After digesting the comments on my diary yesterday, I had some more thoughts on this question.
With the (small sample-72) poll showing 50% feeling that President Obama does not want a public option, my first thought was, see he really does not want one. But I now realize many feel that he does not want one because he genuinely feels now or has always felt that the PO would not get the votes required to pass. I could see President Obama and his advisers, calculating this to be the case a year ago, more or less, from a general perspective of what they believed the political system would tolerate. By political system I mean Congress and the corporate interests which comprises the status quo to be shifted. Obviously, a PO would never be in the corporate interest. But given the grass roots popularity of a wide based government based health care system like single payer or as a huge compromise, a strong viable public option, I would think the president, being a person open to new information, would have changed his perspective.
I'd think that seeing the actual groundswell of popular support across the country, President Obama would have shifted his strategy and actively worked to sell a good PO to Congress and the American people.
No tough legislation passes in a vacuum (without active, forceful support). I can think of possible reasons that President Obama would decide it best not to push single payer or a good PO. I happen to disagree, but that's me.
- Wanting to appear moderate to not ostracize the more conservative politicians and Americans.
- Believing that incremental change is the only way to achieve it.
- Believing you cannot alienate corporate interests and remain in power.
- Some Republican support can be garnered by incrementalism (proven not to be the case) or at a minimum their flack marginalized (again,proven not to be the case).
It has been said that large change to the status quo needs to be done aggressively, not inch by inch. In the case of health care reform, I happen to agree with this. You do not set up a national health system that is able to compete on a similar scale, incrementaly. Bungle this political football in the eyes of the American people, and Dems. will piss away this majority and be left only to be able to make changes to the edges of things. (no real change)
I believe that significant change is like a pendulum. If you do not move to make significant changes when the pendulum is swinging in their favor, you lose momentum and the pendulum swings back against your policy. IMO the grass roots pendulum of HC reform is swinging well into the direction of significant change, but the WH and Senate leadership believe we must keep the pendulum travel MUCH smaller. The 'small pendulum' movement is akin to not upsetting the apple cart/ status quo. Real change is far to unacceptable to the corporate constituency, which is, of course who finances their campaigns. Sadly, this is how our system works. Some well thinking Senators and Representatives may even feel that keeping the large corporate bankrolls in place frees up there time from fund raising a bit, to enable them to do more of the people's work. I doubt it actually works that way.
So, as ex-Congressman Massa said on Glenny B's enlightening expose of a show (LOL!), 'THE key to fixing ANYTHING in our political system is campaign finance reform.' Somehow, amidst trying to pull our way out of this hole we are in economically, politically and socially, we need to fix how campaign are financed. Kind of a catch 22... :o(
Side note: It was very interesting to see the Beckster squirm in his hour long 'non tear open the system' interview with Eric Massa... But I digress. I guess that is a redundant statement. ANY time you mention Glen Beck, you digress <g>.
Hat tip to Ohmyheck in the comments for this link to Glenn Greenwald's 3/12 Salon.com article "The Democrats' scam becomes more transparent"
If -- as they claimed all year long -- a majority of Congressional Democrats and the White House all support a public option, why would they possibly whip against it, and ensure its rejection, at exactly the moment when it finally became possible to pass it? If majorities of the House and Senate support it, as does the White House, how could the inclusion of a public option possibly jeopardize passage of the bill?
To me, this has been the 800 pound gorilla in this PO debate for a long time. How does one support an argument against this anomaly? The only thing that I can think of are 'The reasons which are not to be named'(like corporate donations influence via THE EXTREMELY powerful K street lobyists)