WI Obama was more like Bernie Sanders?

If Obama were like Bernie Sanders, he’d be dismissed as an angry black man and have no hope for the 2008 nomination.
 
You two seem to have missed what I was saying...


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

Again, you seem to be conflating the means by which he engenders public support for the act and the actual text of it. At that point in time, it's my belief that most Americans would've responded positively to Obama referring to healthcare as a human right (not a legally guaranteed right, but an issue of national morality). Now you have a point in saying that ultimately, the text not reflecting such a statement could prove problematic for public support and the sustainability of Obamacare, but the courts trying to strike down bits and pieces of it has little to do with the rhetoric surrounding it. I also think that, if you're saying Obama would ultimately win any legal fight on the issue, he's likely to not only preserve the legislation but expand on it after a solid Supreme Court victory wherein the Court rejects any lower court notions that health care isn't legally guaranteed. Not that I think the court would argue that it is guaranteed, but I have a hard time seeing a majority agreeing with the assertion that it is explicitly not (or could not be).
 
Again, you seem to be conflating the means by which he engenders public support for the act and the actual text of it. At that point in time, it's my belief that most Americans would've responded positively to Obama referring to healthcare as a human right (not a legally guaranteed right, but an issue of national morality). Now you have a point in saying that ultimately, the text not reflecting such a statement could prove problematic for public support and the sustainability of Obamacare, but the courts trying to strike down bits and pieces of it has little to do with the rhetoric surrounding it. I also think that, if you're saying Obama would ultimately win any legal fight on the issue, he's likely to not only preserve the legislation but expand on it after a solid Supreme Court victory wherein the Court rejects any lower court notions that health care isn't legally guaranteed. Not that I think the court would argue that it is guaranteed, but I have a hard time seeing a majority agreeing with the assertion that it is explicitly not (or could not be).

Not really, no. At least that's not my intent. Rather, I'm trying to conflate the public expectations raised by the means and rhetoric of gathering initial public approval and the public reaction to the implementation of the actual text. Insuring the continued political will to support the ACA in the face of opposition (from both legalistic and political ground) and to muster the voters to maintain the power to defend it depends on meeting or matching expectations... and the higher you set the intial bar the harder that is to pull off. Further, the more expansive the claim to authority for action the Obama administration seems to be making the more numerious, varied, and justifiable legal challanges are going to be, and the more likely a critical mass of them start getting sufficent ground to actually start further undermining the legitimacy of the law or be publically perceived as stinking of judicial activism to be reversed under the rise of later Conservative court with little opposition (The Individual Mandate, for example, if coming first out of the court cases rather than democratic party statements is bound to ring of judges streching the laws in the eyes of many conservatives, moderates, and even smaller government liberals.) Weather or not health care is considered a human right is irrelevent in that case: all the opponents need to do is show a particular action done by the Federal government overreachs its authority to strike it out of the ACA, which has a solid chance of producing an eventually "Jenga Collapse"
 

I see what you're saying, but I bring you back to your earlier statement that Obama could/would win any legal fight about it, ultimately. If that is the case, I don't truly see this aspect having much meaningful impact. It might (and probably would) make Obama much more vulnerable to losing reelection, but that wasn't really the point here.
 
I see what you're saying, but I bring you back to your earlier statement that Obama could/would win any legal fight about it, ultimately. If that is the case, I don't truly see this aspect having much meaningful impact. It might (and probably would) make Obama much more vulnerable to losing reelection, but that wasn't really the point here.

I guess my ultimate point is this: if Obama were to adopt that rhetoric, it ultimately hinders rather than helps the long-term survival of the ACA as it both undermines Democratic authority in general, increases its vulernability to legal challanges, and will reduce the dedication of the Party to make sacrifices and fight hard for it in general.
 
I guess my ultimate point is this: if Obama were to adopt that rhetoric, it ultimately hinders rather than helps the long-term survival of the ACA as it both undermines Democratic authority in general, increases its vulernability to legal challanges, and will reduce the dedication of the Party to make sacrifices and fight hard for it in general.

I can agree to that, in general. Though my initial point was less about long term and more short term.
 
I can agree to that, in general. Though my initial point was less about long term and more short term.

