Divining the precise outlines of Democratic suckitude on health care

The Democrats suck (as usual) on health care.  But what exactly lies behind their epic suckitude this particular time around?  Glenn Greenwald has a theory—a conspiracy theory.  Take it away, Glenn:

The attempt to attract GOP support was the pretext which Democrats used to compromise continuously and water down the bill.  But -- given the impossibility of achieving that goal -- isn't it fairly obvious that a desire for GOP support wasn't really the reason the Democrats were constantly watering down their own bill?  Given the White House's central role in negotiating a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry, its betrayal of Obama's clear promise to conduct negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN no less), Rahm's protection of Blue Dogs and accompanying attacks on progressives, and the complete lack of any pressure exerted on allegedly obstructionists "centrists," it seems rather clear that the bill has been watered down, and the "public option" jettisoned, because that's the bill they want -- this was the plan all along.

But Cenk Uygur, the guy whose name looks suspiciously like a dirty anagram, has a different theory:

So, how are [the Republicans] winning? Because the Democrats brought a scalpel to a gun fight. The Republicans have attacked and attacked and attacked. Meanwhile, what has been the Democratic response? They're reaching out in a spirit of bipartisanship. Why?

Someone says they're going to bite your head off and will almost all vote against you, what is your purpose in continuing to reach out to them? They say they will under no circumstances vote for real health care reform with a public option, which you have said many times before is essential. They are in essence saying the only way they would vote for your bill is if they were positive it sucked. So, why do the Democrats continue to help the Republicans in killing this thing?

It is the unbearable weakness of Democratic being. They cannot find it in their hearts to strongly argue for their own position. To be fair, in this case, the weakness is mainly Obama's. The White House has clearly indicated this weekend that they have already given up on the public option -- and they're still begging the Republicans to work with them. Frankly, it's pathetic.

So, which is it?  Is Glenn Greenwald right that this was the Democrats' plan all along, and they're just using the Republicans as a beard?  Or is Cenk Uygur correct in his belief that the Democrats are unable to argue their health care position persuasively because of their tiny, tiny penises, and if they were only hung like Cenk Uygur, maybe they could finally get something done?  Or is it something else entirely?  Something so horrifying it cannot be named?

This strikes me as somewhat of an academic point, like wondering if the serial killer who's about to carve you into tiny pieces really did think you looked like Clive Owen, or was just saying that to trick you into letting your guard down.  So (for once) I'm expressing no opinion.  But I am curious to know: what do you think?

[ In fairness, the Democrats of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have vowed to vote against any bill that doesn't include a public option, and therefore don't appear to suck completely on this particular issue at this particular point in time...but as always with Democrats, it would be wise to wait until the votes are cast to pass final judgment on that. ]

Comments

[Paul Daniel Ash]

While any group of people have diverse individual motives, I think it's reasonable to look at the dynamics that drive people who want to invest such energy into being politicians, and the pragmatic realities such people have to deal with.

Shorter me: they're power-junkies, and will whore their asses out to the people who will give them what they want.

Seriously, though... I'd stop short of calling it a conspiracy, in the sense of a well-orchestrated plan that we should spend our summers watching town-hall hysterics while Democrats drone on and on about subpart (b) of chapter 11 of the Smoot-Foont-deGroot Act. But I think the necessities of what's required to remain in power are quite clear to the Democrats; their apparent fecklessness may just be a product of the fact that Democratic districts don't look as kindly at the exercise of power as such a blunt instrument.

Ultimately, yeah, it doesn't matter, but it would be so nice if more people got the message that the choice really is just between smiley, hopey corporate catspaws and gruff, unctuous corporate catspaws...

[SteveB]

Obama seemed plenty driven and focused and persuasive when he was striving for something he actually wanted - the Presidency - so if he suddenly can't put together a single persuasive sentence for anything that any of us might actually consider real reform, maybe it's because he doesn't want to? Just a thought.

