Keep It Clean!

While it's fairly obvious I care deeply about the state of American politics, and I hold definite views on policies, and now, candidates, I've tried to keep Publius fairly apolitical. It's not that I mind a good partisan debate, but the point of my blog isn't to try to persuade anyone to my political camp, but merely to get them to pay attention.

I'm also aware that there is a certain amount of mudslinging involved in political campaigns. It drives me crazy, but for the most part I can ignore it. And again, I try not to discuss it here, or if I do, it's based on some extraordinary merits and issued with a caveat, such as I did on Tuesday. But this just bothered me. The following email was forwarded to me this morning (I believe in it's entirety - I don't think the person who forwarded it actually wrote the introduction, since that's not how she writes. In other words, this is comes across as one of those pre-generated responses, like when you sign a petition onlin). Perusing articles of this type online are one thing, but when I'm assaulted by it in my own inbox, it's just too much; I finally had to respond. First, the article:

Interesting Obama history

I’ve been alerted to an interesting Boston Globe article about Barack Obama’s role, when he was in the Illinois legislature, in the attempt to get the state committed to universal health care. It turns out that the story very much prefigures the debates we’re having right now.

Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.

During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had “worked diligently with the insurance industry,” as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation’s reach and noted that the bill had undergone a “complete restructuring” after industry representatives “legitimately” raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.

“The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry,” Obama said, according to the session transcript.

To be fair, the piece also says this:

During debate over the Health Care Justice Act, Obama also attacked the insurers, accusing the industry of “fear-mongering” by claiming, even after he made changes they wanted, that the bill would lead to a government takeover.

This story gives a lot of context to the debate over health reform now. Obama clearly sees himself playing the same role as president that he did as a state legislator — as a broker among groups, including the insurance industry, as someone who can find a compromise solution that’s acceptable to a wide range of opinion.

My thoughts: being president isn’t at all like being a state legislator, Illinois Republicans aren’t like the national Republican party, 2009 won’t be 2003, and the insurance industry’s opposition to national health reform — which must, if it is to mean anything, strike deep at the industry’s fundamental business — will be much harsher than its opposition to a basically quite mild state-level reform effort.

The point is that if national health reform is going to happen, it will be as the result of a no-holds-barred fight of an entirely different order from what Obama saw in Illinois. The president’s role will have to be far more confrontational, involve far more twisting of arms and rallying of the public against the special interests, than Obama’s role as a state legislator in the Illinois case. And it will take place against a backdrop of fierce attacks not just from the industry but from Republicans who fear, rightly, that any kind of reform will move the country in a more liberal direction.

My worries about Obama are that he doesn’t seem to understand this — that he thinks that in 2009, as president, he can broker a national health care reform the same way that as a state legislator, in 2003, he brokered a deal that mollified the insurance industry. That’s a recipe for getting nowhere.

Now, my response:

I don't usually do reply-alls, but the excess of mudslinging emails/op-eds and whatever else in this campaign (not even from the Republicans, from the Democrats!!!) is starting to get to me. And its not just about Obama - although he seems to have borne the brunt of it. I'm tired of EVERYONE getting and everyone receiving. Can we please clean this up and actually have a real debate?! I finally just had to write this:

Ok, let’s look at this honestly. There are two issues here which are being conflated and confused.

1. Obama's health plan
2. Obama's legislative history/ties to lobbyists

The Boston Globe article (the theoretical base of the arguments in this email, actually has nothing to say about the merits of Obama's health plan, just his skills as a legislator. This is the beginning of a legitimate discussion to have, and the Globe does a fair job of presenting the facts (I'll get to the merits of the email in a minute).

But the heading of this email is “I don’t like Obama’s Health Care Plan”. Well, that may be so, but based on what faults? Certainly none with the actual policy are presented within the email or the Globe article.

So, we have an email that implies it will discuss the health care plan, but actually discusses the viability of Obama based on his conciliatory nature.

