Comments on: So Much For National Public Health Care… http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/09/so-much-for-national-public-health-care/ A Wide Open Weblog for Big News, the Big Picture Wed, 23 May 2012 19:13:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Glynn Wilson http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/09/so-much-for-national-public-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3456 Glynn Wilson Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:45:04 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=4835#comment-3456 Remember the '60s? Turn on, tune in, drop out... Remember the ’60s? Turn on, tune in, drop out…

]]> By: Yana Davis http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/09/so-much-for-national-public-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3455 Yana Davis Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:06:57 +0000 http://blog.locustfork.net/?p=4835#comment-3455 And they may, and the Blue Dogs may not care. Unlike a parliamentary system, in which the fortunes of the leadership are directly related to the fortunes of the average MP, the American system only indirectly relates the two. Democrats were already a majority in the House before the November 2008 election. Many, especially the Blue Dogs, would have been re-elected no matter what happened at the presidential level. Most sitting Democrats, Blue Dog or not, do not directly owe Obama their elections, although they do owe him the increased House majority and the new Senate majority. But, unlike in Britain where the typical Labour MP lives and dies with the fortunes of the prime minister, American representatives and senators frequently are around through several presidencies. The typical long-serving incumbent also survives both presidents and congressional majorities of the opposite party. His or her fortunes are most directly tied to perceived "good stewardship" by local constituents, not how he or she performs on single national issues. San Franciscans may have elected Nancy Pelosi on the health care issue (which I doubt -- her constituents share her views on just about everything), but I doubt that can be said for Artur Davis and a number of his colleagues from the South, Midwest and Mountain states. As I have opined before, the main reason Democrats won the presidency, an increased majority in the House and a new one in the Senate had more to do with the perception of a majority of the voters that Republicans were corrupt and incompetent than anything else. To narrow it down to the single issue of health care ignores the long-festering corruption-incompetency issue as well as the huge financial crisis that started the month before the election. If the voters cast ballots around a single issue, which I don't believe they did in general, it was the freefall into recession, not health care, that motivated them to do so. The Democrats might lose their part of their base if they fail to deliver health care reform with a public option, but they might not. After all, the alternative is the Republicans. Would any base Democrats vote to elect Republicans out of spite? Not likely. Would they desert the en masse for the Green Party? Also not likely, at least not right now. The choice for the left, it seems to me, is staying with the party that is getting them at least part of a loaf since the only alternative is no loaf at all. And they may, and the Blue Dogs may not care. Unlike a parliamentary system, in which the fortunes of the leadership are directly related to the fortunes of the average MP, the American system only indirectly relates the two.

Democrats were already a majority in the House before the November 2008 election. Many, especially the Blue Dogs, would have been re-elected no matter what happened at the presidential level. Most sitting Democrats, Blue Dog or not, do not directly owe Obama their elections, although they do owe him the increased House majority and the new Senate majority.

But, unlike in Britain where the typical Labour MP lives and dies with the fortunes of the prime minister, American representatives and senators frequently are around through several presidencies.

The typical long-serving incumbent also survives both presidents and congressional majorities of the opposite party. His or her fortunes are most directly tied to perceived “good stewardship” by local constituents, not how he or she performs on single national issues.

San Franciscans may have elected Nancy Pelosi on the health care issue (which I doubt — her constituents share her views on just about everything), but I doubt that can be said for Artur Davis and a number of his colleagues from the South, Midwest and Mountain states.

As I have opined before, the main reason Democrats won the presidency, an increased majority in the House and a new one in the Senate had more to do with the perception of a majority of the voters that Republicans were corrupt and incompetent than anything else.

To narrow it down to the single issue of health care ignores the long-festering corruption-incompetency issue as well as the huge financial crisis that started the month before the election. If the voters cast ballots around a single issue, which I don’t believe they did in general, it was the freefall into recession, not health care, that motivated them to do so.

The Democrats might lose their part of their base if they fail to deliver health care reform with a public option, but they might not. After all, the alternative is the Republicans. Would any base Democrats vote to elect Republicans out of spite? Not likely. Would they desert the en masse for the Green Party? Also not likely, at least not right now.

The choice for the left, it seems to me, is staying with the party that is getting them at least part of a loaf since the only alternative is no loaf at all.

]]>