I'VE BEEN WATCHING, AND OCCASIONALLY commenting on, the developing saga of health care reform for some time now, and I must say I'm fed up.
The people of the United States have been quite clear about what we want, and are about to get almost none of it.
The fundamental problem goes back, in a way, to one of the smaller, sillier, themes in the presidential election.
Remember when the speakers at the Republican Convention openly snickered at Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer?
I defended him at the time, and I still think everything I said there holds true, but I also think I may have missed one very important point.
I assumed that they snickered because they didn't understand the kind of difficult and important work community organizing entailed.
I assumed their attitude was a product of ignorance and innocence.
Now I think there was another reason.
I think they knew something that I didn't.
Much of the work of community organizing proceeds from the basic assumption that the people in a community are honest and well-meaning.
They may have different agendas, they may have different points of views or beliefs, but in the end they would be happy if a win-win solution could be found.
They would be happy if everybody could get along, and everybody could get a little more of what they want and need.
This assumption is almost always true.
Because of that, the job of community organizing is doable, and doable using the very kind of tactics which Obama and the Democrats have brought to the government.
Understanding, giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt, looking diligently for effective compromise, listening carefully even to the minority opinions and trying to take them into account—all of these tactics work wonders when you're dealing with honest, well-meaning, people: people like most Americans (conservative or liberal) and most humans on this planet.
But there are exceptions.
Al-Qaeda comes to mind, by way of example.
(Don't worry, I'm coming to the whole healthcare issue, but this side-trip is necessary.)
We can hardly expect the approach a community organizer takes to be effective dealing with such a group.
Think about its structure and characteristics.
- It's split into two parts: a group of organizers, agitators, and leaders who strategize, propagandize, and manipulate, and a group of followers who believe whatever the leaders say, and risk their own best interests based on the hate and fear the leaders preach.
- The leaders are completely cynical.
No lie is too base, no accusation too hateful, for them to use to motivate the followers.
It's also fairly clear that whatever their commitment to their ideological cause, they are largely motivated by the need to extend their own influence and power. - The followers, on the other hand, are thoroughly brainwashed—they really believe the lies: that the government of the United States is evil, that it is anti-God, that it is out to get them and their loved ones.
It's obvious that the pure community organizer approach is not going to work with these people.
So what this administration has done is to take a split approach.
We show the leaders no quarter.
We don't try to appease them, we don't try to compromise with them, we don't expect them to show any of the traits of honest and well-meaning humans.
They have shown themselves completely uninterested in any kind of mutual progress, and completely unwilling to meet us halfway or have any kind of meaningful dialogue, and so we take them at their word.
On the other hand, we have wisely treated the followers—and half-followers, and potential followers—quite differently.
We have let them know that we respect them, that we are concerned for their well being, that we are willing to listen and work with them.
Most of the followers are, at heart, honest and well-meaning.
The better off they are, the more we can do to make their lives good, the less likely they are to believe the outrageous lies of the leaders.
This policy is a wise one, and has been making a big difference in the Muslim world.
But why do I bring it up here—in a post about healthcare?
Remember those sneers at the Republican Convention—sneers aimed at the whole idea of community organizers?
I think I know what was behind them.
The Republican leadership found the whole idea so amusing, and treated it with such disdain, because they understood something about the structure of conservatism in this country that progressives didn't.
They knew, or believed, that:
- It's split into two parts: a group of organizers, agitators, and leaders who strategize, propagandize, and manipulate, and a group of followers who believe whatever the leaders say, and risk their own best interests based on the hate and fear the leaders preach.
- The leaders are completely cynical.
No lie is too base, no accusation too hateful, for them to use to motivate the followers.
It's also fairly clear that whatever their commitment to their ideological cause, they are largely motivated by the need to extend their own influence and power. - The followers, on the other hand, are thoroughly brainwashed—they really believe the lies: that the government of the United States is evil, that it is anti-God, that it is out to get them and their loved ones.
And they found the whole idea of the community organizer approach—which assumes that people are rational, honest, and well-meaning—found that approach laughable, because they, the leaders, knew that they were not honest or well-meaning, and believed that their followers were not rational.
They will eventually learn that they are wrong about their followers, which is why we should take the same split approach toward the conservative forces in American politics that we are taking toward Al-Qaeda.
We should stop assuming that the leadership—who have demonstrated conclusively that they are not interested in the welfare of the country, or in anything that doesn't serve their own political careers and their corporate masters—that the leadership can be reasoned with.
We should show them no political quarter.
On the other hand, we should treat the followers—and half-followers, and potential followers—quite differently.
We should let them know that we respect them, that we are concerned for their well being, that we are willing to listen and work with them.
Most of the followers are, at heart, honest and well-meaning.
The better off they are, the more we can do to make their lives good, the less likely they are to believe the outrageous lies of the leaders.
Here's the plan, in five easy steps:
- President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi should have a well-publicized meeting and agree to the following measures:
- President Obama should schedule a fire-side talk, in which he explains that after a full year of making every effort to pass bipartisan health care reform, he has given up.
He should make it absolutely clear that the reason is a policy of obstructionism adopted by the Republicans, that they have made this no secret, and that they are only concerned with blocking progress because they think that will help them win seats in the next election.
He should also make it clear that Democrats feel a responsibility to represent the American people, obstructionism or no, and that they will do it without the Republicans if necessary.
Enough is enough. - Harry Reid, and the Democratic caucus, should put Joe Lieberman on probation.
They should make it clear that since he is an elected Senator he has a perfect right to vote however cynically he wants.
His complete lack of character and integrity—opposing measures he has championed in the past, and using tactics he has stood against on principle—is not their problem.
But he does not get to be part of a caucus he was never elected to unless he agrees to vote with that caucus on the basic procedural votes which are necessary to moving forward.
He can vote against health care reform if he wants, but if he tries to side with a Republican filibuster he will no longer be part of the Democratic caucus, and he will no longer be chairing anything. - They should then go directly to reconciliation, and pass a bill which includes the strongest possible public option and extensions of Medicare and Medicaid.
This bill should include every progressive measure that can be passed that way, in the strongest possible form.
But it should not include anything remotely resembling a mandate for people to buy health insurance, or anything at all that the insurance companies and the conservatives really want. - Then they should come back, after Christmas, and tell the insurance companies and the Republicans that they are ready to talk about phase two.
They will consider putting some of the measures the corporations and the Republicans would like into a second bill, if and only if they will negotiate in good faith, and guarantee votes in return for the compromises.
They will not consider any watering down of what has already been passed, and they will not consider any Republican proposals unless Republican votes are committed with them.
Phase two (along with phase one) should end up including almost everything the Democrats, and the people of the United States, want in a Health Care Bill, along with some of the things the Republicans and insurance companies want.
If, at the end of a month or so (most of the ground work has already been done), the bill is bipartisan, well and good.
If not, they will be in exactly the same place they are now, except they will already have passed the hardest parts, and will be able to move to a simple majority vote, unless Joe Lieberman is really willing to give up his position in the Democratic caucus.
More important, Democrats will have demonstrated that they can only be pushed so far.
They will have energized their base in the process, gained some respect from the conservative base, and shown the country that they can govern.
Once the Republican base sees the benefits that come out of health care reform, they won't want to give it up.
When they have lived with a public option, or the ability to buy into Medicare at an early age, and see that it does not mean a government takeover of health care, or death panels for seniors, they won't want to have those choices taken away.
And their leaders will no longer be able to assume that they can push those "community organizers" on the other side of the aisle around quite so easily.
It could be the beginning of a whole new era in American politics.
At least, that's what I think today.
