Can Obama Learn From Reagan (And FDR)?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:24:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Riffing off of Ed Kilgore, Digby writes:

[I]f Obama still wants to emulate the great "game changer" himself, Ronnie Reagan, that is exactly what he would do. Reagan used his personal popularity to get rank and file Democrats to support his policies. And he rhetorically always framed his policies as the common sense policies of the everyman out in the country, and then they backed it up with polling that showed that the people trusted him.

Obama can pass health care with Democrats and then legitimately call it bipartisan by citing public support. But he has to not care that David Broder and David Brooks have a hissy fit over it. They do not speak for Americans; they don't even speak for Republicans on this one. This is what the bully pulpit is all about. He can take his case directly to the people and if he backs a real plan, with real teeth, he can get it passed, I don't have any doubts. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Let me note that Reagan learned the trick from FDR. I repeat my refrain, if real health care reform does not happen, it will be because President Barack Obama failed, not Ben Nelson or Max Baucus. That is how history will remember it and how the voters will think about it in 2012. Maybe that will incentivize Rahmbo.

Speaking for me only

< Bernard Madoff's Lawyers Ask for 12 Year Sentence | Cheney and Kadamus: When Should Hunting Accidents Be Prosecuted As Crimes? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Can Obama Learn From Reagan (And FDR)? | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This assumes Obama (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by dk on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:41:56 AM EST

wants a health care framework that is different from what the insurance companies want. That assumption doesn't seem very reality based to me.

Seems very reality based to me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:46:13 AM EST

He wants to win reelection and he wants to go down in history as a great President.

Unless you are of the view that real health care reform would not help in both, your comment makes no sense to me.


Obama ran and won (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by dk on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:55:42 AM EST

based on:

this

and

Most likely he thinks that if it's good enough to get him in the first time, it can work again in 2012.

In order to have real health care reform, it would be necessary to want to buck the status quo. Obama has made very clear, in the campaign and since his inauguration, that he does not wish to do so with regard to health care. Do I think that is a shame? Yes. Do I think Obama is too conservative? Yes. But what does that matter?

Digby still seems to be clinging to the stealth progressive theory of Obama. If Obama just bucks David Broder et. al., etc., everything will be fine. The problem is that Obama does not wish to do so. He is, I am sure, coming up with other ways to try to ensure his re-election.


Digby makes the argument ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:45:27 PM EST

that Obama could pass meaningful healthcare reform in the current political climate. She's right.

He won't. And anyone who can read pols knows he won't.

But he could.


: What's the phrase? (none / 0) (#36)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:28:04 PM EST

oh, yeah...."get over it"

The Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:57:22 AM EST

The Democrats -- especially the Chicago-flavored Democrats -- have learned from Bush that all you have to do is write the headline and people will believe that the reform took place and that it's good...Just make sure the implementation of reform occurs AFTER November 2012 and the snow job is complete. Oh, and pray for an incident that invokes a rally around the government effect.

The healthcare reform situation is currently a mess. Circumstances suggest that Obama either doesn't want the reform or he is clueless on leading the issue. How can you believe otherwise? Either way, we're screwed.

An opinion writer the other day stated that Obama didn't learn politics in Narnia, he learned it in Chicago...he'll definitely find a way to make this look like something it isn't, even while getting what his larger contributors in the "healthcare" industry want. Pay to play. And we little guys just don't have enough dough.

: EXACTLY (none / 0) (#8)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:02:17 PM EST

It will be much easier to run on lip service than actually doing something. "Hey, we tried to get health care reform, but the big, bad [Republicans, health insurance companies, Martians] put a stop to it," is much more palatable than "Hey, we passed this horrible bill that we have to defend and can't place the blame elsewhere!"

Look out - here comes the PR blitz! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Anne on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:27:32 PM EST

From ThinkProgress:

This week, Obama and his allies are "launching a public relations blitz to bolster the case for health care reform," resulting in a "huge burst of health care cheerleading before Congress breaks for the July Fourth recess at the end of the week." White House aides remain hopeful that "that floor consideration in the Senate and House can be completed next month, as originally planned."

"Health care cheerleading." Swell. Let's astroturf health care - yeah, that's the ticket.

It's still all about winning, and not about educating the people about "the plan." What plan? Who the heck knows. Obama's never had a detailed plan that I could find, and what the Congress is putting together is a compilation of nearly 1,000 amendments, on top of a bill that has yet to be adequately explained to anyone.

Obama should have had a detailed plan. A plan that was drafted after having open and vigorous debate and discussion with ALL the stakeholders. He and/or his people should have been in every state, in multiple cities within those states, giving town halls on HIS plan and all the details of it. He should have been listening to the people. If it was a good plan, it would have had strong support, and with the support of educated citizens, he could have plopped his plan on the desks of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and the chairmen of the relevant committees and said: "here's the plan - get it done."

