Obama and the Public Option

Ezra Klein reports that the White House is opposed to the effort to revive the public option and pass it in the Senate via reconciliation. Why? Because they want to appear “bipartisan.” Matt Yglesias is unimpressed:

While it’s true that the White House has sought to brand itself “as a bipartisan outpost” you know and I know and Ezra Klein knows and I certainly hope David Axelrod knows that at the end of the day if a health care bill emerges no Republicans will vote for it. And any shine of bipartisanship that Obama may or may not have put on himself is going to go away. So what’s the point in being “sharply opposed” to the public option concept? This is very bad logic, and if true very fishy behavior on the part of the White House.

I think this gets to the deepest, most mysterious question about Barack Obama: does he really believe in bipartisanship? That is, does he actually believe that if he sticks to his guns and keeps pushing away at compromise, eventually Republicans will start to work with him in good faith? Or is this basically a ploy to get public opinion on his side because he knows that the public is deeply in love with bipartisanship?

I hope it’s the latter, because even a year ago the former was a belief that only a political naif could maintain. Today, you’d have to be a thoroughgoing idiot. But all evidence suggests that Obama is neither naive nor stupid, so I have to assume that this is basically part of a long-term effort to turn public opinion sharply against Republicans.

Alternatively, I suppose it could be strictly a short-term, inside play to maintain Democratic support for passing a bill. Obama may believe that Dems are so scared, and support for passing anything is so fragile, that bringing back the public option at this point runs the risk of frightening a big chunk of the caucus away for good. Sadly, I can’t pretend this is a groundless fear.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.