Thoughts on Obama's Speech

I am positive that I am not that knowledgeable about the details of the health care debate. This is a little troubling on a personal level since, tomorrow (i.e., eight hours from now), I am going to a class focusing on health policy. Yes, I too thought that I was done with classes years ago, but it is part of my program that I take this class. Although I study health, I study neither health care nor health policy, though part of the program that I am in is designed to have participants think more about health policy. Can't say that there is much better of a time to have a tutorial than now and I am really looking forward to it.

Let me start my thoughts by saying that I think that Obama's speech was great. Given my cursory knowledge of the subject, I think that his plans sounded reasonable. Of course I would like a full-fledged universal insurance program, but I don't think that it is possible or, frankly, at this point that important. If insurance is made affordable enough to make good health care attainable to all Americans, I think that reform will have succeeded. While fully universal coverage would be a better option, having the organizational structure in place to show the American public that it is possible will succeed in making it impossible to get rid of it. The perfect demonstration of this point is the number of people out protesting last month against government-sponsored health care who didn't want Medicare touched. Beyond the cognitive dissonance that makes it difficult to believe that these people make it through a regular day, the fact that Medicare and Social Security are untouchable demonstrate my point.

At the same time, it is also true (again, to my limited knowledge) that both Social Security and Medicare have remained largely the same since their creation. The fact that neither has changed significantly doesn't bode well for incremental-style changes that some in the center and the right (including Newt Gingrich) are advocating. Simply doing something isn't going to cut it in terms of creating good policy; therefore, if anything like what Obama proposed tonight is passed through Congress, then he and Kathleen Sebelius need to develop a strong agency that is relatively impervious to meddling in the future and that aggressively pursues its mandate at its inception. If the agency that is developed is strong enough to assert itself and to regulate the insurance industry to accomplish the goals laid out by Obama, then I think that a bill resembling Obama's outline tonight — with all of its significant shortcomings — can actually improve the state of health care in this country.

Finally, from a political point of view, I think that Obama's speech tonight re-cast the debate in a way that is favorable to passage. I won't say that he re-framed the debate; the Democrats' lethargy during the summer and especially in August cost them the ability to really frame or re-frame the debate. But, re-casting the debate instead of re-framing it might actually work to Obama and the reformers' advantage. With Baucus' announcement today that a bill is going to be passed whether Republicans want to be part of it or not and Obama effectively portraying Republicans as obstructionists, I think that the Democrats painted Republicans into a corner. The Republicans even helped in this regard as Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina's outburst calling Obama a liar (pictured at left, from TPM) only showed how correct Obama was to chastise Republicans for failing to tell the difference between civilized debate and emotional outrage.^[1] I think that tonight's speech was effective enough to persuade progressives to go along, point out the obstructionist and downright rude behavior of the Republicans, and emphasize the overwhelming mandate that health care be passed as an issue of morality and American pride. Although the final bill will not end up being everything that I would have hoped for myself, I think that it will be a drastic improvement on the current situation in health care in this country and really move the country forward.

^[1] TPM has also noted that this might lead to a censure of Rep. Wilson by the House for violating the rules of decorum. Following these rules, the Minorty Whip, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) was also caught violating the rule to "Refrain from eating, smoking, or using electronic equipment, including cellular phones or lap top computers, on the floor." Video here.

Trade Policy and the Democratic Party

One of the most perplexing issues that I often find myself thinking about being involved in leftist politics is that regarding trade policy. On the one hand, I find the traditional AFL-CIO protectionist position shortsighted at best and xenophobic at worst. On the other, I find non-labor lefty advocates blaming outsourcing on the UAW and other manufacturing unions because they "asked for too much" to be patently absurd. Then there is always the "unions don't matter any more" stance. Obviously, there are well-reasoned and not so inflammatory positions between these extremes. However, the question is perplexing in its complexity, especially given the new trade agreement compromise reached between Democrats and Bush.

Paul Krugman's latest column in the NYT (subscription required) argues essentially the same thing:

Nothing divides Democrats like international trade policy. That became clear last week, when the announcement of a deal on trade between Democratic leaders and the Bush administration caused many party activists to accuse the leadership of selling out.

The furor subsided a bit as details about the deal emerged: the Democrats got significant concessions from the Bushies, while effectively giving a go-ahead to only two minor free trade agreements (Peru and Panama). But the Democrats remain sharply divided between those who believe that globalization is driving down the wages of many U.S. workers, and those who believe that making and honoring international trade agreements is an essential part of governing responsibly.

What makes this divide so agonizing is that both sides are right.

Krugman sees the protectionist argument doing more harm than good in non-Western/developing nations such as Bangladesh and India while the pro-internationalist argument having a depressing effect on American worker's wages. Krugman sees no solution to this debate; rather, Krugman believes that Democrats, "if [they] really want to help American workers, they'll have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy's winners, would be a good place to start."

