WI Obama was more like Bernie Sanders?

Instead of taking a conciliatory approach after he was elected, what if he used his initial majority to aggressively push agenda, and also prosecuted Wall Street executive’s responsible for the crash?
 
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.

Edit: To be more constructive, you probably can't avoid Hillary as SoS and Biden as VP, as a ward against charges of inexperience. Charges, in retrospect, which were wholly justified.
 
Last edited:
The senate would block a lot of that. They barely got Obamacare through and they had a supermajority that only occurred due to a very specific set of circumstances.
 
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.

Conflating cabinet level positions with a President's influential advisors would be a mistake. Obama was known to be especially distant to many of them, and he relied a on a closer inner circle to set the direction of his Presidency. Like most recent Presidents, Obama's cabinet level appointments were more principles tasked on carrying out his agenda less so than they informed it.

While it's nice to think that the only thing that held Obama back was his own moderate tendencies, OTL is a bit more boring than that, since his real constraints was the group of Blue Dog Senators (Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, etc.) that were not going to support an extremely liberal agenda, and with 2010 staring many of them in the face, they will certainly not support an anti-corporate agenda when they're trying to bundle donations. I suppose he could nominate someone really anti-business as AG to influence the Justice Department into pursuing more federal action, but that person is still going to need to get confirmed by the Senate.
 
As already pointed out, it wouldn't go over well. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, Obama's moderateness was the only feasible course of action for the context of the times. If he had been more aggressively liberal, his actions would be blocked by the Blue Dog coalition in Congress, leaving serious egg on his face and highlighting the fact that he was, prior to his election as President, a mere freshman Senator. It would make him look incapable and be an even bigger shitshow than passing the Affordable Healthcare Act was, and open him up to more attacks from the already-frothing-at-the-mouth right wing media machine. This could set the stage for a much more conservative Republican than Mitt Romney to win the nomination in 2012, and likely see Obama lose reelection.

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.
 
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).

Obama could have listened to his Chief of Staff, who pleaded with him to delay healthcare reform, and pushed for Obamacare later. Perhaps a better course of action would've been to build up sufficient public support for liberal policies through the bully pulpit (e.g., go around the country and speak to people directly making the case for the stimulus and Dodd-Frank) and working to maintain a strong enough party infrastructure to hold onto Congress in 2010. Remember that FDR didn't immediately push for Social Security in 1933, neither did LBJ try to enact Medicare in 1963. The problem of course is that I am using hindsight to judge Obama's actions, and to his credit Obama saw that with a 60 seat super majority in the Senate 2010 was the best chance for healthcare reform that the Democrats had since 1994. Kudos to Obama for accomplishing what he did, but maybe three years in the Senate didn't give him enough national political experience to truly fulfill his potential as a leader.

Boy, being President is a lot tougher than it looks...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 agree 100%
 
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
 
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...
 
The initial post doesn't say we have to start with healthcare. Maybe we should look at how the stimulus/recovery could've been handled more progressively. Certainly I think there's room to get some of those Blue Dog senators on-side for a financial industry pile-on and a bigger cash infusion to jumpstart the economy.
 
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"
 
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).
 
"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).

... 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.

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.
 
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.

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."
 
... 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.

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.

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."

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...
 
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...

You two seem to have missed what I was saying...
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"

Obama could, and would,ultimately win any legal fight. But taking that kind of stance as to his main justification for such a major restructuring of the American health care system would only throw more fuel onto the fire of an already highly charged controversy, especially once the lofty principals being espoused start clashing with lackluster results and unpopular consquences. That's bad for the popularity and sustainability of the program in the long run, especially if some of the court cases do end up selectively striking down parts of the Act as unconstitutional or are obliged to openly say that, no, Health Care is not a legally guranteed right since the question has been begged
 
Top