Yesterday I was invited to a blogger conference call with White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle and Senior Advisor David Axelrod. It was both an honor and an obligation. Given access, I feel like I must ask real questions that reflect real people's understanding of health care reform.
But I didn't ask about specific policy. I hear the administration's arguments that getting any reform is a matter of negotiation and compromise, but I truly feel like people were left out of the political calculus during Senate negotiations. I'm not saying the White House doesn't care about regular people. I believe they really do. What I mean is that, since the election, politics from the Obama camp has been Washington centric to the point of neglecting the origin's of the President's mandate.
If we think back the campaign, what had people in Washington truly freaked out was how Obama was able to both address and wield the power of the people in setting the agenda. But soon after Inauguration Day, the political focus moved to DC and Capitol Hill.
But it wasn't Obama's ability to move Congress that had helped him turn Washington upside down.
I get it, that to create democratic change you have to engage democratic institutions, but by not taking the argument to the states, to the people, we've gotten a bill that reflects the mandates of Washington rather than Obama's inspirational vision. And frankly, I'm angry about that. The people in charge of realizing the President's agenda did not use all the tools in their arsenal to get the best bill possible.
And so on the call I was compelled to make a point while asking my question. Why is it that fighting for this legislation is more about taking potshots at liberals rather than going after the obstructionists? Liberals were able to accept the House version, not because they thought it an awesome piece of legislation, but because they trusted that the President had worked to get the best bill possible. They trusted him because there was a lot of communication with the public (even if it was centered around the mechanics of Washington) - directly with the Joint Sessions address, and indirectly through media stories on the negotiations themselves.
Anyway, I made the point that liberals were on the President's side. That they wanted to see the President's transformative agenda enacted too. Then I asked what we could expect to see between now and Christmas in terms of fighting for the President's vision.
Ms. DeParle's answer was a defense of the hard work they were doing, but that didn't answer my question, so I asked it again. David Axelrod responded this time, saying that he wasn't going to tolerate falsehoods about the legislation. So my question was never really answered. But I think that is ok.
Joan McCarter and I emailed after the call and she thinks I got under Ax's skin more than anyone else. Probably because have an unknown blog and who the fuck am I to come out of the peanut gallery and act as if I know a thing about political processes.
But I really did get what I wanted out of that call. I cornered them on admitting that the bill needed to look more like the House bill, and so now they have to work to improve it or, at the least, explain why it is the best bill possible. I don't think Ax saw it, but what I was also giving them was a way out. It's one thing to say this is the most pragmatic bill, it's quite another to assert that it is the best bill they could have imagined, that it does justice to the President's vision.
I think some straight talk would calm the left quite a bit. I was careful to say we weren't seeing the fight, and so the problem of liberal rebellion is about communicating with the public. That is what is really missing in all this - engaging citizens. I mean, why not admit that this legislation is a first step and that there is still work to do? People will get that.
I feel like I hit Mr. Axelrod below the belt, though, and that makes me feel like a dirty fighter. I don't imagine that he doesn't believe in the President or his vision. I don't believe he doesn't want to see it realized. Still, my argument put it on people in Mr. Axelrod's position, those doing the negotiating, not President, as if they were letting him and the people down by not fighting hard enough. I didn't accuse President Obama of selling out, which is what I think they were prepared to defend.
I feel bad, though, because they took it as if I said they weren't working hard enough. I didn't. Working and fighting are two different things. I'm sure the policy people, Ms. DeParle especially, are busting their butts for it. But it's not just about policy, it's about politics, and the deadline isn't until Christmas. So the political battle goes on, and to make this legislation more like what it should be, the political players need to step it up a notch.
--
Honestly, I was the very picture of everything I hate about liberals. I was preachy, self-righteous...I talked about strategy rather than policy. Bleh. I wish I had better tactics.
But on reflection I think I was true to what I believe in and what I am fighting for. I believe that the real challenge of our generation is finding a way to involve real people in political processes. The key is incorporating democratic participation into people's busy lives. I think that is achieved, first, by constantly engaging the public - talking, listening, and communicating what is learned to decision-makers.
That has been absent since the close of House negotiations. And I think that is why the Senate version is so disconnected from the desires of real people and the President's inspirational vision.
Post new comment