I will probably trust the Obama administration a lot more when a major piece of legislation is passed into law against the overwhelming objections of the major industry that is affected by that legislation. This simply hasn't happened yet. As long as it does not happen, I don't trust the Obama Administration as a result of what he has and has not done. The lesser of evils, but so far not by much. ~Bear

OPEN LEFT

Stuff I Don't Trust by: Chris Bowers Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:58

"Trust" is a nebulous, subjective, qualitative and irrational concept. As such, it usually isn't granted a "serious" place in political discussions by "serious" people. This even goes for the more "serious" people in our little progressive media world. For example, policy analysts, such as Ezra Klein, or quantitative analysts, such as Nate Silver, would probably be extremely reluctant to include "trust" in their latest analysis of the Baucus health care plan, or the effectiveness of the ACES climate change legislation. Nonetheless, trust plays a large role in all aspects of political action. The degree to which an individual trusts a party, a policy, an individual politician will heavily influence that individual's interpretations of the efficacy of and / or willingness to support, that party, policy or individual. As such, for no real other purpose but to provide disclosure on my general orientation to the ongoing health care fight, here is a long list of how much I trust the different players and aspects of the debate. Mainly, it is a long list of why I don't really trust anyone involved.

Who I don't trust and why: Although it might go without saying, I trust virtually none of the Republicans or conservative Democrats in Congress to be good faith actors. Over the past forty years, it seems to me that these groups have consistently passed legislation that has led to the overwhelming majority of economic growth in this country ending up in the hands of the top 5% of income earners. While they claim to be bi-partisan and common sense, in practice they only perpetuate an economic, political and media system that is primarily responsive to powerful, status-quo institutions. I will continue to not trust them--and their calls for common sense, bi-partisan solutions--until the majority of them support legislation that actually changes the direction of the flow of wealth in this country, and enforce regulations in a way that does not disproportionately benefit powerful people and institutions. I don't really trust the Progressive Block to hold firm. I want to believe them, because I think they really do want government to be responsive to more than just powerful, status-quo institutions and individuals. However, their past defeats leave me wary. Many in the smae members of Congress who are in the current Progressive Block folded on the second vote for the Wall Street bailout, and also on attaching IMF funding to the Afghanistan supplemental. They seem tohave folded simply because they were asked to do so by either candidate or President Obama, and because they were given the meager of legislative concessions in return. Is there any reason to believe this won't just happen again? The regular indications that the Block is simply a bluff don't give me a lot of confidence. I suppose I won't believe them until they actually score a major legislative victory by holding firm. I don't trust the Obama administration, either. I never really have trusted them, and this has been a major cause of friction I have had with many bloggers and commenters since the end of the election. Given that we are still early on in the Obama administration, the difference between progressive bloggers who are largely critical, and those who are largely supportive, of the Obama administration primarily comes down to this issue of trust. If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then appointing a huge number of pro-industry and pro-Blue Dog moderates to key administration positions (Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers being the most prominent cases) is actually a means of symbolically placating powerful institutions while still advancing progressive goals behind the scenes. However, if you don't trust the administration, then this is simply continuing to make sure that the government remains primarily responsive to powerful, status quo institutions and individuals. If you are a progressive and trust President Obama, then when things like cramdown and card check get defeated, or when the stimulus and climate change bill are weakened, then it was because that was the best anyone could be done in our current political environment. However, if you are me, then it seems like these defeats could have been avoided, or at least lessened, if the administration had offered more than token, verbal support. The administration's unwillingness to take on powerful, status-quo institutions comes off as satisfaction with those powerful, status-quo institutions. This is especially the case when they heavily pressure Progressives to fold on things like the Wall Street bailout or IMF funding, but offer no comparable pressure to conservative Democrats who seek to block their agenda (and in fact privately admonish progressive groups who independently go after those conservative Democrats.) I will probably trust the Obama administration a lot more when a major piece of legislation is passed into law against the overwhelming objections of the major industry that is affected by that legislation. This simply hasn't happened yet. I don't trust a regulatory approach. Regulations require effective enforcement. However, if the people in charge of enforcing the regulations answer to elected officials who wish to maintain the favor of large industries, then it is hard for me to imagine that the regulators will take effective, punitive action against those industries when regulations are violated. Anytime I am told that new regulations are being put in place to make sure that Wall Street / defense contractors / secret wiretappers / private health insurance companies aren't going to keep screwing us, I try to remember a recent time when said regulations actually kept them from screwing us. And I can't remember one. I certainly don't trust the latest partial statement by Democratic leaders. Whenever there are online discussions trying to determine if the fight if going positively or negatively based on a couple of sentences by Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Obama or press secretary Robert Gibbs in an interview or press conference, usually I just roll my eyes. These statements are invariably vague in an attempt to appeal to multiple constituencies simultaneously, to prevent contradicting oneself later on, and in order to provide negotiating "wiggle room." The frequency with which these statements are contradictory with one another (see Hoyer versus Pelosi), contradictory internally (see Harry Reid supporting a public option that isn't accountable to Congress), or simply retracted / qualified the next day doesn't help either. We keep looking for singular meanings in statements that are intentionally vague and manipulative. There simply is no such fixed meaning. But to me, it feels like we are just being played. The bottom line is that I will trust these players or approaches to reform only if and when they actually deliver reform that is primarily responsive to the needs of the majority of the country rather than to the wealthiest income earners, to the heads of the most powerful industries, and to the purveyors of status-quo conventional wisdom. A victory like that hasn't happened in a long, long time. I would love for that to change, and will keep working to help it change. But it actually happens, I simply don't believe that things like Baucus-care or the current version of the ACES will actually improve the status-quo. And perhaps my sense of distrust isn't as detailed as the policy analysis of some bloggers who think the ACES of Baucus-care will actually improve the status-quo, but I freely admit I can't get past my distrust it anyway.