As the fight over Health Care Reform has reached unexpected political dimensions, one commentator sees the potential for a seismic shift in the dynamic of our national politics.
A friend emailed me an article by David Sirota the other day entitled Health Care Puts Progressives On the Verge of Changing the Power Dynamic. Sirota presents a positively upbeat, if provocative, analysis of progressive efforts in the drive for viable healthcare reform. Looking over the terrain of the debate, he's of the opinion that progressives are well positioned both tactically and strategically.
Along the way he makes some acute observations about the way the legislative process actually functions behind the fog of rhetorical sturm und drang and political posturing.
So, here's the deal, folks: Looking at the current state of play on health care through the multicolored lenses I acquired working on Capitol Hill and then working in politics out here in the West, I'd say it's a good bet that the House will pass a health care bill with a solid public option in it, and the Senate will pass a health care bill without a solid public option in it. I'd say it's also a good bet that the major reason - though probably not the only reason - Obama has gone back and forth on the public option is because the administration is solely focused on getting bills - any bills - passed through each chamber and into one conference committee for a final negotiation.
The Conference Committee has always been the place where the stakes are really down. The prior debates and bills produced in the House and Senate aren't insignificant but they are largely exercises in political theater. At day's end, what counts is the bill that the Conference Committee produces, as Sirota goes on to make clear.
Once that happens, the health care shit hits the legislative fan. We won't have to speculate anymore about whether the president is really committed to the public option, nor will we have to speculate about whether top senators and House members on the conference committee are committed to the public option. At that point, their actions will be far louder than their words.
This underlines the pointlessness of a lot of the criticism and doomsaying that has accompanied the legislative debate. Especially where that criticism has been directed at President Obama.
It was fairly clear from the get go that the President's strategy was to position himself as general advocate of health care reform while leaving the heavy lifting of crafting actual legislative proposals to the Congress and Senate. This was an astute political calculation on a number of levels.
Having the fiasco of "Hillary Care" as an instructive example, it appeared that presenting a comprehensive legislative proposal entailed far more risk than advantage. Since no such proposal would ever pass in its original form, presenting congress with a legislative blueprint would have simply given opponents a clear target and allowed the right to spin every subsequent alteration as a political defeat for Obama. With the ultimate political battle commencing only after a bill emerges from the committee, it would make little sense to expend the President's personal capital in what could easily become the political equivilent of death by a thousand cuts. A true assessment of the President's performance must wait on the final shape of the proposed legislation and his attitude towards it. Sirota is incisive on this point.
Obama will be forced to take a position on the public option as he either draws a veto line in the sand, or doesn't - and if he doesn't on the public option, it means he's willing to sell out the public option. Similarly, conference committee lawmakers will either have to vote for a public option, or vote with the insurance industry against it.
Having described the ground on which the real policy fight will be made, Sirota makes the provocative assessment refered to above. He believes that health care may also be the ground on which a fundamental shift in the DC power dynamic in favor of progressive politics may take place.
Indeed, all the forces seem to be coming into line: Polls show local Democratic dissatisfaction with easily primary-able Democrats, putting huge pressure on those Democrats to get in line; the Paul Krugmans of the liberal punditocracy, often offering up "on the one hand, on the other hand" dithering at the end of legislative fights, have now come out pretty strong for a public option; mainstream Republican editorial boards like the Denver Post are saying the public option is necessary; the decline in Obama's poll numbers are being fueled by progressive - not conservative - dissatisfaction on health care; fundraising for the public option campaign is intensifying; and the organizing work to support the public option is in full gear.
There is a good deal more to his argument and I suggest that everyone interested in progressive political change, not just on health care but across the board, read it. There's plenty of food for thought and discussion. My own view is that Sirota has grasped the one overarching reality that progressives must appreciate going forward. That being: nothing effective will be accomplished if we rely soley on the good will of elected officials and the politics of personal charisma. Progressives must be prepared to draw their own "lines in the sand" on core issues and, more importantly, to back up those stands with sufficient political muscle. That kind of muscle and credibility can only be gained through an autonomous grass roots mobilization capable of demanding change.