US Elections

There’s a lovely quote about Lincoln from W. E. B. Dubois which, I think, beautifully captures what made him great:

“I love him, not because he was perfect, but because he was not perfect, yet triumphed. There was something left so that at the crisis, he was big enough to be inconsistent.”

To which Blight added:

“I’d argue that the most important thing you can understand about Abraham Lincoln is tat he had the capacity for growth.” 

Big enough to be inconsistent. A leader who owned his mistakes, who bided his time, who changed his mind.  A leader who acted on principle, but could be convinced.  A leader who put his conviction about what was the right thing to do ahead of his own political fate.

Later in the lecture series, Blight tells the story of when Abraham Lincoln called Frederick Douglass to the White House, a few months ahead of the 1864 election.  With the war dragging on, and that summer’s crucial victories yet to swing the momentum, Lincoln was genuinely concerned- in fact, genuinely believed- he would lose the presidency, and that his successor would make a treaty with the Confederacy.  So he called Douglass to the White House, and asked him if he would lead an effort to smuggle as many enslaved persons from the South to protection behind Union lines, ahead of the election. Douglass returned to his home, flabbergasted, and began to make plans and ask advice on how he might begin such an endeavour. 

Union victories soon rendered the plans redundant, but the story illustrates the greatness of Lincoln.  When his defeat seemed likely, he wanted not to protect act in a manner that would sure up electoral success, but to ensure that what he had fought for would be preserved. He was a pragmatist, a realist, yet at the same time one who pursued high ideals.  He was a real politician who governed in the real world he faced, at the same time he sought to change it.

On Saturday, Barack Obama addressed the House Democratic caucus, and he quoted Lincoln:

"I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have."

How very appropriate for that sentiment to have echoed with the Obama, for the nature of his approach to leadership, more closely than any President since, resembles Lincoln’s own.  He too demonstrates an understanding for the need to carefully balance one’s sense of duty with political realities. Obama’s patience- his powerful patience- is much like Lincoln’s own.  Both waited to act, thought over what they were doing, and took the long, difficult road, rather than acting impulsively.

Obama’s thoughtfulness is also much like Lincoln’s.  Unlike so many other leaders, he is both open to being convinced by good ideas, and willing to admit his own error.  There was a powerful moment, during the health care summit, when John McCain brought up the Florida Medicare Advantage deal, claiming it was unfair.  Yes, Obama admitted, it was, and he’d prefer to see it gone.  There was no attempt to justify it, or deny that McCain had a point.  For Obama, the right thing was to simply acknowledge the truth.

And it is, in part, by emulating the best of Lincoln that Obama was able, with obvious help, to usher this health care bill through.  After 100 years of trying, the United States has universal health care.  And it took a leader with statesmanship much like Lincoln’s to get it done.

And Obama’s own oratory sometimes even broaches the soaring height’s of Lincoln’s own. I am certain some of yesterday’s remarks after the bill passed will be quoted for generations:

In the end, what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream. Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenge -- we overcame it. We did not avoid our responsibility -- we embraced it. We did not fear our future -- we shaped it.

*Again, I cannot recommend this lecture series more highly.  It has enhanced my understanding of the United States in a way I can hardly articulate.  Understanding the American Civil War only serves to enhance your understanding of every aspect of American life: politics, culture, inequality, religion. And beyond that, Blight, who visited the USSC last year, is simply a phenomenal lecturer.  The entire series- 26 hour-long lectures- is available entirely free of charge online at the Open Yale site or through iTunes U.  Download a few and take a listen. I challenge you not to be blown away.

Hide

It's looking increasingly likely that the bill will go through (InTrade has it at 95 at this point).

This is the vote that had the potential to change everything.  It will change the narrative on Obama's first term: he'll go from being presented as moderately successful, with one major failure, to having one of the most successful first two years of any Presidency.  The momentum is very likely to shift as we start to reflect on all that Obama has achieved in the last 14 months.

And the bill's passage will have a significant influence on the Democratic base. It'll placate, excite and mobilize the base ahead of the 2010 election.  Add in comprehensive immigration reform, which is looking increasingly likely as the next major move the Democrats will make, and a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and you have a seriously impressive array of legislative tasks that will help get out the vote in the midterms.

But beyond the politics, this is a bill that will make really crucial and important changes to the way health insurance works. Young adults who don't yet have a job that provides insurance will be able to stay on their parents' plan. Insurance companies won't be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Small businesses will be given tax credits for providing insurance. Lifetime caps will be removed- meaning that people who have lengthy, expensive treatments will no longer be denied access to care after a period of time.  The "donut hole"- a gap in coverage for medicine for seniors- will be closed. These are major, important changes.

And 35 million uninsured people will get access to affordable insurance coverage.  