Instead, Obama has more or less dropped the whole issue into Congress' lap, and we are getting a bill with the ideas and demands of all 535 members - and the insurance companies - with very little input from anyone or with any idea that threatens the status quo - and Obama is going to blanket the country with PR to get support for this abominable "plan?"

So they can complete floor consideration next month?

Yeah, okay. Someone start popping the popcorn. Pass the Junior Mints.

Actually leaving the details to congress (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:56:20 PM EST

was an intentional strategy- a lot of people, including for Clinton Admin figures point failure to allow Congress to shape the 1993 Plan as a key mistake back then, this might also be a mistake, but it is one that was chosen for a reason.


Gee, let me (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by JThomas on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:01:50 PM EST

remember back to 1993 and the approach of writing the bill in the white house and then dropping it on congress to pass....hmmmmm...still waiting for that reform in 2009.

Surprisingly, Obama decided not to emulate that effort at healthcare reform. He must be thick,right?

If he is so in cahoots with the insurers,why did they send that letter to the White House today squealing like pigs about the unfairness of the public option he is touting at every opportunity?

And why did he again today in his PC,talk about needing a public plan to ''keep the insurers disciplined''?

Sure sounds like those insurers are really loving his plan,right?


: Well, perhaps you can explain why (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anne on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:29:29 PM EST

the HHS Secretary felt she needed to state that whatever public option was written into the plan, it would be written in a way that it could not lead to single-payer. What interests could she - speaking for Obama - have possibly been seeking to reassure by making that statement?
As for the letter the insurance companies sent, I don't find their squealing any guarantee that Obama will (1) hold fast to a public option, (2) lobby Congress to develop a public component that is more like Medicare and not some sort of co-op/exchange and (3) put the insurance companies in their place by telling them they have had decades to help develop a better system and because they chose the line their pockets with oceans of cash instead, it is time for them to STFU while people who actually care about the health of the nation's residents do what they have to to fix it.
If you will note, I called for a plan developed after open and vigorous debate and discussion with all the stakeholders - as in - not behind closed doors. Open. Vigorous. Debate. With all the players at the table. By all means, have Congress hold hearings while ideas are being formulated - but include everyone. If single-payer is such a bad idea, get it all out in the open and let the people decide if they agree.
It's hard to make the argument that Obama was looking to push back against the insurance companies when he couldn't bother to invite those who most threaten them - the single payer advocates - to the health care summit Obama held days after he was inaugurated. Oh, they finally got their foot in the door, at the last minute and grudgingly, but he never planned to have them there at all. And Baucus must have taken his cue from that, because Baucus refused to allow them to participate in any of the hearings he held.
Obama's not a leader, he's a conciliator, which is too bad because this is an issue that cries out for strong leadership from someone who is not afraid to disturb the status quo.

: The 'public plan', (5.00 / 0) (#35)
by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:21:54 PM EST

in its current description, is a far far cry from real health care reform, or from anything that will fundamentally change the status quo and the insurance company stranglehold on Americans.
This is a just plain sad situation.

: Um (none / 0) (#19)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:17 PM EST

Let's see...it wasn't single-payer folks who were invited to secret meetings in the White House - who was it? Um....gee.....hmmm......oh yeah! It was the insurance companies!
If this letter wasn't part of a PR stunt, it would have been a private letter. But the fact that it was made public, just proves it's a stunt. They can "whine", Obama can look "tough", and everyone (except the peons like us) get what they want.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jon Favreau didn't write this letter for them.

Geez Anne (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:49:15 PM EST

What do you expect? He's only been in office for 6 months - don't you know it takes time to put together a plan? What, you expected he would have thought about this while in the Senate or while campaigning? You think he would have put together a team to examine this issue? You think he would have looked at this issue when deciding who would be his Secretary of HHS? You think he would have been working behind the scenes with Congressional leadership during the transition to put a framework together?

Seriously.


It Takes Work (none / 0) (#17)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:05:04 PM EST

Not PR.

And No, PR is not work. PR is the art of convincing people you care about them and you're getting things done while you are doing no work at all.


to be a Reagan or FDR "game-changer" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by kempis on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:47:06 PM EST

Obama has to convey that he is governing to improve the lot of the average working American, as Digby says.

Despite all the icon-y hopey stuff and successful marketing of the Obama brand to young people, he has not been able to convey that he has set of core values that he shares with the "average working American."

He still won the election, but that's because (a) the economy tanked, (b) all but about 30% of the American people were sick of Bush and disillusioned with the GOP, and (c) a tired, obviously pandering John McCain ran against him.

The historic significance of his election won him an ecstatic honeymoon, but the honeymoon is ending. It will end completely if his health care "reform" does not include a public option because it is that public option that will most improve the lives and health care security of average working Americans. Yes, we may like our health care, but what if we (or our loved ones) lose our jobs? What if we find that we cannot physically continue to work until 65 and yet cannot afford to be without insurance? We want that public option in case we need it.