This is in contrast to the editors of The Nation. In their editorial on the trade deal, the editors believe that the Democrats "Sold Out" over the issue. The solution to the problem, they argue, is:

The deeper problem facing the Democratic Party is that it does not have a coherent strategy on trade and globalization, aside from going along with the status quo. The goal of establishing international labor and environmental rights is heroic, but it can't succeed as long as the trading system itself is flawed. Furthermore, in the best of circumstances it will take a generation for the labor rights struggle to make a dent in global wage differentials. Can working people wait twenty years? Can the American economy?

In other words, these two pieces show the exact problem: Krugman believes that the problem is that we focus too much on trade policy per se while The Nation thinks that Democrats are not focusing enough on trade policy. I think that this incongruity becomes even clearer looking at The Nation's prescriptions to confront "global wage differentials":

First, cap the swollen US trade deficits--stop the bleeding--and develop a more balanced international trade regime. Second, use the tax code to get control of US multinationals and force them to align with the nation's economic interests. Third, force the reform of one-sided international institutions like the WTO and IMF so they will serve people and societies, not just capital and corporations. Fourth, continue the long-term struggle to enact trade rules for people of all nations--protecting labor, the environment, economic equity and other progressive values.

While Krugman is arguing that our focus should be domestic, fixing our broken healthcare system that costs employers and employees severely to the benefit of a single sector of the U.S. economy, The Nation argues that the solutions are essentially international, we need to fix our trade deficit and reform the WTO and IMF to not be an international agent of multinational corporations. Maybe this break over the trade issue is not really about trade at all, it is simply the greatest manifestation of a split between Democrats who prioritize domestic policies over ones who prioritize international policies. This is something that I had not really pondered, but which Matthew Yglesias has discussed. Essentially, among activists in the Democratic Party, there is the AFL-CIO (and now CtW) on one hand and internationalist-type activists on the other. And, among all of the solutions, I think that his analysis comes the closest to a real solution. The difference between the two "factions" is the AFL-CIO is more powerful and

Not that I begrudge the unions their influence, either. They won it fair and square -- with organizing, with money, with volunteers, with discipline, with clear requests, etc. As you see with any influential group, securing influence takes work. Sadly, there are virtually no institutions of any consequence organized around providing a progressive take on the substance -- as opposed to labor procedures -- of national security issues.

Ygelsias understands what the issue is and highlights it by emphasizing that it takes work (his emphasis). Although he is dismayed by the fact that international policy is not an issue around which there is great organization, being among the international-types himeslf, he does understand more than Krugman or The Nation what it would take to develop a real international policy.

While this diversion is certainly interesting, what does this have to do specifically with trade policy? I think that the division between domesticists and internationalists that Ygelsias sees is a very real one; the one quibble that I would have is that he fails to point out that these divisions are largely based on class. The more wealthy "netroots" is all about ending the war in Iraq and not inhibiting the free trade of goods and information provided that the trade itself does not outright exploit those who are doing the work itself. The more working-class labor unions on the other hand, fight to protect good jobs in the United States, even if this means focusing so narrowly on it that they forget that they exist in a larger world. The single issue where these two viewpoints are forced to confront each other is in trade policy; it is at the same time involved with the globalization of information and goods and the bread-and-butter job security of manufacturing (and, increasingly, service) employees.

I think that, in this light, both Krugman and The Nation skirt the issue by diverting attention. Krugman's focus on universal healthcare creates a national issue on which there is universal agreement among Dems, albeit with disproportionate passion from the domesticists. The Nation's focus on reforming the IMF and WTO diverts the issue to a singularly international arena on which there is universal agreement.

The other argument that I would make is that focusing simply on policy without politics (little "p") is not going to get very far. As the "mass accumulation" economy of the late industrial revolution has given way to the "flexible accumulation" economy in which we now exist, effective forms of organizing are not neatly tied to industry anymore than the shift from the economy of the early industrial revolution's focus on crafts assisted when the assembly-line arrived. As Ygelsias points out, organizing is the one strategy that gets results. International organizing, particularly if it is international organizing through unions, is potentially the only way to confront these challenges. And while this was one of Andy Stern's (forgotten) tenets in his "Changing to Win" agenda, it seems like both the CtW and AFL-CIO have been slow to pick this up. Luckily, not everyone has forgotten. Stephen Lerner, the director of Justice for Janitors lays out the beginnings of this kind of strategy in a May Day article in AlterNet and the Steelworkers have announced plans to investigate a merger with British unions Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union to counter the internationalization of corporations. This will obviously also mean changing international laws to allow international strikes and labor action, a major flaw with current organizing and Harold Meyerson points out. Hopefully, however, these initial talks and coordination with emergent radical movements that are willing to aggressively fight these laws will lead to the kind of pressure that really will make this kind of international labor movement possible.