Not that Nobel laureates aren't intrinsically smart folks, but I think this analysis of the politics of the public option is particularly insightful.
Partly it’s a matter of style — as many people have noted, he has been weirdly reluctant to make the moral case for universal care, weirdly unable to show passion on the issue, weirdly diffident even about the blatant lies from the right. Partly it’s a spillover from his other policies: by appointing an economic team that’s Rubin redux, by taking such a kindly attitude to the banks, he has squandered a lot of progressive enthusiasm....I'd go one step further. I don't care if Obama is a progressive, a communist, or a Martian. And I suspect most of the left is already convinced that the man is no progressive - or if he is in his heart, his heart clearly does not dictate his actions. Rather than worrying about labels, I want him, and expect him, to keep his promises and advance the interests and values (both, not just one) of our party. What's repeatedly upsetting me, and others, I think, is that Obama appears to spend a lot of time worrying about being liked, and not nearly as much on substance. And if he doesn't care about substance, if he doesn't really care either way as to how every policy debate ends, so long as he can claim victory regardless, then his promises on this, and every other bit of policy making, are meaningless.
So progressives have their backs up over one provision in health care reform that’s easy to monitor. The public option has become not so much a symbol as a signal, a test of whether Obama is really the progressive activists thought they were backing.
And the bizarre thing is that the administration doesn’t seem to get that.
