What agenda would your more aggressive Obama have? His OTL agenda was largely informed by his advisors, who were corporate bootlickers, drug warriors, and warhawks.
An alternate cabinet for this genuine progressive Obama might be a good starting point.
However, if Obama decides to hit the grassroots hard and take a more proactive role in leading the party than he did IOTL, it may help him secure public support which could be a powerful weapon to wield. He would have to tread lightly, but it would be an interesting scenario to see.
Obama had intended reforms like the ACA to be stepping stones to more progressive policies like a public option, but the GOP takeover of the House in 2010 killed that plan along with pretty much everything else Obama tried to do for the next six years. The GOP takeover, and the massive swing of 63 seats to the GOP, was caused in part by the fierce public reaction to Obamacare which the Obama administration wasn't prepared for. I've also read in Jonathan Alter's book The Promise that Obama did a poor job of communicating to the public exactly why healthcare reform was necessary and good for them. (Other histories of this period have also mentioned that Obama had similar issues showing how the stimulus was working and creating new jobs. The fact is that while Obama is a brilliant orator, he lost the PR war to the conservatives).
I think a part of the issue, as I read in The Little Blue Book by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling, was that Obama often seemed to play the game of treating healthcare as a commercial good. He didn't really seem to stick up for it as being a human right, and that may have played a role in the conservatives winning the PR war as you put it.
This goes back to the initial topic of the thread. If Obama started talking like that, it would probably have been more persuasive to ordinary people. But the healthcare industry and their lobbyists would balk, and recognize that after the ACA would come single payer. As mentioned above, Obama was dealing with a pretty conservative Democratic caucus*. I don't think Obama's problem was that he wasn't liberal enough, but rather that he didn't recognize the full reality of the political situation in 2010 and he probably passed too many major bills in too short a time for the public to handle. I'll use another historical comparison in Theodore Roosevelt, who Obama pointed to as an inspiration for health care reform: when he entered office Roosevelt didn't try to accomplish everything all at once. Instead he started with trust-busting, and fought hard to get the public and the courts on his side. Once that was done he moved onto the Panama Canal, then after his landslide re-election he tackled more ambitious proposals like food & drug regulation, railroad rates, banning corporate contributions to political campaigns, etc.
*The best chance we had for a truly universal health care system after the New Deal was 1977, and Carter blew it.
It's not a matter of whether or not he was liberal enough, but a simple matter of how he spoke about the topic. One can say "healthcare is a human right" while also saying "I believe a fairly regulated private system, with a public option, is the best way to fulfill that right" at the same time without there being too much contradiction. Had Obama made the fight about whether or not it was a human right, he puts the conservative camp in the unsavory position of essentially arguing that it isn't, which doesn't really play well. Agreed on the point that he didn't necessarily realize the full reality of the political situation at the time though, which as we've all seemingly agreed on may have to do with his very limited experience in office before becoming President.
I think a part of the issue, as I read in The Little Blue Book by George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling, was that Obama often seemed to play the game of treating healthcare as a commercial good. He didn't really seem to stick up for it as being a human right, and that may have played a role in the conservatives winning the PR war as you put it.
Try to sell it that way and theAct will be sentinced to death in the courts. Like it or not, casting the ACA as an interstate commerce regulation first and foremost is the safest way to keep it in Constitutional limits
There's a difference between the actual text of the law and the way it's sold to the public in order to gain support. I can't see it realistically being thrown out by the courts simply based on Obama saying healthcare is a human right.
There's a difference between the actual text of the law and the way it's sold to the public in order to gain support. I can't see it realistically being thrown out by the courts simply based on Obama saying healthcare is a human right.
I agree here. I don't see how Obama's more humanitarian rhetoric would change John Robert's mind...
I'm not talking about an ultimate Supreme Court strikedown,but interpretation and orders by lower Federal courts. And the rhetoric used can certainly affect how an action is perceived from a jurisprudence standpoint: look no further than how the campaign speech by President Trump vs the actual text of the order affected different rulings on the "Traval Ban"
"Health care is a human right" isn't unconstitutional, but "let's put a ban on Muslim immigrants from certain countries" does conflict with the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom. One could also make the argument that since such discrimination has racial intent it conflicts with the 14th Amendment as well. (Not that I'm making that argument, but any lawyer easily could and many people did when Trump's policy was challenged).
However, if Obama is going around and being asked why he thinks the Federal government has the authority and obligation to take the actions and impose the restrictions of the ACA, and the answer he gives is "Healthcare is a right that all people ought to have", then you have real optics problems legally and hand large amounts of ammo to his detractors. Sure, it's a good ought we justification, but it doesn't answer the crituque of Federal overreach as a can we justification.
... Except that's not what the Ban actually did in any way shape or form. It restricted entry to all (not just Muslim) travelers from some counteries (not even the majority of Muslim Majority nation's) which were selected for having (well established) irredeemably broken verification systems. That fits, as was later ruled, well within justifiable use of Executive power.
It may prove to be an optics issue, sure, but I have a hard time seeing the Supreme Court (which this would inevitably end up going to if challenged in the courts) simply saying "Well the President called it a human right, and it's not specifically in the Constitution, so we're throwing it out."
It doesn't need to; you can have multiple answers depending on the context. The reason we ought to is because it's a human right. The reason we can is because of the actual text of the law, which I would imagine to be very similar if not exactly the same as IOTL. Moral leadership sets the stage for public opinion, Executive Power and closely defined text of a law sets the stage for Constitutionality. You can have both at the same time. It may prove to be an optics issue, sure, but I have a hard time seeing the Supreme Court (which this would inevitably end up going to if challenged in the courts) simply saying "Well the President called it a human right, and it's not specifically in the Constitution, so we're throwing it out."
Doesn't this undermine your point? Judges on multiple occasions considered Trump's rhetoric as indicative of discriminatory motives, even if the actual text didn't necessarily show this, and so they struck down the ban. Only after making modifications was a revised ban upheld by the Roberts Court - led by the same Chief Justice who voted to uphold the ACA. The rhetoric being proposed by @MikeTheLeftie98 doesn't seem to have any unconstitutional or illegal intent, so I don't see how a judge would use this as evidence that the ACA should be struck down.
I disagree that there would be an optics issue, if anything public opinion would be more on Obama's side and this would put additional pressure on lower courts and the SCOTUS to uphold the ACA. I just don't see any legal evidence as to how this "health care is a human right" talking point would actually cause an issue with lawyers and judges. FDR's liberal rhetoric didn't persuade the Hughes Court to strike down Social Security, and that Court was one of the most conservative and partisan that this country has ever had...
I'm not talking about an ultimate Supreme Court strikedown,but interpretation and orders by lower Federal courts. And the rhetoric used can certainly affect how an action is perceived from a jurisprudence standpoint: look no further than how the campaign speech by President Trump vs the actual text of the order affected different rulings on the "Traval Ban"