Although I've given up on any hope for real health care reform, I still hold out hope that the first year of the Obama administration will see the death of the ridiculous "Democrats are spineless" meme. Lately, I've noticed some commenters on liberal blogs (not many, but a few) making the discovery that Harry Reid is actually a conservative, who likes to "give in" to Republicans because - get this - he agrees with them. Next thing you know, people will be figuring out that the Democrats like the filibuster, because it gives them an means of betraying the base of their own party while deflecting the blame onto the Republicans.

But maybe even that's too much to hope for. I've had a couple of face-to-face conversations with liberal Dems where they ask, "Why are Democratic politicians so weak?" as if they actually wanted an answer to the question, and when I explain that Reid & Co. are just pretending to be weak in order to hide their basic agreement with the Republicans on everything that matters, the response I get is just a blank stare and an embarrassed attempt to change the subject, and a week later they're back to "Why are Democratic politicians so weak?" You know, if you don't want an answer, you should really stop asking the damn question.

Does it matter if rank-and-file Dems understand why they're getting fucked over? Maybe not. They'd still have to develop the courage to act on that information, and how many people are going to do that? And that's really the simplest explanation for why Democratic politicians behave the way they do. They do it because they can, because they know that disgruntled progressives will always come running back to the Donkey, if for no other reason than to keep Palin/Santorum out of the White House.

[abb1]

It sure looks like a Kabuki play with predetermined finale.

"Weakness of Democratic being" just doesn't make sense; I don't see any sign of a mechanism in the political system that would somehow reward meekness and elevate submissiveness in the Democratic party. That doesn't sound like a rational explanation at all.

[KDelphi]

The MSM was "SO excited"!! (include lisp for Don Lemon)when Franken was "finally seated"--now they have a fillibuster-proof majority!

My response was. "Wow. What excuse will they use now". Answer--"we need 60- votes for a REAL..." What bullshit!

The entire House, Senate and presidency could be Democratic and we would get Bill Clintonesque policies because THAT IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.

Its true. Believe it. Absorb it. Admit it. All that is left of the GOP is Confederates products of a limited gene pool and the Dems have taken up the corporate banner. They have more corporate money now and they have the perfect corporate candidate, in darker colors for soccer moms who want to feel like they are "affecting social change", as they vote on their way to drop off their kids at a lily-white private school and support No Child's Behind Left.

Whew!

[Harold M]

The wussification theory is bogus, but I like it because it gives us an opportunity to offer helpful psychological insights regarding the penis pundits. My sense of their state of mind is that they wear silly hats when they write their articles, and engage in passive necrophilia immediately after they hit publish. I can accept the possibility that I'm wrong about the hats -- I consider myself an heir of the Enlightenment, after all -- but the articles are such clear proof of years spent seeking zombie coitus that the burden of disproof rests with the pundits.

[Rob Payne]

They are both wrong. The insurance companies have congress in their pockets and so neither party is interessted in reform.

[Xihuitl]

I'm with Glenn. Obama and his "democrats" are using the "bipartisan" thingy because it helps them do what they really want to do, which is please their Wall Street base and get the money. Screw the people.

[SteveB]

And, for added cluelessness, there's always Digby:

"At the time, nobody believed that an incumbent Vice President in a roaring economy would have a race so close that the Republicans could steal it. But we know differently now don't we? And you would think that the Democratic establishment would also know that because of that, it may not be a good idea to alienate the left to the point where they become apathetic or even well... you know. It can happen. It did happen. Why the Democrats persist in believing that it can't happen again is beyond me."

I know, the implication that Nader put Bush in the White House rankles, but leave that aside. "Why the Democrats persist in believing that it can't happen again is beyond me." And she's right, it is beyond her. Could it be that Rahm Emmanuel is certain 2000 can't happen again because he knows there's an army of people, one of whom is nicknamed "Digby", who will throw every ounce of their energy into arguing against voting for anyone except the Democrat? Nah, that can't be the explanation, can it? Better to pretend to be confused.

