Ridgelines and River Bottoms

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 17:30

The same is true in a more abstract sense.  We tend to draw conceptual divisions in same sort of naively naturalistic way, even though the functional result is deeply frustrating.  Take, for example, the ongoing health care battle.  It's the natural inclination of people on all sides to assume that the important distinction is whether we have "X" feature or not--whatever "X" may be.  Obama says "X" is "cost controls" and he supports the public option as a means to that end.  Most folks in the blogosphere would say that "X" is the public option.  Some have argued that "X" is single-payer.  But my view is that all these Xs are like river bottoms--or sometimes even just puddles--when what we ought to be thinking about is the ridgelines. It's the ridgelines that determine the broad outlines of things.

In that spirit, I refer you to Digby writing:

I have, for months now, predicted that this was going to come down to what Barack Obama really wanted. We assumed the president would want "what works," particularly after fetishizing pragmatism throughout his campaign, which meant that he would require a real public option.  But he had also fetishized bipartisanship. And then there were those side deals ...

But the picture is becoming clear:

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan "triggered" into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama's presidential campaign. The man who ran on the "Audacity of Hope" has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.... "Everybody knows we're close enough that these guys could be rolled. They just don't want to do it because it makes the politics harder," said a senior Democratic source, saying that Obama is worried about the political fate of Blue Dogs and conservative Senate Democrats if the bill isn't seen as bipartisan. "These last couple folks, they could get them if Obama leaned on them."

....

It seems that the administration believes that it's better to deliver a bill that will not work than to take a chance on losing some seats. Since it's nonsensical to think that that Republicans would take those seats because of the public option but not health care reform over all, they must believe that they must deliver a devastating blow to the majority of their own party in order to prove their bipartisan bona fides and give Rahm's Blue Dogs a tea bag to take home with them. (Certainly, nothing would make the villagers happier...)

If the reports we are hearing are true (and that's a big if) it looks like we have bigger problems.

I quote this at length because I think it captures the larger situation exactly. It identifies the ridgelines. And in doing so, it clearly reveals why Obama is, at bottom, a conservative, notwithstanding some cultural inclinations to the contrary.  When all is said and done, he wants to change things as little as possible, his desire for change is driven by a perceived necessity to avoid disaster, and the priorities and parameters of change are dictated by doing as much as possible for those representing existing power, and doing as little as possible for everyone else.  This is what classic Burkean conservatives believe in, along with the ideal of unifying the polity, and marginalizing all divisive forces.

Divisive forces, for those not clued in, means you and me, pardners.  Every bit as much as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.  For a classic conservative like Obama, it really makes no difference whatsoever if the divisive forces are right or rational.  All that matters is that they resist going along.  And because of Obama's essential conservatism, it's you and I who are the problem in Obama's eyes.  Not Baucus, Nelson, Lieberman & the like.  You and I.  We are the problem.

And since we are the problem, we've got to get a whole lot better at it. Because if we can make ourselves insoluble, then that will force Obama to accept us, however much he may hate doing so.

And that is the only way that we will get what we want.

And what do we want?  That's where the ridgelines come in once again.