So I guess that most of us are in agreement that a more hardcore leftist approach wouldn't have worked for Obama. While many in 2008 hoped that the financial crisis and Obama's election would mark the end of the Reagan Revolution, the fact is that America's political culture didn't really move left as a result.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You mean old, white and mathematically challenged?

De would never have been nominated, much less elected.
 
Ooh, hot take. ;) Perhaps AOC would be a better comparison for what the OP wants: young, aggressive, and willing to *fight* for the actual needs of working people.
 
Ooh, hot take. ;) Perhaps AOC would be a better comparison for what the OP wants: young, aggressive, and willing to *fight* for the actual needs of working people.

The mathmatically challenged part (IE the relevent part in terms of transferable temperment) is yet relevent, if not extensively more so.

I can agree to that, in general. Though my initial point was less about long term and more short term.

Ah. I misinterpreted the frame you intended when you talked about "Winning the PR war"
 
The mathmatically challenged part (IE the relevent part in terms of transferable temperment) is yet relevent, if not extensively more so.

I mean, we could get into a thing about the irony of her critics saying that while we pile endless sums into the gaping maw of the military-industrial complex, or how an actual government welfare system would be cheaper than the semi-private grift we have now, or even how the biggest wasteful expenditure is the surplus value siphoned off by the capitalist class from every single worker in the country...but that would be present-day politics, and best saved for Chat.
 
Really? I think your overestimating how racist America is.

It's not just a function of racism, unfortunately. It's also simple hidebound rigidity. Obama received mountains of acclaim and adulation from 2002 to 2009 because he was slick, charismatic, and, most of all, unchallenging in terms of policy. Oh, sure, he opposed Iraq early, but that was a more popular position among Democrats than was obvious at the time. If he'd pushed for a federal jobs guarantee or free college or, god forbid, dared to call himself a socialist, then that would force his audiences to think, to question the way things were. Far easier to label him the next Malcolm X or Jesse Jackson and hustle him off to the sidelines instead, and keep looking for someone with the same superficial appeal, but who won't rock the boat.
 
I mean, we could get into a thing about the irony of her critics saying that while we pile endless sums into the gaping maw of the military-industrial complex, or how an actual government welfare system would be cheaper than the semi-private grift we have now, or even how the biggest wasteful expenditure is the surplus value siphoned off by the capitalist class from every single worker in the country...but that would be present-day politics, and best saved for Chat.

A Parthian Shot. Classy.

But ageement on the principal of focusing on the scenario at hand.
 
he could have proposed singlepayer from the start, then "compromised" with something closer to an actual system of universal healthcare, even if it's run by (regulated) insurers. Like a less well-run* version of the swiss or dutch healthcare systems

* The US isn't a developed country OTL, remember this fact.
 
It's not just a function of racism, unfortunately. It's also simple hidebound rigidity. Obama received mountains of acclaim and adulation from 2002 to 2009 because he was slick, charismatic, and, most of all, unchallenging in terms of policy. Oh, sure, he opposed Iraq early, but that was a more popular position among Democrats than was obvious at the time. If he'd pushed for a federal jobs guarantee or free college or, god forbid, dared to call himself a socialist, then that would force his audiences to think, to question the way things were. Far easier to label him the next Malcolm X or Jesse Jackson and hustle him off to the sidelines instead, and keep looking for someone with the same superficial appeal, but who won't rock the boat.
I feel like he could have pushed single payer healthcare through without being labeled “socialist”.
 
What do people say to the notion that a better "ground game" or rapport with his own party on the Hill would've resulted in a less contentious process and an at least slightly better bill?

Like does he have to be the picture of the strong, dominating president that's permeated for the last x number of decades? Can he be the benign executive who nods along to an empowered legislature and stamps THEIR proposal in celebration when it's done? It would be about crafting a narrative that 300-odd (or 500-odd) politicians worked together to hammer this out and pulled it off, making those who invest from the beginning the real victors, and those who swoop in at the last minute to derail the unalloyed villains.

We talk about the Obama administration not having an experienced ground game in working with Congress but accept that he went out and did it anyway. So why should the fact that those in Congress don't have much experience working a problem this way stop it from happening? If it's spun right it could end up making everybody look smarter.

In a sense I'm talking about changing the victory Obama claims. He doesn't unlock the "Your health care vision is now law!" achievement (a victory Congress will claim credit for), but rather the "You know how to work Congress!" achievement.
 
Top