Why can't Matt Bai connect any dots?

Sandy Levinson

Matt Bai had a long piece in yesterday's New York Times Magazine on Obama's relations with Congress, focusing especially on the minefields that threaten the actual achievement of major change in our dysfunctional health care system. Bai frames his piece in large part around a conflict between Democratic "liberals," who can reasonably easy pass a bill in the House, and Democratic "centrists" who seem distinctly uncomfortable with the House approach (which, among other things, requires the US to set up its own plan that the citizens could join in preference to a private-insurance plan). Key actors, for example, are Max Baucus (Montana) and Ben Nelson Nebraska). Like most things that Bai writes, it's an interesting and valuable article. But, not surprisingly, I am immensely frustrated by his unwillingness--I don't think he's a stupid guy who can be described as "unable--to connect the dots and to point out, as he never does throughout the article, that the "centrists" have the power they do only because of the indefensible allocation of power in the Senate, which gives disproportionate power to small-state senators. Moreover, as political scientists have noted, the Democratic Party has a special proclivity to electing as its Senate leaders senators from small states--Harry Reid succeeded Tom Daschle, after all, who succeeded George Mitchell. To some extent, one wouldn't expect health care to be a small-state, large-state issue. Aren't farmers scared to death of losing any health insurance they might have and being bankrupted? But it seems to be breaking down that way, especially when one adds the likelihood that mad-dog Republicans (and, these days, one often wonders whether there are any other kinds) seem willing to stick with the Bill Kristol philosophy of doing whatever it takes to stop Obama from being able to claim that he is in fact capable of changing America in progressive directions. So Harry Reid, who doesn't even have the spine to bring Dawn Johnson's nomination to head OLC to the floor, seems to be in the grip of the Democratic "centrists" plus the Republicans and his fear of filibusters. To be sure, there is the possibility of handling medical reform through a "reconciliation" bill that won't allow filibusters, but we'll see if the Democratic "leadership" in the Senate will in fact engage in this version of the "nuclear option" (as the Republicans did with regard to some key Bush bills).

In any event, perhaps someday Matt Bai and other writers on American politics will notice that we actually have a Constitution and that it structures our politics in some very important ways. Otherwise, even readers of the New York Times will continue to believe that it's all a matter of inside-the-beltway tactics, where we watch Obama (and Rahm Emanuel) contend with the bulls in Congress over various programs.

I often feel like Alan Ginsburg, simply wanting to "howl" about watching the best minds of our generation, including pundits for the New York Times and Washington Post, for starters, simply fail even to mention the 800-pound gorilla that in fact has so much detrimental impact on American politics.

I'm making this a "no discussion" post because nothing I'm saying is at all new (at least to readers of Balkinization) and I see no reason to provoke yet another collection of equally predictable responses. I simply believe that everytime someone like Bai so clearly fails even to notice the gorilla, he should be called on it.
Posted 5:02 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]