How pragmatism works in Washington, or doesn’t
Polls rating approval of the administration, its policies and the president’s popularity can be read many ways. It all depends on who circulates the poll and how the questions are written. The results and the way pundits analyze the numbers will vary.
We’ve been hearing that President Obama’s numbers are slipping but there seems to be no consensus as to why they are no longer astronomically high, as they were earlier this year, even though they are still respectable.
The troubling part is that Obama is losing support among both moderates, who say he’s doing too much, and liberal Democrats, who say he’s not doing enough to promote their agenda. It seems that some promises made last year were lost in the transition from campaigning to governing. Well, isn’t that how it always works? Candidates campaign from the left or the right and then govern from the center. We’ve come to expect that.
Advocates for everything from gay rights and same-sex marriage to abortion rights and single-payer health care are voicing disappointment that Obama hasn’t already moved forcefully enough to address their issues.
Perhaps his inner pragmatist reminds him of early failures in the Clinton administration and spurs a determination not to repeat those missteps. The derailment of Hillary-care (hatched in secret and presented to Congress as a done deal) prompted Obama to give Congress only an outline of what he wanted and let them wrestle with the details.
That strategy was only partly successful with the climate change legislation passed last week. One supposes that after eight years of ignoring the issue even existed, credit would be given for passing anything with that name. However, by the time it emerged from the sausage factory it had at least one fatal flaw: Cap and Trade, which would have been much more effective as a tax on polluters, was virtually handed over to Wall Street, which will profit mightily from its exchange as a commodity.
As health care reform goes through the same process, we wonder how it will emerge. At this point, it appears to be a game of chicken between the House and the Senate. First one to blink loses. So they both stall, giving the insurance industry and pharmaceutical lobbyists time to spread more money around while the TV ads spread misinformation and scare tactics.
The biggest disappointment for liberal Democrats is that they voted for the guy who promised to reform the way Washington does business. Well, it’s still business as usual in D.C. Lobbyists are thriving on K Street and on the Hill where legislators up for reelection next year are raking in their donations or making good on promises made to previous donors.
Pragmatism dictates that such fundamental change of politics is just not possible. At least not yet. But accepting that means having to settle for a system-wide weakening of regulations in all the areas that most need fundamental reform. This acceptance of the status quo has made all the parties say such changes are not on the table.
Insurance companies will continue to hold the reins and the average working American will still be dependent upon employers to provide increasingly unaffordable access to health care.
Any insurance agent will tell you that the only way to manage costs is to spread the risk over as large a population as possible. Hence their support for a mandate that all Americans buy health insurance and their opposition to a government-run “Public Plan” they say would not have to compete “on a level playing field.”
So if legislators are in thrall to lobbyists for all the vested interests thriving on the status quo, what’s a president to do?
We’re told this week Obama will become more vocal and more insistent on passing at least some version of health care reform. And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows trying to lower the temperature of the debate. “The House and Senate are committed to working with the president to get this done,” she has said.
Peter Orszag, White House budget director, maintains the key is to get there in a way that is “deficit neutral.” To that end the debate seems focused on competing proposals: to tax employer-provided health benefits, which most Democrats oppose, or to tax the very wealthy, anathema to most Republicans. Obama says the plan must not add to the deficit and that a variety of cost saving measures (some already agreed to by providers) haven’t been factored into overall costs estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
Pragmatism seems to be working for Obama in foreign relations, where his willingness to listen counts for a great deal. When it comes to dealing with Congress, he doesn’t seem to have a talent for LBJ-style arm-twisting. We can only hope the Pragmatist-in-Chief doesn’t give away the store.