A Trust Betrayed

I watched the President’s speech on health care Wednesday. During it, I wondered to myself “How did we get to this place? Why is this even necessary?” Despite an improvement in public opinion regarding health care reform after the speech (and presumably a result of it), I still believe that the prospects for true health care reform are circling the drain (true” meaning a public option, physician and hospital payment reform, significant measures at cost control, etc.). But why? In my opinion, it comes down to trust. A trust that was misplaced. A trust that was betrayed.

President Obama trusted Congress. In the opinion of some, he “overlearned” the lesson’s of President Clinton’s failure at achieving health care reform in the 90s. Instead of dictating a finished bill, he turned the process of actual policymaking – “legislating” – over to Congress, which is, according to our system, a “legislature.” He trusted them, including significant majorities of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, to take care of working out the messy details of policy, armed with their collective experience and the expertise of witnesses and staffers. He trusted them to look beyond narrow electoral advantage, to ignore armies of lobbyists and dumptruck loads of special interest money squeezing through every crack in campaign finance law, and to have a broader vision for themselves and their country than the next two to six years. He trusted them to think in terms of the interests of ordinary Americans, and forget partisanship, sectionalism, and personal aggrandizement. That trust was misplaced and betrayed.

President Obama trusted Republicans too. He did not order Congressional Democrats to pass health care reform without consulting Democrats, or by using parliamentary procedure to make it happen without the need for Republican votes. He trusted that the Republicans would recognize the way the wind was blowing, after having been handed significant defeats at nearly every electoral level. He trusted them to engage in constructively building a solution for America’s health care system, and in particular, a solution that would actually solve the problems of access, cost, and quality, instead of solving their credibility and loyalty problems with a couple hundred deranged constituents back home. He trusted them to be true to their political principles, but also to be true to the charge they were given to seek the common welfare of Americans. In short, he trusted them to act like adults. That trust was misplaced and betrayed.

Finally, President Obama trusted the American people. He trusted them to be intelligent consumers of information– to not believe every thing that they saw on the TV, in their e-mail, or on a blog post. He trusted them to not make decisions based on mere rumor and innuendo. He trusted them to be broad-minded and open-hearted, to be concerned about the welfare of their fellow Americans as much as they would be concerned about the welfare of their siblings or cousins. He trusted them to not give in to cheap forms of public discourse and to not participate in a degradation of the national political atmosphere. That trust was also misplaced and betrayed.

This trust was lightly given, handed over despite no previous evidence of any of its recipients being trustworthy. I am not one generally disgusted by legislative politics (the “sausage-making”), but I am beginning to think differently. I see little reason to believe that Congress as a whole, despite the good intentions of a significant plurality of its members, to make necessary changes on the big issues in ways that would significantly benefit large portions of the American populace. And the American people? When they happen to get something right (electing Obama), it is practically a matter of dumb luck. To paraphrase The Dark Knight, President Obama “thought we could be decent men in an indecent time.” I remain unconvinced.


8 thoughts on “A Trust Betrayed

  1. Please explain how you are not advocating fascism? It seems to me that beyond calling for a single payer health care system, you are also saying that Obama should have just rammed through health care reform without any input from anyone that might disagree with him. And here I thought one of the lessons of the Bush presidency was that dissent was patriotic.

  2. Anon,Do you even know what "Fascism" means? Or is it just another political pejorative that you've come to associate with the President?How could Obama have "rammed through health care reform without any input from anyone that might disagree with him"? Not even all of the Democrats are on the same page. But even if they were, to pass a bill without Republican support would not be Fascist–it would be perfectly democratic. The American people voted for more Republicans than Democrats in each of the past two elections. As a result, Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress. When you have enough votes behind a particular measure, it's not undemocratic to pass it simply because a minority faction opposes it. Rather, that's just how things work under the governmental structure established by the Constitution. If voters disagree with Congress's (or the President's) use of power, then they can revoke that power through the democratic process in 2010, 2012, and 2014.In any case, the Democrats have repeatedly reached out to Republicans, and have made a number of concessions in the interest of getting Republicans on board. The sad reality is that Republicans aren't interested in consensus; they're interested in killing reform altogether. If the President or the Democrats think a bipartisan health reform bill is possible, they're being naive. They need to exercise the mandate that the American people have granted them, and get something done.

  3. Anon, the fact that you mention "fascism" in your first sentence and think that single-payer might be a symptom of it (Canada and the UK = hotbeds of fascism -> new tourism slogan!) tells me everything I need to know about you. You are exhibit A for my fourth paragraph.I did not advocate Obama ramming through HCR without input from others. Under our constitutional system, that isn't even possible, even if desirable. I am merely disappointed that the legislators have made such a hash of the process. This should not have been difficult. Modifying a reform plan sponsored by the president is absolutely desirable if it improves the plan (i.e. helps it achieve its tripartite goals of increasing access, controlling costs, and ensuring quality). I would not feel harshly towards Congressmen on either side of the aisle if they had used the process to make such improvements. Nothing that the Republicans have done, and most of what Democrats (and Sen. Baucus in particular) have done, seems to accomplish that. Dissent is welcome AND patriotic, but the dissenters need to be right about the issue of dissent. If not, dissent merely pushes us further into error. Majoritarian democracy legitimizes outcomes, but it does not mean that the right outcome was achieved.

  4. Mike, since I know you'll complain about your free speech being violated, I will remind you that if you came into my house uninvited, smeared the word "fascist" in your own feces all over my wall, you cannot reasonably expect me to simply shrug and say "Well, its his free speech."

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s