I do not think Matt [Yglesias], or Ezra Klein, or Kevin Drum, or Paul Starr are closet Blue Dogs, but I DO think, in terms of political bargaining, they DO represent well why Democrats and progressives are the worst political bargainers I have ever seen.
Look, I have negotiated civil litigation settlements for 20 years. The one thing you never can do, ever, is state beforehand what you are willing to accept as a final result of a negotiation. Advising political negotiators to do so is simply stupid. It just is.
When will we know whether a firm stand on the public option will mean no health care reform bill and what exactly the best offer will be on health care reform? Well, it sure is not now. Think of Kent Conrad as the party across the table in this negotiation. Or even Barack Obama. How do you negotiate with them? You tell them, and mean it, that you will not vote for a health care reform proposal that does not include a robust public option. You protest that you have already made the biggest concession anyone has made in the entire process - single payer. You ask for their best offer.
Source: TalkLeft
It's probably too obvious to be worth discussing, but this so-called "reasonable" approach by the people listed above is perceived as naive and weak by people who know how to play hardball. Brilliant analysis, guys: We get it; it's better to have something than nothing, so just offer us whatever, and we'll take it. Now shut up and get out of the way. Let the people who are shrewder about getting something done have center stage.
This let's- be-realistic mindset is closet defeatism at this point in the game. If the final outcome of the game is predetermined, then the whole process is a sham, and progressives should be even more outaged and determined to change the status quo. If there's still room for debate and influencing the final outcome, we can talk about whether we'll support a Yes or No vote when we have the final bill in September or whenever.
This bill is not just about healthcare; it's about whose interests the government serves--the corporations or the broad public interest.
And please, guys, for your own sakes, don't ever get involved in a high-stakes poker game.
***
Update: On a related note, Krugman this morning:
So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.
Now, politics is the art of the possible. Mr. Obama was never going to get everything his supporters wanted.
But there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. . . .It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled.
Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable.
So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.
I'm not there yet, because it's the opposite of what I've been advocating, but I'm beginning to think that Obama, too, should just shut up and get out of the way. If he isn't going to be a leader and a tough negotiator on behalf of the American people, he shouldn't get in the way of those who will be that. He and his people seem to be presenting more of an obstacle to meaningful reform than being advocates for it.