Obama Misses the Source of the Cynicism
Plus: WH tries the apocalypse argument.
12:00 PM, Jan 28, 2010 • By MARY KATHARINE HAM
Apocalypse will not likely be the result of our reform plan, said the White House spokesperson. When you've reached this argument, you are losing badly. The White House's Dan Pfeiffer made this encouraging pitch for health-care reform today:
The argument, for a year, has been apocalypse will come if we don't pass this immediately. The president got nicely hyperbolic in his last speech to a joint session, which as you'll remember was four months ago and designed to push health-care reform over the finish line.
But many people, quite understandably, value their current care and are not convinced by the argument, "Seriously, when we change the whole system, it won't be apocalypse." It is not a good sell, and that is not the fault of those who are skeptical.
Obama cited these citizens' "cynicism" on Wednesday as the reason for the failure of legislation, but misidentified the source of that emotion:
That's as close as he gets to admitting he might be at fault for some of this growing "cynicism," instead of the dreaded pundits and their "misinformation."
What Obama must understand if he wants to accomplish anything is that the health-care process, which he abetted at every turn, increased the skepticism citizens had about the government's ability to solve a big problem. He'd like to believe this skepticism is simply a Bush hangover, when in fact it's a new realization of how badly the federal government solves big problems, illuminated by Barack Obama himself.
Why? Because the man who campaigned on transparency wanted to ram the sweeping reforms through Congress with little debate and before August recess, when Members would have to go home and hear from concerned constituents.
Why? Because the man who claimed to value other viewpoints said not a word when his surrogates and allies slimed health-care dissenters as an extremist, racist, mob of brownshirts and he himself portrayed them as gullible pawns of special interests who were, shall we say, bitterly clinging to the status quo in their ignorance.
Why? Because the man who railed against the polluting influence of special interests and lobbysists carved out exemptions for union-run "Cadillac" health-care plans while Andy Stern visited the White House dozens of times.
Why? Because the president that promised to broadcast negotiations on C-SPAN instead created an orgy of back-room negotiations that culminated in lawmakers arguing over whose pay-off was bigger— the one to Ben Nelson, insurance companies, or pharmaceutical lobbyists?