NYCweboy

The Sound Of One Hand, Patting It's Own Back

Part of the problem, too, over the weekend was the monumental sense of self-congratulation: as much as there's a significant milestone in having a close vote to pass such an enormous element of the ultimate reform package, too much of the lauding of Nancy Pelosi and Democrats celebrated what hasn't happened. And, to my chagrin, people who've held out admirably against the Obama-era vogue for celebrating in the future tense succumbed to it.

Missing from most laudatory comments was any sense of perspective, and almost any sense of balancing the problematic with the historic. As I said earlier, too many posts (usually men) did a "yes, but" with the Stupak Amendment... but that was simply one aspect. Just as often, few mentioned that the House vote suggested more bad news than good, given that Pelosi struggled, more than anyone expected, to find a bare majority of her members, losing 39 of the 40 votes she had to cushion victory. And not just, as many noted, losing "Blue Dog" conservatives: Dennis Kucinich voted against the bill, noting that if you are truly a progressive who favors single payer... there was nothing to like in the utimate compromise.

Kucinich made a good, sensible point that underlined how much liberals and progressives have given over to the politics of the process in DC and abandoned the very goals that "healthcare reform" was meant to accomplish. As I've said all along, fetishizing a "public plan" which was always a modest adjunct to other, far more crucial, aspects of change, made a hash of the whole bill. And as a result, people got swept up in the MSM presentation of  "historic moment" journalism over good sense, I'm convinced.

Since his election, there's been a sense of artificially set pressure by the Obama folks to accomplish major change in a short time frame. And that pressure has served, too often, as an easy out to make bad compromises and weak hash. Too few progressive activists have asked the questions that matter about how this process has unfolded - why was it being done in secret, behind closed doors? Why wasn't more effort expended, earlier, to better explain the need for certain reforms and lay out  responsible proposals for public debate? Why are we just accepting that every bad development is a necessary, if regrettable, watering down of a previously bad choice?

Nancy Pelosi and the - largely male - leadership team she's assembled did not, miraculously, go from the middling, not altogether effective legislators they've been all year to geniuses on Saturday; Pelosi has, all along, been able to deliver most of her majority to pass almost anything she wants. What she has been less good at, and always has been, is in rising above political gain to defend important principles. Everything, ultimately, is in service to winning and maintaining political control of the House. And if that means watering down a public option, or turning back years of progress on women's reproductive health... oh well. Maybe later, we can fix that. Look... it's history!

Sober reflection, I think, would have tried, harder, to put what happened over the weekend into perspective. Yes, it's exciting to see the potential for modestly positive developments in some reforms in healt insurance make some siginificant progress. But we are nowhere near the final result of an actual bill, agreed to by both houses, that makes sense and ought to be signed into law. And just as importantly, many of the bad compromises that have been made to achieve that result - including a cynical expansion of Medicaid eligibility without addressing the embarrasingly low reimbursement rates of the program, the failure to truly recognize or cover the costs of the reforms proposed, and the vague, poorly thought through notions of "improving" Medicare without making hard choices - all of these are reasons for serious, continued concern about just what it is "reform" is actually amounting to in the end.

Rather than get swept up in trying to write historical progress before it has actually happened, and to play the contorting game of patting one's own back too hard, I'd feel better if progressives didn't exhale and let up just when the pressure is needed most. Ask yourself... is this really the reform we said we favored? Are these the goals that progressives set for reform at any point in the process? Does this bill really offer the necessary pieces of progress to improve health care access, make it more affordable, and ultimately improve quality of care? Too much of what we're getting doesn't remotely meet these goals. And if that's case... why is that hand of yours still reaching over your shoulder?

Aw Hell No

Stunned into relative silence, it took a day or so to let the anger find its way to the surface. Now I'm just furious. The idea that Democrats in the House just eliminated access to reproductive health services for millions, and possibly all, women is just stupefying.

I think incomprehension has been the main force behind the slow rolling reaction - only late last evening did it seem clear that the full horror had begun to sink in widely - an incomprehension that itself seems cheerfully naive.   The signs that healthcare reform had become a political exercise fully ignorant of larger implications was clear months ago, the sense that women's heath concerns were being dismissed was clear weeks ago, and the national madness around abortion policy is just part of my entire lifetime. Yet, still... it's hard to imagine something quite this unbelievable taking place.  Even as I watched it unfold on Saturday afternoon... and then went to see Precious.

