose secret detainees' names to the Red Cross (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/world/middleeast/23detain.html?hpw) and (2) to tell the NYTimes that a special prosecutor will probably be appointed for Gitmo abuses within the next week (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24detain.html?_r=1&hp).
Just to draw it out a bit more, the Democrats can deliver the Left on a health care compromise without a Public Option if they take substantive steps towards, say, (3a) permitting Americans to travel to Cuba, (3b) facilitating Stem Cell Research, or (3c) federal anti-racial profiling measures (e.g., http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4611). And there are plenty more policies which might make it easier for Lefties to bite the bullet: President Obama just needs to be creative.
http://brownbourne.wordpress.com/
penscott
Obama has wasted considerable time and effort trying to make the rest of the world love us, traveling too much and making speeches apologizing for the US. The Europeans like him but have no intention of cooperating any more than they did with Bush. The Muslims still hate us and always will. The Chinese and Russian leaders, who kill or imprison their opponents, must think this kumbaya man is amusing.
This notwithstanding, Obama has failed to present a health care plan in clear and simple language but in some detail, to the American people. His failure to do so is puzzling and disastrous.
Llplo99
Apparently it is going over your head...some of us can understand complexity and connect the dots.
ThinkAgain
There's plenty of areas of reform that aren't controversial that can be passed so it's only a failure if they allow it to be defined as such. Most people don't want Obama to fail so I don't think the opposition is going to get much mileage out of trying to make a compromise into a failure.
And who believes the left when they say it's all or nothing? All or nothing or what? They're gong to vote republican?!
mcmchugh99
The last major domestic reforms were passed in this country under LBJ in the 1960s. That was the last major reform wave we had, and since that time, a lot of problems have just been left to drift and stagnate under decades of Republican rule.
Clinton made some attempts at reform in the 1990s, got burned and lost control of Congress. The same type of people who stopped change then, the Blue Dog-Dixiecrat-Republican coalition, are doing it again now. They are the conservative coalition that has so often blocked change in the past, even under JFK in the early-1960s or FDR in the late-1930s, but once in while, it's possible to overcome them.
Once a generation, a reform wave comes along that overwhelms that conservative coalition, and forces long overdue changes. If these are not made now, they never will be, and teh problems will be left unaddressed for another generation.
The only other chance in this generation will be after the 2012 elections, if Obama is reelected by a large majority. I believe he will be, since that is part of the historical pattern of these reform cycles--the reforming president is always elected for a second term, and then has another year or so to pass changes that he didn't complete in the first term
So Obama has to do it now, or wait till 2013. That's how our system works. I'm the first to say it doesn't work all that well. I'm the first to say that the Senate is a millionaire's club and should be abolished, and that all elections should be publicly financed.
I'm just trying to make the best out of a very bad system here.
eurydice9276
People like to act as if the Blue Dogs are some kind of aliens from another planet, but they're actually representing real live voters (and special interests) - voters (and special interests) which were very welcome to the Democratic party when it was trying win elections and assemble a majority. Now the Democratic leadership has to deal the consequences of that strategy.
It's an interesting dilemma - the leadership is trying to say "We're right, you're wrong, but we need your numbers, and you'd better vote against the interests of your constituents, or else." A nice mixed message.
ThinkAgain
It's called using and abusing them.
ThinkAgain
You're a narrow minded hate monger. You're so blinded by your hate of republicans you can't see your own silliness. If it wasn't for the republicans, you'd hate somebody else... cuz your ideas just aren't good enough there hate monger. There's always going to be people who don't like them.
crngndmhm
That's laughable. ThinkAgain lecturing on hate mongering when every post I've read of his is combative at best.
myhowland
Whoa! "If Obama Fails?" This debate is only about the health care bill. This legislation MAY fail -- I profoundly hope not. But Obama has already succeeded in too many ways to enumerate here. Start with changing the world's opinion of the US, making us safer as a result.
"Fail?" Certainly not.
Be specific in your titles please!
eurydice9276
Well, this is an odd sort of defense. It doesn't matter if Obama fails because the job of president is really, really hard? At least he tried, and he should get an "A" for effort? This is nursery school rhetoric. I can't imagine "Mr. Only Adult in the Room" would thank you for that.
Still, I can inderstand the concern on the part of Obama supporters. Obama's frenzied campaigning has given the impression that health care reform is do or die for him, and a statement that he's willing to be a one-term president over this doesn't help any. It just makes people want to start thinking about the next election - I hoped at least we'd get a few months of work out of them first
AlanD2
eurydice9276: Republicans can think about the next election all they want, but until they find somebody better than Sarah Palin to run, I'm not getting too worried about Obama's reelection prospects.
eurydice9276
Well, I wasn't thinking about the Republicans. You're quite right that they haven't got anybody credible at the moment.
ukeman
Obama represents change; so if there is someone better, let's go for it.
I think also, the Gnopers have dug a deeper hole here.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.