[KDelphi]

Joe Lieberman is the world's biggest ass clown.

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.

[KDelphi]

The GOP will prob take back the Senate in 2010, everything will still suck (war, no health care, no bank reg.) and Dems will say, 'see what you guys did? We were going to do all of that stuff in 2011!!"

[Scott Busfield]

For the life of me I don't know why "third party" political movements on the fringe such as the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties don't form a coalition party on the basis of two or three basic planks such as adhering to Constitution by enforcing the laws of the country regardless of who the perpetrator is, and/or introducing real health care reform through single payer. If at the same time they can recruit the few uncorrupted politicians remaining such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich as well as a few high profile outsiders it would provide an immediate legitimacy to the new party in time for the 2010 elections. Surely this is the long awaited time to create a real alternative to the two "Corporate" parties?

[John Caruso]

Great comments all around (and KDelphi, you are on fire).

I fall somewhere in the middle. I agree with Paul that it's not a conspiracy per se (and that it's also dicey to assert one overarching motive to a heterogeneous group). And I don't believe the Democrats would continue pushing health care changes if they didn't actually want them; I know the obvious response to that is that they're just doing it as a sop for their base, but though there's an element of truth there I can't go for it absolutely. I think they really do want some kind of change. And I also think Obama's stated commitment to bipartisanship is real—he genuinely feels it's important to reach out to Republicans, but in this case (and many others) that's just not going to work because the Republicans are hell bent on having an ideological battle.

So there's some truth to "weakness"...but it's the wrong word. What's really going on is that the Democrats receive ample rewards (and pay no price) for catering to corporate interests time after time. So while they may occasionally/initially take actions that balk corporate goals, under any kind of pressure they'll fold, because there's just no reason for them to do otherwise. And even so, the limits of their agenda will fall within the narrow range of opinion that goes all the way from the most right-wing CEO to the most liberal CEO.

abb1: ...I don't see any sign of a mechanism in the political system that would somehow reward meekness and elevate submissiveness in the Democratic party.

I do, actually. Consider: there's always going to have to be a party that ostensibly represents the schlub on the street, and that claims to be fighting for the working man, and in our system it's the Democrats. So by adopting watered-down versions of the reforms their constituents want and then selling out even those weakened goals, the Democrats effectively keep a lid on the popular will. And that's an invaluable service to those who actually run the country.

And the business community isn't a monolith by any means—there really are liberal CEOs out there. But "liberal" is the right word, since they're deeply indoctrinated and therefore vanishingly unlikely to want anything but the most modest changes to the status quo. As long as that remains true, and the Democrats can align themselves with that half of the business world without losing the votes of their constantly-betrayed base, their "meekness" will continue to be rewarded.

[Rob Payne]

Okay, so let’s say the Democrats want some kind of change in health care. The question is who will actually benefit from the “change”, the public at large or the insurance companies? Another way of putting it will they change health care the way Bill Clinton changed welfare? That was done under the rubric of reform and reformed it was.

[Jonathan Versen]

OK, I'll try-

I seriously doubt Obama cares terribly much one way or the other about the actual contents of a healthcare reform bill, as long as:

1. It doesn't get him in hot water with his corporate masters,
2. It can conceivably be spun as a positive development, and
3. He can take credit for it.

The Public Option was never meaningful, except as a kind of handy gestalt. A term to toss around that served the interests of
1. the GOP, who could attack it,
2. of Obama, who could tepidly defend then abandon it(his M.O., as far as I can see),and of
3. democrats in liberal districts like Pelosi, who could raise money in the next election cycle as righteous and only slightly phony-baloney defenders of the faith, who tried, really tried, their damnedest to defend the public option. To no avail. Alas.

PS, SteveB's diagnosis of the digby problem is effing awesome.

PPS, I wish I had a stunning three part argument for single payer to go here. I'll work on it.