Some have argued that only something as dramatic as a public option will truly deal with the nation’s health care “crisis,” but that’s hard to swallow considering the sizable Democratic opposition to the idea in the House and the newly crafted Senate package.
Think about that reasoning for a moment. Who opposes the public option? Not the American people. They consistently express support for a public option. In fact, the public option is significantly more popular than the overall effort to reform health care. It’s the insurance corporations that hate the public option, and they have a lot of money to spread around in support of or in opposition to our politicians. So, isn’t it possible (even likely) that the lack of support we’re seeing in Congress for a public option is not a result of Congress representing the wishes of their constituents but instead a result of politicians looking to be rewarded or avoid punishment by corporate interests?
I’ve actually come to believe that the avoidance of punishment is the most important feature of our political landscape. Most incumbents have plenty of money for their reelection campaigns. They don’t really need any more money. Bundled corporate donations and PAC money helps them spend less time on the telephone begging for money, but that’s not the biggest motivator. Most so-called moderates, or Blue Dogs, represent poor, rural districts, and there just isn’t that much money available to raise from their constituents. What they’re mainly worried about is preventing corporate interests from funding their opponents. If they can keep their local Chamber of Commerce happy, their opponents won’t be able to find enough local money to make a serious challenge. And if they can prevent national groups from pouring money into their challenger’s coffers, they’re pretty much home free in their reelection effort.
Members from more affluent suburban districts can rely on lots of donations from liberal-minded professionals and the academic community. Where labor unions are strong, they can rely on their money and muscle as well. But most Blue Dogs don’t have these luxuries. That’s why the most corporate-friendly Democrats come from the South. It took me a while to figure this out because the South was originally hostile to Wall Street and bankers and corporations. There was a whole Jefferson-Jackson element to the Democratic Party, which was populist. I still think southern populism is an electorally viable ideology for southern Democrats on the merits. But sometimes, merit has nothing to do with it. Why win an argument with an opponent when you can drown out his voice so he cannot even make his case?
Rothenberg argues that the Democrats won no mandate for health care reform with a public option, or cap and trade, or the Employee Free Choice Act. But how can you win a mandate if not by telling the voters what you want to do and having them elect you to office (presumably, to do it what you promised)?
I understand that voters don’t endorse every piece of your agenda when they elect you, and that sometimes they are voting against the other team as much as they are voting for you. But I don’t think the Democrats are running into trouble because they are pursuing their election year promises. They’re running into trouble because they aren’t passing enough legislation and it looks like they are incapable of addressing the problems the country is facing. This is the goal of Republican obstruction. What they can’t stop, they slow down. Voters continue to sour on Washington, with both parties suffering in approval ratings as a result.
The Democrats’ agenda isn’t too radical, it’s too ineffectual. Between the Republican’s stalling games and Democrats who put corporations first, the people’s business is not getting done.
