HE MAY BE THE PRESIDENT, BUT IT'S NOT ENTIRELY HIS CALL....
The NYT has an editorial today on President Obama's upcoming speech on health care to a joint session of Congress. The Times urges the White House not to "yield on core elements of reform."
There's been quite a bit of similar talk of late, about the steps the president must take (or avoid taking) in his speech, in his negotiations, in his interviews, etc. Whether health care reform happens -- and just as importantly, whether reform comes in the form of a good piece of legislation -- is, we're told, a question of what Obama does next. He's the leader, and the effort will rise or fall based on his demands.
I'm not sure this is true.
To be sure, Obama matters. Indeed, the reason an ambitious reform package is even on the table right now is because he put it there. And it's tempting to think the president, with an electoral mandate, reasonably strong approval ratings, and a like-minded Congress, can have exactly the kind of reform package he wants. Obama, one would like to think, should be calling the shots.
But Congress has its own ideas, especially when there's an ideologically-diverse Democratic majority with plenty of conservatives. Jonathan Chait recently argued that it's the legislative branch, not the executive, that's at the heart of the process.
The sense most people have of the health care debate is that it's great drama in which President Obama is the central player. All the big news has centered around hints and whispers about what the White House wants. They're abandoning the public plan! They're standing by the public plan! They're giving up on bipartisanship! The press has covered the story as if Obama is Moses and we're waiting for him to come down from the mountaintop.
This is totally wrong. The Senate is what controls the process. That's the chokepoint for any health care bill. The question isn't how badly Obama wants a public plan, or how much he cares about bipartisanship. It's whether moderate to conservative Democrats in the Senate will filibuster a bill that has a public plan or lacks GOP support.
I think the House represents a pretty significant hurdle -- compromise in one direction and lose the left, compromise in the other and lose the Blue Dogs -- but the emphasis on Congress strikes me as correct.
When the president speaks to a joint session this week, a whole lot of viewers will be waiting for the words "public option" to be uttered, and will feel dejected if they're not. But let's not forget that Obama has endorsed a public option repeatedly in recent months -- in speeches, in town-hall events, in weekly addresses, in media interviews -- and lawmakers who like the idea still like the idea, while lawmakers who don't still don't.
