Obama: The False Prophet

The Blogg Is Back.

The links below are old news, but interesting to note. For all the silly cultural wedge politics about Obama being a left-wing nut/Second Coming of Progressive Politics, on one key issue (maybe the key issue), he is substantially more centrist than Klinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

(this guy is a well-respected center-left economist)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/sen-obama-please-no-mor_b_49920.html

(old and shrill in tone, but I think its underlying point is right)

I didn't necessarily recognize it right away, but the mandate thing seems to be an important difference. Maybe the West Virginia hicks weren't so stupid after all.

Now mind you, I will most certainly vote for Obama against McCain. Many times, if possible. But I think it's important to stay clear-headed about what he represents and what he does not. He is a centrist democrat, which is fine if that's what you support. But Obama is totally unsatisfactory from a social-democratic perspective, and I don't think he has any business enjoying the kind of rabid support from young left-wingers that he does.

Of course many people try to defend him on the grounds that "he needs to say this stuff to get elected." But I don't buy this. The Republicans don't seem to hesitate pushing for what they truly believe in, and it hasn't seemed to hurt them too badly in the post-Reagan era. If Obama believes in more left-wing policies then his policy recommendations should reflect that. He could compromise later on down the road if he had to. Besides, he's gonna get ripped up and down by the right-wing for "nationalizing healthcare" even under his current mushy pro-insurance industry plan, so he might as well throw something real out there.

Mike's Reply:

"I have to disagree slightly, of course. An important note in the second article is that Obama has already said that a single-payer system would be ideal. He would certainly support that plan. But, regardless of how outspoken or up front about it he is on that point, it is far from a political winner at the moment. Maybe after the election it will be a different story. (Hopefully with greater Dem majorities in both houses.)

Also, the mandate of coverage is the primary (only?) difference between the two plans, and Clinton's plan is no less a rearranging of the "deck chairs" than Obama's plan because it too still primarily relies on private insurance to cover everyone. Thus, to say that Obama's plan is "more centrist" is not necessarily true.

Republicans haven't been afraid to push their beliefs because for whatever reason the country has been behind them, and because their issues are generally the easy way and simple-minded solutions. (i.e. - "lower my taxes") Democrats generally have nuanced positions, and which require people to sacrifice things (such as tax dollars) that people are less willing to support. There is one big exception to this in current times. With respect to the Iraq War, although the solution is not necessarily simple-minded, the notion of "Get Out Now" is simple, and a majority of the country already backs it. Yet, "centrist" Dems have a point that there are logistical and possibly human rights issues that would have to be addressed, and makes their policy position (which requires a longer stay that the left would find unacceptable).\

My point is that Obama coming out strong for a single-payer system doesn't move the ball forward at all, especially if he isn't going to have a Congress that would pass it. I'm sure he's polled the issue, and right now it's probably a loser. It does no sense for him to grab on to an issue that issue going to allow him to win. However, once he gets into office, the House and Senate can put forth incredibly leftist plans that are closer to single-payer, and he can use the bully pulpit to drum up support for those plans."

My Reply to Mike's Reply:

Noting that "a single payer system would be ideal" is not a fair equivalent of "supports" or "proposes." What he truly believes in his deepest heart's soul is not a terribly relevant consideration with respect to his palatibility as a candidate for political office. His likely policy proposals and bill signings while in office, as predicted by his Senate term and his campaign proposals, are the only relevant considerations.

Klinton's plan sucks too, no question. Anything less than a hard push for a single-payer system is a nearly unforgivable offense for a Democrat in my book. But even if Klinton's mandate is the only difference, it is a significant difference both in terms of the likely effectiveness of the plan and how "left" or "centrist" it is. According to the research Krugman cites, Klinton's plan would cover more people at a greater overall cost (but at a lower cost per person) than Obama's plan. Advocating a public policy that delivers less public services to less people at a lower cost in terms of total public funds, as Obama does, is the very definition of "more centrist," at least as I understand the concept. Obama's mandate-less plan also allows better health risks (i.e., young and healthy workers) to opt out of the system and therefore put more pressure on the rest of the risk pool (i.e., "adverse selection"). The notion that better risks should have the right to opt out of a social insurance system (like, say, allowing high earners to opt out of Social Security) is a fundamentally anti-redistributive and conservative idea. Finally, the idea that the consumer is ultimately sovereign and should have the right to decide that buying healthcare is not in his or her best interest is a fundamentally conservative, free-market idea. Obama's plan observes this fiction while Klinton's "mandate" does not.

And I think it's a real chicken-and-egg thing with the whole "the American electorate just won't buy progressivism" thing. If it had been seriously pitched in the last 30 years by a charismatic, legitimate candidate with the whole might of the Democratic Party behind them, who knows where we'd be now? The fact is that the Republicans have effectively marketed a right-wing ideology for the last 30 years and the Democrats have poorly marketed a centrist ideology during that time. This was not inevitable, and there's no reason to just assume it couldn't be reversed if the will were there. If the polling doesn't support real social democratic policies right now then the Dems need to get out there and pound the pavement more, or else what's the point of having the party if it's just a mirror reflection of current polling numbers? Polling numbers probably support prayer and anti-evolution teaching in schools, banning gays from the military, and maybe even outlawing abortion, but you don't see Dems just conceding those issues. They push for them, as they should for a single payer plan do if they valued the policy goals and philosophy that support it. Besides, we all know it's the insurance lobby and not the polling numbers that provides the limit on healthcare policy.

Once again, the Democrats will be called anti-American socialists no matter how centrist they get. They might as well make proposals with some teeth if they really value social democratic policy goals. Bottom line for me: Obama's plan is both more centrist than, and inferior to, Klinton's plan, and the Democrats have no excuse for being so centrist that I'm willing to accept.