Mickey Kaus comes up with a counterintuitive idea: Obama is better off struggling with health-care reform than going on to the rest of his agenda:
The idea of postponing health care reform—until, say, the economy improves—doesn’t seem appealing to many Democrats now. But it might soon. The problem, as Michael Goodwin’s recent column points out, is that the issues waiting in the wings—should health care leave the stage—are even worse, from the Democrats’ political perspective. Cap and trade, immigration legalization, “card check”—these are not what you’d call confidence building appetizers leading up to the main course of Obama’s presidency. Plus the Afghan War! At least a clear majority of the public wants something done about health care. . . .
It’s easy to forget that, even if Obama’s health care effort is bogging down, the effort itself still serves his presidency as a crucial time-waster, tying up Congress and giving him a reason to postpone (or the public a reason to ignore) those other divisive, presidency-killers. Obama needs some excuse for putting off unpopular Democratic demands; health care’s a good one. If he keeps failing to pass health care until spring, that might not be such a bad outcome. In fact, even quick passage was maybe never in his interest. There are things more unpopular than struggling.
Well, that’s one way to look at it. But, of course, struggling for six months on an increasingly unpopular initiative isn’t much of a confidence builder either. And all those congressmen and senators on the ballot in 2010 will most likely insist on moving on to something else, anything, that might be perceived as an accomplishment. Otherwise, the 2010 incumbent will be running on “We messed up on the stimulus plan and didn’t get health care!” Not very attractive.
Still, Kaus does get to the nub of the matter: if Obama fails on health care, there isn’t much left of an agenda. It’s not as if, like under Bill Clinton, there were a balanced budget or welfare reform in the offing. Obama might, of course, rethink the rest of his agenda and start responding to the hue and cry about spending and the need for pro-growth policies. But so far, that’s not happening. And that poses a dilemma for the 2010 elections—what do Democrats run on?