Obama's presser today demonstrated his intelligence, but, as always, he seems to me like someone deftly tiptoeing through political mine fields rather than someone who hammers out his path because he knows it's the best one for the people he leads. He cannot do this on all issues. On health care, he is going to have to lead.

Your complaint sounds dangerously (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:00:54 PM EST

close to the "white working class" = Real Americans crap that some people peddled last year, I mean I agree Obama needs to deliver on Healthcare but c'mon "the value of the average working American" ae you going to start talking about Arugala next?


I guess (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by JThomas on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:03:42 PM EST

he talks too ''fancy'' for some on here....maybe they like the good ole boy Bush speak better after all?


I don't know (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:28 PM EST

Who peddled that.


You don't remember (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by Socraticsilence on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:12:27 PM EST

various pols, pundits and pollsters saying Obama could never appeal to "real Americans/ white working class Americans" etc?


: Well sure (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:16:04 PM EST

but pundits and pollsters are salespeople trying to get ratings and sell books. I guess I just wanted to be more clear about the definition of "some people" as it showed up in your comment.

that would be true if (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by kempis on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:39:26 PM EST

I had said anything at all about the "white working class."


Why not cut to the chase (none / 0) (#30)
by Spamlet on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:15:24 PM EST

and just start shrieking (again) about Hillary? /s


As critical as I am of Obama (5.00 / 0) (#28)
by Spamlet on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:10:27 PM EST

and as cynical as I am about his rhetoric, I am actually willing to suspend disbelief in this instance and hope for change that even I could believe in.

At his press conference today, President Obama presented the very argument that sane people have been making about the illogic of the insurance industry's resistance to a public option. I think BTD is correct about Obama's having now staked it all on a public option (without drawing lines in the sand, however).

No, a public option is not single payer, but it would be a vast improvement and could lead incrementally to further needed reforms. IIRC, that was more or less the position of John Edwards at a very early point in the primaries, when I supported him.

Agree with you and digby 100% (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:35:15 PM EST

Obama is both necessary and sufficient to making real reform happen. But he has to want it badly enough to endure some slings and arrows from the Village enforcers of the status quo.

I am betting the Pres. (2.00 / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:07:43 PM EST

does not think the majority of US voters are all that concerned about effective reform of health care. Otherwise wouldn't Hillary Clinton have been elected?

I thnk he is betting the opposite now (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:25:19 PM EST

I believe there is resolve on the public option - at least today.


: I hope you are correct I am (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 03:05:39 PM EST

A day behind on US news.

Not Really -- People are funny (none / 0) (#23)
by The Last Whimzy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:17:55 PM EST

They wanted to be part of history, but the moment passes and they'll still want healthcare.

You might be right about what Obama thinks, though.


they backed it up with polling (none / 0) (#1)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:28:05 AM EST

Hmmm. Last poll I say showed 89% satisfied with their own health care. Hardly a basis for radical changes.

You choose not to look at polls (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:29:37 AM EST

that do not agree with your views. Your choice of course.


: Actually I do (none / 0) (#29)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:12:05 PM EST

Are you aware of any recent polls that show Americans dissatisfied with their own health care?

Link to the poll? (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:44:45 AM EST

I know not a soul who is "happy" with their healthcare, unless they're 20 and have never been sick.

Also, apparently the poll you cited didn't question those who have NO HEALTHCARE...since the question you cited assumes that the people asked HAVE healthcare.

One of the primary reasons for healthcare reform is to take care of those who are, for whatever reason, ineligible for benefits (too sick to qualify, too poor to afford premiums, etc.). People are dying because either the insurance companies refuse them, or they can't afford to be treated. The notion that there's no reason for healthcare reform is pure ignorance on your part.


: Maybe and maybe not (none / 0) (#27)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:10:20 PM EST

Reform and radical change are two different things. The vast majority of those with health insurance are satisfied. Those with health insurance are the vast majority. Sorry, thats the way it is.
It makes no sense at all to propose radical change to insure a small minority some fraction of which prefers self-insurance in any case.

Incentivize Rahmbo? (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:04:22 PM EST

I hope so because sensitizing Rahmbo has never worked out very well :) He'd better quit whining though about how hard it can be to get stuff done in the real world and get on the stick with this before it starts whacking him.

Whenever I hear "reform"-- (none / 0) (#31)
by KeysDan on Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:20:37 PM EST

health care, medicare, social security, I am inclined to run for the hill--and that is tough for a flatlander. Usually it translates into less for more, with maybe, just maybe, some new twist that can be hailed as a breakthrough. While not wanting to be the skunk at the health care garden party, what we know so far, is not encouraging. Even if a "public" plan survives it may be handicapped to the extent that we may be better off without it.