Obama burned the first two years of his Presidency to get the ACA

Today, Hillary Clinton said something that has a lot of people that don’t want her to be the Democratic nominee very upset.

I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait. People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass.

(quote from CNN)

Most of the outrage is focused on the “never, ever come to pass” part. I think given the makeup of Congress and our current political system that’s a fair read on Sanders’ proposal. (Of course if you believe that the political revolution is on its way then who cares what Clinton thinks?)

But in this diary I’m hoping to take a moment to contextualize the argument about policy and political strategy that Clinton is putting forward.

When Barack Obama swept into office in 2008 on the back of a relatively huge win, with Democrats retaining control of both houses of Congress and the White House, he embarked on an ambitious project. He would use his mandate, and Democratic majorities, to reshape the healthcare industry and the federal government’s role in it.

The ensuing fight over healthcare reform took the better part of two years and the whole of Obama’s mandate. And even with majorities in both houses, the result was a far more watered down piece of legislation than Obama’s original proposal. (Even more so once the Supreme Court had its say). Nonetheless it was a “big f’ing deal”.

Of course, there were many accomplishments of that short window of total Democratic control of Congress. From a progressive standpoint, 2010 should have been a triumphal year for the Democrats. The government was running smoothly, new laws were being implemented to address real problems, and yet it was obvious going into that election that the Republicans were set to win big.

Republican demagoguing on the healthcare reform allowed them to stall Democratic legislation and lambaste the President and his fellow Democrats. Popular disapproval of the ACA and the sluggish recovery led to a historic shellacking in 2010 and control of the House as well as numerous legislatures and state houses… which then led to Republican control of redistricting… well we all know the rest.

And this is the point Clinton is getting at here. Beyond the rancorous debate, the horse-trading, the back-and-forth on the floor of the Senate and House, there was an enormous political price to putting healthcare reform on the agenda.

The ACA, for all its flaws, has helped get vital healthcare and health insurance for millions of people. It has reduced the uninsured rate dramatically and possibly bent the cost curve. But, most importantly to my mind, it established a central role for the federal government in regulating and providing healthcare for everyone in this country. In short, it was the first step on a path to universal coverage.

The law, it’s implementation and its success are a great accomplishment for President Obama. Biden was right. It was a big f’ing deal. But let’s be clear: the Democratic party paid — and is still paying — a heavy price for it.

Looking back, I think that fight was worth it, the cost was worth it. Barely.

And the argument can be made that we should re-open the debate. That if we could get a single-payer plan, then no matter what the political cost, the sacrifice should be made.

But, my perspective (and what I hear Clinton saying) is that if overhauling the healthcare system is the fight you want Sanders to take to the White House, then the experience of the ACA demonstrates that you’re not going to get any progress on income inequality, immigration, campaign finance reform, college affordability, or any other major proposal that Bernie Sanders has put forward.

And in the end you wont get single payer, or any of the other things.

You can argue the other side of that. You can say that Sanders will be able push more than one major agenda item at a time. You can say that the “political revolution” will dramatically alter the political calculus that Clinton is referencing. You can even argue that with Republicans bound to control one or both houses after 2016, what difference does it make who’s President (though I think that’s a terrible argument).

And please do! Feel free. Arguing about policy and strategy and politics is what this site is all about. But please, don’t try to tell me that Clinton is arguing in bad faith. Don’t tell me that she’s betraying everything the Democratic party stands for. Don’t tell me that she and her “corporate masters” are ganging up on the noble Bernie Sanders because they fear him.

I understand that passions are high, and that it’s a necessary calculus to portray the opposition as the enemy and blow every conceivable slight into an outrage and betrayal, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that we are all on the same side.

Hillary Clinton is on our side. Bernie Sanders is on our side. Martin O’Malley is on our side.