December 17, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Big Table Fantasies
PAUL KRUGMAN
Broadly speaking, the
serious contenders for the Democratic nomination are offering similar
policy proposals — the dispute over health care mandates
notwithstanding. But there are large differences among the candidates
in their beliefs about what it will take to turn a progressive agenda
into reality.
At one extreme, Barack Obama insists that the problem with America
is that our politics are so “bitter and partisan,” and insists that he
can get things done by ushering in a “different kind of politics.”
At the opposite extreme, John Edwards blames the power of the
wealthy and corporate interests for our problems, and says, in effect,
that America needs another F.D.R. — a polarizing figure, the object of
much hatred from the right, who nonetheless succeeded in making big
changes.
Over the last few days Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards have been
conducting a long-range argument over health care that gets right to
this issue. And I have to say that Mr. Obama comes off looking, well,
naïve.
The argument began during the Democratic debate, when the moderator
— Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register — suggested
that Mr. Edwards shouldn’t be so harsh on the wealthy and special
interests, because “the same groups are often responsible for getting
things done in Washington.”
Mr. Edwards replied, “Some people argue that we’re going to sit at a
table with these people and they’re going to voluntarily give their
power away. I think it is a complete fantasy; it will never happen.”
This was pretty clearly a swipe at Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly
said that health reform should be negotiated at a “big table” that
would include insurance companies and drug companies.
On Saturday Mr. Obama responded, this time criticizing Mr. Edwards
by name. He declared that “We want to reduce the power of drug
companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that
they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic.”
Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to
bring us together realize that “us” includes the insurance and drug
lobbies?
O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being
unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries —
which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will
be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is
that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health
system without also reducing the profits of the industries that
generate the waste.
As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the
conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any
significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on
television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the
lobbyists are terrified.
As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda.
Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change
without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.
Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. For
example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that
the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the
country was “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington.”
And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big
next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came
from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week’s
Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.
But the news media recoil from populist appeals. The Des Moines
Register, which endorsed Mr. Edwards in 2004, rejected him this time on
the grounds that his “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it
difficult to work with the business community to forge change.”
And while The Register endorsed Hillary Clinton, the prime
beneficiary of media distaste for populism has clearly been Mr. Obama,
with his message of reconciliation. According to a recent survey by the
Project for Excellence in Journalism, Mr. Obama’s coverage has been far
more favorable than that of any other candidate.
So what happens if Mr. Obama is the nominee?
He will probably win — but not as big as a candidate who ran on a
more populist platform. Let’s be blunt: pundits who say that what
voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they
want an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires
onto the public.
And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the
bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become
president, and tries to get anything done.