Obama has those same tools - formal and informal, Constitutional and political - at his disposal. He has so far not chosen to use them the way FDR and LBJ did. Obama made little to no effort to pressure the Senate to embrace a public option. Obama could well have done so. Senators are not all powerful - they have bills they want signed, programs they want funded. Presidents often use those as leverage to get Senators to do what they wish. That may not have been Madison's vision, but it has been a part of American politics for nearly 80 years.
Obama is pursuing his agenda, which is a basically neoliberal agenda. As with the neoliberal agenda, there are elements of it that are attractive to progressives, otherwise neoliberalism would never have survived 30 years in this country. But his agenda is not a progressive agenda, and it is not the agenda of FDR or LBJ.
Obama could well have chosen a progressive agenda, and could have taken advantage of the 2008 political victory to make that a reality. He decided that wasn't what he wanted to do, and so here we are, with some of the left siding with Obama, and some of us not, at least on health care.
I feel confident about how this will end - in reinforcement of corporate power, some reforms that help people but remain vulnerable to the eventual return of the right-wing in a few years' time, a return that would not have been inevitable had a more progressive path been taken.
That is the fate of not just American center-left neoliberalism, but Canadian center-left neoliberalism and British center-left neoliberalism. And the world will live as one
I understand your criticisms and concerns and even share some of them. My main contentions are that 1) Obama may have the same tools, but a completely different political climate -- plus, neither example cited was up against the sort of corporate and media monoliths that exist today; 2) fighting to improve the bill is great - calling for killing it is destructive -- I don't think there's any question that it will establish healthcare as a duty of government and save lives, and 3) the vitriol and assigning of bad motives that I've been reading is stunning.
The rhetoric in this debate has gotten really heated, which is understandable, so I want to add that I always appreciate your thoughtful replies, even when we disagree (so, yes, the offer to take you to Phillipe's French Dips on your next visit is still on). Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
But from the UK perspective, the vitriol, such as it is, is fueled by Obama's increasingly uncanny resemblance to Blair - another leader who was willing to give populist devils their due to somewhat less than the minimal extent needed to assure votes, while secretly believing fervently in neoliberal aims and means, and supporting the corporates against the people they feed off.
When people voted for Blair in 1997, they voted for someone who wasn't a grasping and condescending Tory.
They got someone who was a grasping and condescending Tory, but who was willing to splash some cash around to keep them quiet and voting on demand.
Obama looks very similar. People voted for someone they thought would represent them and fight for them. Instead they've been given someone who seems intent on fighting them, putting them in their place, and managing already low expectations of what they can expect from a Democrat.