For years, I have tried to be one of those voices of "it's not their fault" when it comes to Democratic missteps. I've been one of those "gee I hope they get their act together one day" type of Dems who, since the seventies, has figured I just happen to be in the hapless party that can't quite pull it together. Sometimes we do... but usually, wecave, or we get scared, or we fold too soon.  If only we could get our act together... well, I have to admit, this one's got me realizing... this is their act. And it is together... and that's the scary part.

As others say so often, the Stupak amendment is "a feature, not a bug;" These things don't "just happen" and Nancy Pelosi doesn't just get to say some group or other made her do this, against her will. The woman who could claim to be prochoice and let this happen can't claim to be buffeted by circumstance. This is a choice that can be made, comfortably, by people who lead a party no longer attuned to the needs of poor people, working people, people in need. It's a cavalier, uncaring assessment that somehow, people can make do... or they'll just have to deal with it. Or the kind of bald political calculus that says, somehow, magically, this will all just go away.

There's plenty of reasons to be unhappy about the healthcare "reform" still going full steam ahead, racing pell mell to a foregone conclusion that looks less and less appealing each day. But there's unhappy... and then there's this, a situation which cannot be acceptable, cannot be excused, cannot just be called okay, if we just make a few changes. This is a "hell no... and what the hell were you thinking?" moment. Say it... shout it. And dammit, let's do something about it.

The Election Results: Yes, They Could... But It's Not Very Likely

In the end, it came down to expecting more: even Bob McDonnell couldn't deliver the expected 20 point rout of Creigh Deeds, just 19. We expected more drama, less certainty, more divisiveness, less muddle. We got none of it... and what we deserved. So now what?

If there's a thread to link a variety of mixed election results it seems, largely, like what I thought going in: this was anger, by and large that was taken out on the nearest and most incumbent... and beyond that, there's not much to tell, because Republicans have no idea how to capitalize on what actually worked.

Conservatives might have gotten their dream of a "right wing revival" storyline... but all those eggs in the NY 23 basket were a mistake - the results made clear that internal right side dissension mostly hurts their side, sweeping Bill Owens to a modest victory (no Democrat since before the Civil War in that region), and showing that national intervention in local elections is usually a bad idea. Conservatives had argued that a tight three way tie which Owens prevailed in would help their cause with Owens too weak to pull the seat in a two way future race; but Scozzafava managed to wreck that by dropping out, endorsing Owens... and remaining on the ballot to pull just enough votes to wreck Hoffman.

Conservatives may deny the obvious message in the loss, but that doesn't mean their ability to wreck the careers of moderates isn't suicidial: Voters who were angry enough to pick Scozzafava over Hoffman after she "dropped out" are Republicans who don't like the far right wing, and don't mind making it heard, and don't care that a Democrat would win as the result. That can't help the far right, and has little or nothing to do with anyone outside of the ever narrowing circle on their side. The failure to win NY 23 is huge, has enormous national implications (Marco Rubio, your clue phone is ringing) and will probably be the latest example in right wing denial over reality, a reality that clearly suggests that internal divisiveness and narrowing of the base is hurting, not helping Republicans. And it can't be stopped.

The Anger Is Real; The Right Wing Revival Is Not.

Off year election season is just kind of weird; in the "24 hour news" age, there's a whole political evaluation machine sitting around, little to do... and there's always a "trend report" needed for the next year.

And of course, there's the off chance that something real is actually happening.

Virginia and New Jersey's races for Governor always serve as the bellweather of their years, since they make easy commutes for northeastern reporters based in the NY-DC axis, and in both cases are the rather disrespected cousins of the neighboring metropolis. And usually, they don't necessarily tell us all that much, since both have fairly unique characters ("unique" is one of those adjectives a New Yorker can love when referring to the world across the Hudson, and that view is even stronger across the Potomac).

Still, with Jon Corzine struggling and Republicans poised to retake Virginia, something's clearly happening. The question is... is it proof of some sort of Republican, or right wing, revival, an indictment of failure so soon after Obama's election?

My own guess... kind of yes, kind of no. There's a lesson in this year's elections for the left... and for the right. But not what I suspect many people think it is.

Silence of the Dudebros

I was struck - but not surprised - by the relative silence over a Sunday front page NYT article about the White House's "DudeBro" problem: the reality that the President is surrounded by the lefty equivalent of the all male "boys club" mentality that can be found many places, including Washington politics.

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

I think the relative silence was in part a shrug of obviousness: this is not new, and really has been dogging the Obama folks since the campaign with Hillary Clinton - who, wouldn't you know it, gets to be cited as the "we don't have a woman problem" example since she is now Secretary of State. I suspect that many feminists are wondering mostly why it took everyone this long to figure out the obvious.

