Losing the Battle Before It Starts

It has been a long time since I have posted on this board. (A transition from part-time to full-time student will do that.) However, I have a little bit of free time now, and I am going to post about some of the things that I see in the candidates for the Democratic primary. The controversy du jour comes from the statements that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) made to the Las Vegas Sun earlier this week. For anyone who hasn't seen them, the quote that generated the controversy was the following paragraph:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. ... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing. (emphasis added)

I know that the Obamamaniacs are going to be upset at me saying this, but do we really want a nominee who is speaking off of the page of the Republican National Committee. The Republican Party has spent the last 20 years making a concerted effort canonizing, if not deifying, Ronald Reagan. Yes, it is true that Ronald Reagan did change the country in a serious way when he got elected to the Presidency in 1980. However, I could not think of many Presidents who have changed America for the worse. He has given this country a debt that will never be repaid. He presided over the worst and longest recession (16 months, 1982-83) as well as the highest unemployment (10.9%) that this country has seen since the Great Depression. He opposed civil rights and opened his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS, the site of the 1964 Freedom Summer murders, where he extolled the virtues of states' rights. (Anyone from the South or a border state knows what this really means.) He cut benefits for the hardworking people of this country, and set in motion the process that has seen the average CEO make hundreds of times what the average employee makes, all while cutting their taxes while raising taxes on working people.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Senator Obama has spoken from the GOP hymnbook. When discussing the health care proposals of his rivals who are actually making a serious effort to win the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), the major difference is that his proposal does not require that everyone gets health insurance (although he does so for children). When asked the reason he did so, Senator Obama argues that "we can't force people to get health insurance from the government." Well, if you are someone whose ultimate goal is some form of single-payer health insurance, that is exactly what you want to do. It has been pointed out that not mandating health insurance will only cover about half of the uninsured at best, leaving 24 million Americans uninsured. The proposals by Senators Clinton and Edwards both offer mandates (although Senator Clinton's proposal borrowed heavily from the proposal made earlier by Former Senator Edwards), which will lead to coverage of 98-99 percent of the American people. I am opposed to seeing anyone uninsured in this country, but seeing 3 to 6 million uninsured is much less of an atrocity than seeing 24 million uninsured. Also, this is the same argument being used by Republicans against Democrats who have proposed any expansion of government-provided health insurance. There are those who argue that Senator Obama is simply being practical, but he is sacrificing potential long-term gains for questionable short-term advantages. At a time when universal health insurance is once again in the political conscience, we cannot afford to see someone squander this rare opportunity.

Even worse is Senator Obama's suggestion that "everything should be left on the table." This has been used for years as a talking point by Republicans who want to privatize our retirement. By doing this, Senator Obama is leaving himself open for charges of dishonesty by Republicans when he refuses to put everything on the table. After all, if he takes privatization off the table (as he has done in Democratic debates when called on this kind of rhetoric), the Republican is going to have a field day. They have figured out how to wield the flip-flopper charge like a club in the 2004 election, and they will do it again. I can imagine the ad now, "Barack Obama SAYS he wants to put everything on the table when dealing with Social Security. However, he has said that he won't let the American workers have the chance to invest their own money. [Insert Republican nominee here] WILL give people this option. Barack Obama: all rhetoric, no substance."

You see, by saying that everything should be on the table and arguing from the right, he is allowing himself to be outflanked in November. By insisting that it is a bad thing to insist on universal health insurance, he is opening up himself for Republicans to call him on any effort to improve health insurance. By praising Reagan against the "extremes" of the Great Society era, he is continuing the myth that Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents. Harry S Truman famously said that given a choice between voting for a Republican and a Republican, they will take the Republican. Giving into their rhetoric gives the American people this choice.