So again, point 1: the health care plan. The primary criticism Obama has been drawing from the Democrats is that his health care plan won’t cover everyone. This is true. It will only cover those who want to be covered. This is a free country. We can’t force people to have health insurance. This is not analogous to car insurance at all (which I have heard some comparisons to). We can require people to have car insurance should they decide to practice the privilege of owning and driving a car. But if they don’t, then, no insurance necessary. For health insurance, we would have to require people to have car insurance for the privilege of…. Being alive? No, thank you. Even if it is something I want (enough to pay for it myself before I was covered through my job). I’ll accept the government making it as easy as possible for me to afford it in order to increase the likelihood that I will have it and then won’t have to rely on Medicare or Medicaid when I get hit by a bus. But, it should be my decision, not the government’s. I am still an autonomous individual, ADULT. I can make these decisions for myself, thank you (requiring coverage for CHILDREN is another matter). For further discussion of Obama’s approach to healthcare, I suggest these links: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/01/obamas-false-healthcare-ad-draws-fire-from-clinton/
http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2007/12/obamas-and-clintons-health-care-plans.html

To return to point 2: Obama’s skills as a legislator. The Globe article does raise questions about Obama’s honesty about working with lobbyists. I don’t think that working with lobbyists is necessarily wrong (getting insurers on board to provide healthcare does seem like a good idea, but that could just be me), and I could also be willing to accept that Obama has legitimately evolved his thinking since his time in the state legislature, and if placed in the same position today, would act differently (I’d certainly like to think I’ve changed at least a bit – and in positive ways – since 2004). But yes, now that I know that about his history, I will be more vigilante in assessing his interactions with lobbyists, as well as speeches on the subject. But the email doesn’t stop at hey, check out this bit about Obama – maybe you should pay attention. Instead, it continues on to draw conclusions about his ability to push legislation through Congress. Ok, I guess that’s fair. But I can’t say that I think the conclusions make any sense whatsoever.

The email offers two points and then a conclusion:

1. Obama didn’t just roll over to serve the needs of the insurers: he did give them a hard time:
“To be fair, the piece also says this:
During debate over the Health Care Justice Act, Obama also attacked the insurers, accusing the industry of “fear-mongering” by claiming, even after he made changes they wanted, that the bill would lead to a government takeover.”

So he CAN be tough, just not tough enough, per the second point:

2. Being president isn’t like being a state legislator, and passing health care reform nationally won’t be like passing health care reform in Illinois.

Definitely a fair point. However, this doesn’t mean that Obama won’t be capable at the presidential level.

Why must we conclude that health care reform will require a ‘no-holds-barred’ approach? Certainly, ‘special interests’ will want to have their say and get their way (by the way, AARP = special interest, especially from the perspective of anyone under the age of 40, childrens’ advocates = also a special interest group. EVERYONE uses lobbyists, not just “them”). But Congress also has to represent their constituents: old people, middle aged people, and children (in a fit of pessimism I'll say that everyone ignores 20-somethings). And polls have show that the majority of the American public wants some form of wide-spread health care coverage and reform. But who knows, it could get ugly.

To that, I would further say, and so we want a president who will make it uglier by playing partisan politics and refusing to broker a solutions so that the American people can FINALLY get the legislation we want and need?! Policy (that which politics is supposed to create) is ALWAYS a matter of compromise, at least in a democracy. Dictatorships don’t have much compromise in their policies, but don’t tend to act on the behalf of their subjects either. Compromise is a good thing – remember the adage ‘two heads are better than one’? It’s not because both immediately come to an agreement. Yes, policies can be weakened, but if the alternative is complete gridlock and policymaking by lack of progress, then I will conciliation, open-mindedness, compromise, mercy, justice, and the genuine desire to get stuff done! any day.

I obviously am on Obama's side here, as that last paragraph proves, but my broader point is this: I’m glad I was alerted to the Globe article – passing information like that around helps citizens keep candidates and politicians honest. But if we’re going to draw conclusions, let’s base them to the facts that are presented, and ACTUALLY present the facts. Campaigns and policy histories are far too complicated as it is, why make it dirty as well?

And really, why can't we? Without further discussing the faults/merits of an Obama presidency, I'm just tempted by the possible decline in all this name-calling in the guise of fair debate and the 'interests of the people'. It is entirely possible for two rational people to disagree completely on a political issue, and yet remain completely civil in their debate, as well as maintain a friendship. This past Sunday, the 18th, was the national Day of Reconciliation in South Africa. While not at all trying to compare the circumstances, couldn't the US do something like that? Or at least try it in the holiday spirit?