Of course the "DudeBro" problem is a problem; and, of course, it goes a long way to explaining why the Administration has a variety of problems dealing with a number of women's issues and, by extension, the problems that have developed with gay and lesbian activists as well. When you surround yourself, comfortably, with mostly straight guys who share your straight guy interests... you get, well, comfortably DudeBro.

What's remarkabel, to me anyway, is watching the regression of progress I figured couldn't really be shaken; we're re-arguing issues that I feel like should have been settled long ago. The rise in anti-feminist stupidity, not just crassly sexist, but frankly disturbing anti-woman presentations in advertising and media, is deeply concerning. Or the stupefying conversations I've had - most recently at Red's wedding - suggesting that "gays have to be patient" when looking for progress on, say, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Mustn't rock the boat. Must realize... this could be controversial, And difficult.

There's a sense that we're either moving forward on stuff like this... or slipping back. And, unfortunately, I think it's fairly obvious that the backsliding on progress for women and gays is systemic, and has everything to do with a comfortable, casual sexism that's taken hold, even as we mouth platitudes about progress and "change" since the election. Who cares if the President plays golf with only men? Or sets up basketball tournaments among the DudeBros? Hey... he's way better than that last guy! And his stay-at-home, no career of her own wife? That's her choice!

The point is... these are choices, in the most problematic sense. They are choices to accept the status quo, to not do the hard work - the teaspoon work as Melissa McEwan puts it - of challenging every prevailing notion of sexism and "traditional" expectations. As my female dinner companion - a well connected political woman in DC - told me about her thinking to finally change jobs after several years, she wouldn't contemplate working in the White House - "I like my family and my life too much" she said. That, of course, shouldn't be the choice. And when it is... it's not surprising that women, collectively, opt for alternative choices.

I suspect we're stuck with the DudeBro problem for some time to come; and like a number of entrenched, ignored, and often dismissed observations about a systemic problem with the supposed "progressiveness" of the Obama Administration that state obvious relaities... I also suspect that they're indicative of the growing political rumblings that the Democratic Establishment might consider owning up to, rather than denying. There's a reason that dissatisfaction seems to be growing, why surface notions that "everything is fine, and politics is hard and progress is slow" don't really suffice as defenses of the Obama Administration's weaknesses (and "we're way better than the last guy" is really... just getting old). If we can't admit and face that not everything is golden with this White House, we can't change it. And if we can't change it... then people will look elsewhere for the progress they seek. Bet on that, Dude.

The Belittled Foxes

As much as I find the Obama Administration's kerfuffle with Fox News to be reasonably diverting, I'm not sure there's a lot to see here: I've said before (and long ago) what I think of Fox, and it's basically the same complaint of dressing up opinion and commentary as news. But knowing that - and even as the Administration has, deciding to challenge it - I'm not sure anyone's answered the "what now" question.

Because it's not, really, that Fox is dominated by opinion journalism; it's that they've succeeded with it, and that success is warping the entire field of 24 hour news. Say what (nice things, I suppose) you will about Rachel Maddow... that's not news, either. And generally, Keith Olbermann isn't much more. MSNBC, which has been the favorite "what about them" excuse of conservatives trying to defend Fox, has been playing catch up for years with the more successful operations at CNN and Fox, and they've decided, clearly, when you can't beat it... join them. Let the shouting commence.

And it seems fair to observe, too, at least no one is pretending that Fox is brilliantly objective as a news organization. It's a measure of the playing field we now work on that no one, no one sane anyway, can essentially deny that Fox is where conservatives get information, because, clearly, it tells the stories in ways that reflect conservative views and ideals. As I always try to remind people at times like this, Fox has nt shown an ability to break hard news; it's reporting coverage is generally thin, and its reporters rarely reflect great skills at getting the substance of a story... but they're great for finding opinions about the news of the day.

I think the problem here is much the problem we're dealing with in talking about healthcare: if the profit motive is going to be our bottom line, if you have to have good ratings and better ad sales to be viable... then Fox is right; you do the things that get ratings. And you get ratings with controversy, drama, and a sense of conflict. You do not get ratings armed with facts, figures, and often depressing information about conditions in places that may not, really, have a good outcome anywhere in the near future. Look! A silver balloon! If we can't let news be unprofitable, if we can't be less concerned with ad sales and more concerned with information... then, no, we're not going to get good news coverage. We will get shouting, and name calling, and Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity. And blaming Fox, or calling them the "worst example" doesn't change the bigger problem - what they exemplify... is what's working.

