I agree with Paul Krugman’s substantive assessment of the Obama campaign–especially when it comes to the deficiencies of Obama’s health care plan. I also agree with this formulation:
I guess I’ve been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war.
But I strongly disagree with his sense–and that of a good chunk of the left-wing blogosphere–that the only way to get universal health insurance passed is through a populist confrontation with right-wing corporate interests. Yes, it’s true the insurance industry and Big Pharma will fight any universal deal to the death, but they can be isolated and outflanked. In fact, given the exploding health care costs, I’d bet that the vast majority of major corporations would welcome a system that relieves them of their current health insurance responsibilities.
One example: Remember the iconic “Harry and Louise” ads that helped kill the Clinton health care plan in 1994? They were funded by the small business lobby (NFIB).. (Correction: They were funded by a group of smaller health insurers. But the NFIB also opposed the Clinton plan mainly because it mandated that small businesses provide insurance for their employees.) The latest Clinton plan has no such mandate: it features an “individual” mandate–which would require individuals to buy insurance (subsidized, of course, for the working poor)–and also a tax credit for small businesses that decide to do the right thing and insure their employees. I’d guess the NFIB won’t waste money lobbying against that, and may even support it.
It will take a skilled, clever and extremely political President to get universal health insurance passed. One who is willing to sit down with Republicans and make the–very important–argument that a universal system would unleash all sorts of economic energy. One who is willing to experiment with a government-provided health option (as both Clinton and Edwards are), but who recognizes that since most Americans are satisfied with their insurance, any radical move toward a European-style system is likely to fail. (Krugman agrees with that.)
We don’t elect angry Presidents in America. That’s one of the things that killed Howard Dean in Iowa last time. John Edwards does anger with a smile, in a more skilled and creative way than Dean ever did–and it’s true that the country has been moving in a populist direction, given the effulgent depredations of the wealthy–but the Edwards message has never been a winner in American politics. Those who would cite Franklin Roosevelt as a flaming populist should check out Jonathan Alter’s elegant takedown of Krugman over at Brand X.
There is a real need for a corrective in Washington, real need to limit the power of lobbyists, real need for a more equitable tax structure, real need for a reinforced social safety net to protect against the volaltility of the global economy. The harsh divisive politics of the past sixteen years–almost all of it attributable to right-wing extremism–needs to end. The recent rise of non-screamers Obama and Huckabee seems to indicate the public is in a mood for healing and progress, as opposed to the current paralysis in Washington. Those who would twist the public’s intense frustration over Washinton’s hopeless hyperpartisan gridlock into some sort of populist fury are merely projecting their ideological pipe-dreams onto a nation that is much saner than that.
On Second Thought: I think Krugman’s Iran-Iraq analysis is correct, but insufficient. There are a lot of other foreign-policy problems some real choices to be made about how to disengage from Iraq and the question of a revised grand strategy for the region. There’s Pakistan, the most dangerous place in the world right now. There’s Syria, and the middle east peace process. Edwards doesn’t have much of interest to say about any of this. Obama, by virtue of his sensibility and personal history, represents a spectacular break from past U.S. foreign policy practices, the chance for a creative new approach to the world. Clinton has the advantage of knowing more about national security issues, and the U.S. military, than any other candidate in the field. In any case, I disagree with Krugman: I hope we have a serious conversation about foreign policy in 2008 and a national decision to turn away from Bush’s pre-emptive unilateralism.