But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
With those words, Barack Obama sounded the death knell of any hope of a new progressive era. No new New Deal. No new Great Society. Not even a version of the progressive ideal set forth by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
The importance of this moment cannot be overexagerrated. If, with 60 seats in the Senate and a 40-seat majority in the House, and with the longest economic downturn since the Great Depression, Democrats cannot even enact a watered down public insurance plan to compete with the power of the health insurance industry, there is absolutely no hope, for decades, of enacting anything remotely close to single payer, or single payer itself. What do we get instead? Mandates requiring people to by private insurance which will fatten the private health insurance industry's bottom line. Ineffective co-ops. And maybe a just as ineffective "trigger." The only thing remotely close to a "death panel" in this debate, is the one Obama and Emanuel held for progressivism.
By refusing to forcefully support and fight for a public option, Obama showed himself to be no progressive. And this will effect not merely health care, but other domestic areas where we hope to see progressive change. Like taxes, job programs, domestic spending, finanical regulation and environmental policy. By not challenging the Reaganite notion that government is "the problem," Obama has bought into it. Much like Bill Clinton. In fact, it turns out that progressives provided the margin to defeat Hillary Clinton, only to end up with her husband's third term. How ironic. And just like Bill, Obama has treated his most loyal election supporters like used toilet paper. It's no accident that Rahm Emanuel was, and is, deeply involved in both presidencies.
But maybe it's progressives' own fault. Democrats in Washington take our support for granted, and we give it to them. Over and over again, Democrats in Washington play Lucy holding the football, to our Charlie Brown.
So, what are we to do now? I don't know for sure. There are plenty of good progressives in congress, and they should be supported, financially and otherwise. Non-progressive Democrats should not get any of our support. That means no contributions to campaign committees, only to individual candidates. And no contributions and support to presidential candidates like Barack Obama, who take our money and then give us the finger.
As for Obama, I doubt a primary challenge in 2012 will gain any traction. He has too much support in important voting blocs. If Bill Clinton did not get a primary challenge in 1996, I can't see Obama getting one. Unless he goes all DLC on us. The bigger question is a third-party challenge. And Obama and company should think long and hard about that one. After all, had not the Clinton-Gore administration sold out progressives, Al Gore would have been in the White House in January 2001, without having to conduct a post-election fight in Florida. Something Democrats in Washington ignore at their peril.