And so, yet again, I find myself less than thrilled with the Obama folks, not because I think they're tilting at a losing windmill... but because they don't, really, have any interest in trying to change the status quo. Making Fox News the enemy suits their political agenda; "exposing" Fox as conservative (really? can you expose something so nakedly obvious?) is easy headlines... but no real payoff. Fox gets to be just what it is, the Obama folks get an easy scapegoat... and we get less and less served by good news outlets. Who's losing here? And who, really, is being outfoxed?

Do Nothing Til You Hear From Me

Day after day, the steady drumbeat of news and blogging insists that we are "almost there" on passage of "healthcare reform>" And day after day, I debate writing something, usually annoyed and slightly sarcastic, pointing out that, in fact, nothing much has happened, still, and the real prospects for reform are still as unlikely as ever.

And then I say... why bother?

Still, last week's passage of a bill out of the Finance Committee suggested that too much naysaying would be premature; it's certainly possible, on a momentum basis, that there will be... something... passed by the end of the year for the President to sign. It's probably some sort of hare brained "compromise" of ideas that have been bouncing around, which pretends that major elements of "reform" - like addressing Medicare reimbursements - if done in other bills won't be added to this one to determine an overall cost of reform.

I'd love to say I find any of this heartening or useful or even merely progress for the sake of progress (or as Olympis Snowe does, let's just repeat things twice - "when history calls, history calls." Ooooh. Now I get it. History is... calling). But I don't find much of what's happening at all helpful, and I think it's incumbent on those who know something about healthcare to point out, again, just what's not happening, and why it matters.

So here, a few points about why we may not be anywhere near the bill people think we're getting:

• How to pay for the thing is still a big mess. One of the remarkable simmering issues that's never been resolved is a mechanism to cover the cost of expanding coverage as proposed in all of the bills. Proposals have lurched from "luxury taxes" on the highest earners to a tax on "Cadillac Plans" of health coverage over a certain amount... which turns out to be some of the very nice plans unions have negotiated for members in various fields. Most prudent observers continue to point out that perhaps we should use tax revenue to cover the trillions of dollars of deficit spending already in place, and many other reasonable people also point out that tax increases in a precarious economy can't solve all your problems. It remains entirely likely that this issue, alone, could derail the whole thing.
• Do reform that doesn't really reform anything. The Finance Committee bill is the best indication yet that what's really happening is what was predicted by many - me included - months ago: that, as the idea of a Giant Reform of Everything fell apart, we'd get a scaled back proposal that does a few things, but is nowhere near the full attempt to reform major parts of our healthcare systems. That appears to be the result: we may get some insurance reforms ending preexisting conditions and lifetime caps (or at least, words to suggest both), we may get some subsidies to allow more people to purchase insurance... and that may be about it.
• Is there Medicaid reform... or not? Totally undiscussed is the most costly, and necessary, element to any real reform effort: federalizing Medicaid, and expanding it to cover everyone in poverty. The Finance Committee appears to have stuck to some sort of formula that approximates this... but it may be, as many Governors fear, a temporary fix that doesn't address the long term, structural problem of dumping the question of how to pay for halthcare for the poor on the states. This too is a major, undiscussed issue that could derail the whole effort.
• And then there's Medicare.  Medicare is the elephant in the room that at least everyone admits is there; pretty much every reform plan passed tinkers with some marginal questions, but nothing, really, is being done about fundamental problems in Medicare's structures that drive problems across the system. This is especially true of a looming problem around Medicare reimbursement rates, which have been a huge issue for doctors and hospitals. Then there's the generally expected move to significantly reduce Medicare Advantage, the HMO plans aadministered by private insurers which receive extra funds - essentially bribes - on top of normal Medicare rates. The cuts proposed will likely eviscerate the plans, and leave many seniors - especially in rural areas - with few or no options. That too is a disaster waiting to happen.
• "Public Options" are the least of it. Meanwhile, of course, progressives have made the presence of a Public Option - some sort of government subsidized insurance option - the be-all, end-all of reform. As always, it bears repeating that a "Public Option" onlyu solves a small subset of the overall problems with reform - you can't get to full coverage without one, but "full coverage" may itself be an unrealistic goal, and an incremental approach would make this a goal to get eventually... but not right away. What "public option" really stands in for is "move to single payer", which is even further unlikely than ever. Getting a public option, and especially winding up with a bad, poorly constructed one is no slution at all. But that's probably where we're headed, and by making that the only goal, progressives are giving away the other reforms that are far more key.

