The Modern Independent

Debunking the Liberal Purists on Health Care Reform and The Bush Tax Cuts

The liberal backlash against President Obama’s tax deal, which includes a two-year extension of all the Bush tax-cuts, with Republican leadership is at fever-pitch.  At no point since the debate over the public option in health care reform have liberal in Congress and across America been more critical of the President’s performance.

The common attack against Obama is that he is, at best, a weak leader and poor negotiator.  If only he had been more stubborn, the argument goes, he could have gotten everything the Democrats wanted—a roll-back of the tax-cuts on top income earners, an extension of unemployment benefits, and, oh yeah, the public option that liberals wanted so during during the health care debate. 

However, in a press conference about the tax deal on Tuesday, Obama defended himself against attacks from, what he calls, ‘liberal purists’:

“This notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care. This is the public-option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans... But because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.”

He continued, “Now, if that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it, we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.”

Indeed, these purists often forget that the public option died in the Senate because only half the Democrats in that chamber supported it—even through reconciliation.

Megan McArdle, however, makes even a more forceful case against these purists.  In particular, she refutes the common attack that leveled against Obama that he failed to “shoot for the moon before settling for the stars.” That is, she attacked the tactic advocated by liberals that Obama could have taken an extreme negotiating position that  he didn’t realistically want so that he could negotiate it down to what he really wanted. 

During the health care debate, for example, Obama should have started with single-payer, which he knew he couldn’t get passed, but negotiated it down to a robust public-option.

According to McArdle, however, this criticism was just as inane for health care reform as it is now with the tax-deal:

While it is true that negotiators often ask for things that they don't want, this cartoon version is really, really stupid.  You can see how stupid it is by asking yourself what would have happened if Republicans had used this tactic?  They could have started by demanding the total abolition of Medicare, and wound up with a massive deregulation of the health care system, right?

Yeah, not so much.  If they'd started with abolishing Medicare, you know what they would have gotten? Nothing.  They would have faced a massive backlash from the public that would have strengthened the hand of their opponents, and given the Democrats a stronger hand in the negotiation that followed.

Similarly, starting with single-payer would have made the average American voter, who (rightly or wrongly) has all sorts of negative preconceptions about single-payer, freak out.  On the tax deal, signaling that you were prepared to veto any tax deal for those over $250,000 would have . . . well, maybe it would have made Republicans back down, as is now claimed.  On the other hand, maybe it would have seriously pissed them off, and made it impossible to pass any legislation at all for the rest of this Congress, including a tax cut for lower-income folks.  And it would have sent the message to average voters that you are willing to sacrifice the tax cuts for them on the altar of your ideology.  Sure, they might have been just as mad at Republicans--but the best case scenario is that you're both worse off.

In the end, this compromise is a huge political victory for Obama. In exchange for an extension of the tax-cuts for top earners, Obama effectively got a second stimulus package, which if successful at boosting the economy, could mean the difference between victory and defeat for him in 2012.  He also has the ancillary benefit of rising above the partisan fold by separating himself from Congressional Democrats, who currently have a lower approval rating than he does, and appealing to moderate and independent voters, who overwhelmingly support the deal.  

And as Charles Krauthammer, of all people, correctly notes in today’s Washington Post, “Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility.”

About Ryan Dawkins

graduated Summa Cum Laude with bachelor degrees in Political Science and History, and a masters degree in American History.