You know what? That's change I can believe in.

Hide

One of the newer types is called a “self executing” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”

So, basically, the House, by passing similar but distinct legislation (which will also have to be adopted by the Senate) is agreeing not to get into the nitty-gritty of making amendments. These self-executing rules have been around for decades, and have been used by both Democratic and Republican Congresses to enact legislation. In 2007, they were decided to be permitted under the Constitution.

I must admit, I'm not a big fan of them. My preference would be for Democrats, as well as every single Republican who think it's important to insure 30 million extra Americans and, in doing so, reduce the deficit, to merely vote for the Senate bill, then enact the House Amendments improving upon some of the worst excesses of that Senate bill.

But my preference would also be for Senate Republicans to abandon their abuse of the bizarre parliamentary procedure known as the filibuster. Let's be clear: this widespread use of the filibuster is novel to these past few decades, and can only rightly be seen as an exercise in Republican brinksmanship. America's founders, together with its populace through most of its history, did not intend for the Senate to operate with a super-majority requirement. If Republicans genuinely do not want to see the House use the self-executing rule procedure, they should agree to allow a majority-vote of the health care legislation in the Senate.

But just as filibustering any-and-everything that comes before a member is legal, but not moral; so too is playing fast and loose with House rules. If an obstructionist conservative minority will play cute with procedure, they can hardly complain when their opposition does the same. For now, I'll leave you with a list the CRS maintains of deem-and-pass rules that have been used to enact "significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions":

• On August 2, 1989, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 221) that automatically incorporated into the text of the bill made in order for consideration a provision that prohibited smoking on domestic airline flights of two hours or less duration.
• On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute made in order as original text. 
• H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its constitutionality.
• A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with bipartisan support.
• On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their employees an early-out retirement program.
• On February 20, 2005, the House adopted H.Res. 75, which provided that a manager’s amendment dealing with immigration issues shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and the bill (H.R. 418), as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for purposes of amendment.

Hide

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Medicare Part D bill is that it prohibited Medicare from using its considerable purchasing power from negotiating with drug companies to ensure lower prices.  Consequently, the cost of medication under Medicare Part D is substantially higher than under the comparable Veteran's Health service, which was able to use its purchasing power to negotiate.

And how was this expensive reform financed?  Why, using the deficit, of course.

Unlike the current health care reforms, which are not only deficit-neutral, but actually will reduce the deficit within a ten-year window, the Medicare Part D reforms were financed entirely from the deficit.  And there is strong evidence that the true costs of the bill were obfuscated: Medicare's then-chief actuary, Richard Foster, concluded the bill would more like cost $534 billion.  He was silenced by his superiors, who warned that releasing the information was illegal.  (Read Foster's account of what happened here) And so the bill passed, grossly inflating an already-enormous budget.

Where was the populist outrage then?

Perhaps the most distasteful part of this affair is the way many Republicans who voted for this bill are now voting against health care reform, and framing their opposition in terms of the deficit.  Before them is a fiscally-responsible bill that will dramatically increase the number of Americans who will have access to affordable health care, yet they raise concerns about the deficit and the cost of the bill as justification for their opposition to it.

Republican lawmakers can by all means, oppose health care.  There are many fair and genuine reasons to do so: some have to do with the role of government, some with opposition to raising taxes.

But voting for the fiscally irresponsible Medicare Part D, then against the current health care reforms because of concerns about the deficit is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Hide

So many presidents have tried.  Johnson was the last to succeed, but since, it's been failure after failure.  Ford, Nixon, Carter, Clinton- all tried, all failed.  Certainly, the Bush administration passed Medicare Part D (which deserves countless posts on its own), but comprehensive health care reform hasn't happened in the last 40 years.

It was remarkably fun to follow the action live: watching the debate, and reading the responses people around the United States, and around the world, were having to the occasion.  Twitter went crazy, with comments from people on both sides of the aisle.  #HCR, the official health care reform hash tag, was one of the most popular topics of the day.

In the cacophony of voices discussing the bill, some stood out.  Pundits who knew the legislation inside and out were able to offer expert commentary, explaining developments as the debate progressed.  Personally, reading the insights of noted health care reform bloggers like Jon Cohn of The New Republic and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post was invaluable.  They made the experience both more understandable, and more enjoyable.

Plus some of the snarky comments were just plain funny.

It was a communal experience.  Across the globe, we were able to witness the debate, then the vote, and participate in a conversation about it.  We could share our thoughts, excitement, outrage, concerns.  When the final vote was cast, some of the Americans I follow on Twitter spoke of toasting with their drinks, late on a Saturday night.  I toasted with my early-afternoon coffee.

It was an historic day, not merely because this was the first major health care reform to pass in 40 years, but also because we could experience it in new, digital ways.

Hide