Will there be a bill? Right now, I'd guess there will be something... but what it looks like, I think, may be far different - and much less - than where we seem to be now. I think as a number of issues turn out to be too hard or the compromises too absurd, things will get dropped until very little is left and the real change will be modest, a few insurance reforms, some increased access, and not much else. But you can't count out the pressures to "do something" and that the Administration has made this a major goal. Failure will be disastrous.

But failure takes many forms - one of which I'd say is concoocting, as the Finance Committee did, a bill in which the main reforms are years away, and are strikingly modest and weak, all designed to hit a budget number, rather than ask the more pertinent question of what reforms are most important, and which ones can wait. Doing nothing remains a recipe for disaster, but "thie reform or nothing" does make the compelling case that doing nothing, just now, and starting over with a new, smarter proposal... would make more snese. But good sense, I suppose, is soething that's never been in the mix. And doing nothing til we have it... means we never will.

To I Wish Someone Would...

Yes, Ta-Nehisi is right... we can all relate.

The Fight For Our PJs

When I first saw the kerfuffle developing around John Harwood's report of a White House Advisor saying "they [bloggers] should get out of their PJ's and put on some clothes and get out in the world," I pretty much planned to avoid it. There was a certain "oh no, not again" quality to the whole thing and a "why bother" aspect to responding that seemed paramount.

But a sense of impending deadline, the choice of not posting anything at all yesterday, and a slightly off-kilter sense of humor combined yesterday to push me to toss off what I figured was a cute, idiosyncratic point of taking the comment apart not for the politics, but for the fashion - a defense of pajamas, and the more relaxed life they imply as compared to an uptight, bound up life in the corporate world of suits and "seriousness."

And two unexpected things happened - one is that my dear J in B got on me for being unserious, and the other is that I got angrier as the whole thing didn't go away.

So now - a little pissed and a little more serious - I'd like to make the point again, more vigorously: there's nothing wrong with "blogging in PJs" and we (the blogger nation) need to stop feeling down and defensive when it's brought up. In every sense - from our relaxed lifestyles to our passionate writings to our political impact - we are winning. And we should act like it. Defend the pajamas! Embrace the pajamas! Pajama people rule!

Underneath Your Clothes... There's My Territory

You know, when I worked in retail, I owned a lot of suits. Department stores did - and still do - put forth the notion that men should be wearing "business attire," even as clothing designers and businesses moved to "casual Friday" looks, and more dressed down styles. It was often absurd - there we were, in our good suits, selling jeans to people in track pants.

I like suits. I like the finished look of a jacket, the creativity you can use in picking a shirt and tie, I liked looking polished and "done." But it was also hot, stifling, and kind of confining. Climbing around a storeroom in suit and tie... not fun. Our only casual moments were for nights of inventory, and they were long and tiring... but it was nice to see your coworkers actually be casual, and relaxed.

When I switched to corporate work in advertising, I was thrown into the world of "corporate casual", a nebulous, not always well defined approach to ork dressing that the gay men eventually took hold of and defined, mostly, as a sweater and slacks. Maybe a jacket. Over time, people found ways to make "dress jeans" work - when you pay $249 for a pair of Diesel, that's hardly meant to be used only on weekends. And sure, some people made mistakes - too short skirts, shorts in summer, casual workout wear... but peer pressure, usually, gradually had its effect.

I mention all of this, unnamed White House advisor, because that comment about "take off your PJs, and put on some clothes" is, to be sure, an insult to us who blog and how we do it. But it's also revealing; government work, especially in an institution like the White House, is really the last bastion of full on suited dressing. The world has moved on, corporations have, largely, moved on (the only glaring exception is, say, banking... and that's not the kind of uptight fuck you want to be associated with, now is it?)... and there you are, stuck with being serious. In your suit.

Yes, sometimes I get up in the morning and blog in my jammies. Some days I even post the thoughts that come to me while stark bollocks naked. But you know what? Then I put on some clothes... and go to work. I have the life I want - a life free of suits required for work - and there's a price to be paid: I make half of what I made in department stores, a quarter of what I made in corporate.

But I'm happy. And casual. And I have the ability to write, every day, with passion and enthusiasm, and to turn my energy towards the causes I love and care about most. That commoent about "get out of your PJs", White House Advisor, doesn't bother me with it's "grow up" undertones and childish snark. No, I think it reveals just how annoying it is to have to play at dress-up in those boring DC suits. Take off the suit. Trust me. It's better out here with the PJ people. Underneath your clothes... is a better story.