From the Washington Post, regarding the compromise that finally caused the Blue Dog Democrats to relent and allow the Health Care Bill to emerge from the House Energy & Commerce Committee:

Despite threats from almost 60 progressive House Democrats — who outnumber the Blue Dogs — Pelosi defended the compromise, saying it was similar to one backed by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). Pelosi predicted that the liberal wing would fall in line because the legislation is so important to them.

“Are you asking me, ‘Are the progressives going to take down universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans?’ I don’t think so,” Pelosi told reporters Friday, breaking into laughter at the question.

Breaking into laughter, indeed. And it sums up just how seriously the progressives’ threat is taken by Pelosi. Liberals on the Hill have been continually bludgeoned with the “perfect as enemy of the good” argument, which seems to be employed to justify any and all compromises – including a potential compromise on the Health Bill’s “public option” that would water it down so far as to potentially reduce the entire bill to an expensive corporate welfare program for the insurance industry, with little or no actual “reform” in the bargain.

It’s why there’s a netroots push across the country to encourage congress members to take a pledge now – before the damage is done – to stand firm and reject any bill that does not include a strong public option. In other words – to play the game as bare knuckled as the Blue Dogs do, and demand, not simply the same deference, but greater deference from Pelosi and the Obama administration by virtue of the progressives’ greater numbers. It is an effort that is now turning its attention, through national blogs such as firedoglake and national netroots infrastructure networks such as Credo, to Vermont’s delegation (and Peter Welch in particular, as the emphasis is, for the moment, on House action). And the early signals from Welch’s office in response to questions about the pledge are sketchy.

How can this be, you might ask? This is Vermont, with likely the most progressive delegation in Washington – none of whom have any serious Republican challenge on the horizon. What’s the problem?

The problem is twofold (well, two and a half); that annoying damn quote from Otto von Bismarck (“politics is the art of the possible”), and what we might call “Let My Love Open the Door” (LMLOTD) politics.

And, at least in the immediate case of Welch, the problem may also in part be, ironically, our famously progressive, “democratic socialist” Senator Bernie Sanders.

A full explanation after the flip…

First of all, an explanation of why this pledge is so important. In a nutshell, we’re seeing the prospects of a good, meaningful bill rapidly diminish, and a pledge by enough of our elected representiives would, very simply, front end the power in the process. The pledge sets the goalposts in acceptable territory and sends the message that liberals are every bit as serious about their convictions as conservatives are. And by doing so, it shapes the debate.

Make no mistake – health care is the big enchilada. Representative Welch immunized himself against attacks on his integrity and seriousness by holding fast on the war appropriation vote recently, but health care – more than any other issue – has become the very heart and soul of the progressive left. And its an issue many on the left have already felt – fairly or not (and I’d say, generally speaking not) let down by Welch on, after the compromises with Jim Douglas necessary to bring about the Catamount Health program during his final years in the State Senate. Set apart from whatever dynamics Welch faces in the House chamber, taking such a pledge would clearly make for good politics among voters here at home.

Also – taking the pledge would not only be a statement in and of itself, but now that 14 Representatives have done so, not taking it is also a statement – just one that Reps like Welch probably don’t want to make.

So onto the problems. Number one is the mindset behind this “politics is the art of the possible” nonsense. This oft-quoted political mantra is, along with being an excuse to marginalize major reform as not “possible,” an implicit commitment to politics as a process-oriented affair. Now often – maybe even most of the time – such an approach is fine. But given the nature of the health care crisis, its time for full-on goal orientation, and the pledge is this approach made manifest.

So that’s a general problem among Democrats, but the bigger problem we have here in Vermont is the peculiar counter-pressure to reform created when you have solid progressives comfortably seated in office (what, you thought you could get something for nothing?).

“When everything feels all over

When everybody seems unkind

I’ll give you a four-leaf clover

Take all the worry out of your mind”

LMLOTD politics isn’t exactly “captive constituency” politics. The captive constituency mindset suggests that a politician isn’t sincere about progressive priorities but simply gives them lip service to get into office and stay there. LMLOTD politics sets in when progressive politicians confuse their own sincerely held progressive beliefs with themselves and their own comfort zones.

“Let my love open the door

It’s all I’m living for

Release yourself from misery

Only one thing’s gonna set you free

That’s my love”

When an elected official tells you not to worry about pressing a high-stakes, high-pressure issue with them because they’re right there with you and they’re all over it, you need to be watchful for the LMLOTD mindset.

“When tragedy befalls you

Don’t let them bring you down

Love can cure your problem

You’re so lucky I’m around”

The LMLOTD political mindset says don’t worry your head – you’re just lucky I’m here and you can trust that I will do whatever should and can be done and the reciprocal, if I’m not inclined to do it, it wouldn’t do any good anyway. It superimposes the politician’s comfort zone over any objective, goal-oriented political strategy.

It’s not a helpful mindset, and as greatful as I am for each member of our Washington delegation, let’s be honest – it’s a mindset that rears its head from time to time. And its going to be our biggest hurdle to getting our delegation onboard with anything as firm as a pledge.

Making it more difficult still is the fact that the very member of the delegation most associated with take-no-prisoners, radical health care reform – Independent Senator Bernie Sanders – has already set the bar on the issue on this very site. From the GMD interview with Sanders from a couple weeks back:

odum: Will you vote for a bill that doesn’t include a public option?

Sanders: I don’t want to – the answer is, I have been probably – you know, my view is that there should be a single payer – at the very, very least there has got to be, not just a public option, but a strong public option, and let’s leave it at that. That is what my view is, and I don’t want to be talking about what I will do and what I won’t do, but I think at the very very least there has got to be a strong public option.

Getting Welch to sign onto a health care pledge became exponentially harder with these words from Bernie, who has now goalposted the issue pretty far from the end zone. Sanders’ rejection of the pledge gives more than enough political cover for Welch to avoid such a committment as well, despite all the compelling reasons to draw a line in the sand now, and as clearly as possible.

Still, the biggest thing we have going for us is that Welch is on our side. He was among those who went head to head with the Blue Dogs in the House Energy & Commerce Committee and moved the bill through, even as he is among those we will be able to count on to strengthen the bill on the floor.

But the fact that Welch and other progressives have extracted a promise from Speaker Pelosi to bring a clean single-payer bill to the floor for a vote makes me very nervous. No one – and I mean no one – thinks such a bill will have a chance in hell, leading to the obvious question as to whether or not such a promise was only made to give progressives political cover before their constiuents after the public option is purged from the product that actually passes.

All the more reason to go for broke now, while the goalposts are still being set. The pledge would do more to guarantee a meaningful public option emerges in any final product than any other action progressives could take, and that’s just a fact. We may be lucky Sanders, Leahy and Welch are around, but this time – for this issue – we need more than luck.

Vermont Office

30 Main Street

Third Floor, Suite 350

Burlington, VT 05401

Phone: (888) 605-7270 (toll free in Vermont)

             (802) 652-2450

Washington, DC Office

1404 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Phone:(202) 225-4115