Why Democrats must pass healthcare reform - Thoughtful Salon article by Joan Walsh

[Mira]


I side with kill-the-bill progressives for the long term, but I say pass the bill in the short term.
Let me explain


By Joan Walsh



Salon


Joan Walsh
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/12/22/progressives_and_health_care_reform?source=newsletter



As we were editing Salon's Bogus Stories of 2009, I couldn't help thinking about the current impasse, among liberals, over the healthcare reform bill. It wasn't just that Sarah Palin's death panels were a bogus story -- yet one that hijacked the healthcare debate for weeks. Right now a fledgling bogus story can be seen on cable news every hour or so: The Democratic Party is about to self-destruct over healthcare reform.
Unfortunately, this could be one of those bogus stories that the media help turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You can't watch cable news lately without some mainstream commentator hyping the infighting among progressives, usually in superficial and inflammatory terms. Chris Matthews described netroots opponents of the healthcare compromise as folks who "get their giggles from sitting in the backseat and bitching." CNBC's John Harwood told them to stop taking "hallucinogenic drugs," and Time's Joe Klein exhorted them (once again) to "grow up." From the other side, MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan blasted liberal reform-bill backer Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schulz so hard he had to apologize to her, and Keith Olbermann promised to go to jail rather than buy insurance as the bill would mandate.
Even as progressives engage in an important and fascinating debate over strategy and policy regarding the healthcare reform compromise likely to pass the Senate, it's being covered as a clash of personalities: the "netroots/nutroots" vs. the pragmatists; the wonks vs. the activists, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake vs. the Washington Post's Ezra Klein.

=============


That's why when it comes to the current healthcare reform bill, I'm with the bill's opponents in the long term, and its liberal supporters in the short term. In the long term, I think the work progressives have done pushing for the public option has already made the bill a better bill. They will likely get more good policy provisions in conference committee. But their opposition is also crucial as a long-term organizing, party-development strategy. It's profoundly frustrating that there's no one on the left who has the clout of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Aetna, or Ben Nelson, D-Mutual of Omaha. Without being willing to walk away from the table, it's hard to convince the other side you mean business. I understand why some progressives are still demanding that congressional liberals leave the table if the Senate compromise is the only play possible.


=================


But one person bears a much bigger burden for this confusion than Obama propagandists, and that's Obama himself. He's breaking two campaign promises by backing this bill: He (wrongly, in my opinion) opposed the individual mandate in 2008, while correctly backing the public option. Now he's selling out on both. The latest insult is the president telling the Washington Post on Tuesday: "I didn't campaign on the public option," when in fact it was a staple of  his policy papers and Web platform.  It's an astonishing statement. His supporters are right to chastise Obama. But I don't think defeating the likely compromise is a smart way to do it.


=================


And, sure, it's hard to for liberal Democrats to negotiate with those who are making this all about ideology. But it's easier to sleep at night. This bill, if it passes, is not the end, but a beginning. I want it to pass, but I respect those who come down on the other side.


[KittyWampus]

1. But she's not Jane Hamsher, so she doesn't count. Marking this to read later. Thanks

[Kahuna]

2. Joan Walsh is dead to me!

Just kidding. K&R!