Twelve nights ago, President Obama showcased the best of political poise and pose: He reaffirmed the moral purpose of health-care reform and at the same time committed to a civil debate on best practices. His graceful diplomacy was welcome solace in a period of shameless pandering.

But, above all, the president’s careful choice of words reflects a hard truth about his audience: In many ways Americans are beginning to remember the imperatives of confronting social problems together, but we’re unsure of the role Washington should play.

The president knows this better than almost anyone. And nowhere do we see this knowledge at work more than in his careful positioning on the creation of a public option, a not-for-profit, government-run insurance provider. Although there is much to say about budget woes—and rightly so—discussion about a public option not only serves as the fulcrum for legislation, but also speaks volumes about the attitude of the country and where we’re headed.

The White House knows the public option is the most contentious piece of reform left on the table and is treading carefully. In the short run, the president knows he might have to barter the public option in order to gather centrist Democrat votes and pass the bill. In the long run, by endorsing but not demanding the public option, the president hopes he still might gradually restore faith in government as a force for good.

Over the summer, public opinion on the public option only seemed to shift often and abruptly. Much of this confusion had to do with the wording of pollsters’ questions: When asked if they supported the inclusion of a “public option” in the health-care bill, respondents answered affirmatively about 65 percent of the time and negatively about 35 percent of the time. When asked if they supported the inclusion of a “government option” in the health-care bill (with the same details listed), these numbers would then change drastically, even reverse.

This is an important trend to note.

Even though there is now a wide public consensus that a universal health-insurance bill should pass, there seems to be little faith in the ability of Washington to be the vehicle of change. We can attribute much of this to two phenomena: classic, philosophical mistrust in the government and the financial firepower of special-interest lobbies.

The roots of Reaganism run deep, and those against a government-sponsored plan shout loudest. People who do want to expand coverage and cut costs—and quite possibly truly want to help their fellow citizens—are still hesitant to support the expansion of Washington’s influence in the market. In many ways, the invisible hand is strangling the Democratic Party. A big part of the president’s speech aimed to convince insured Democrats with market-friendly perspectives that a government-run public option could work, while also convincing progressives that although the letter of reform may change, the spirit remains the same.

Yet the most difficult part of the president’s balancing act is between the needs and desires of constituents and the pressures of organized money. Health-industry lobbyists have done much to fan the flames of mistrust in the government these past few months.

The president needs the votes of Blue Dog Democrats who have received hefty health-industry contributions. Interestingly, Nate Silver—the infamous election pollster of website 538—has found that in 34 of 52 Blue Dog Democrat districts, a plurality of constituents now support the policy. The Blue Dogs don’t need a graceful way to cover themselves from their constituents’ backlash so much as they need to maintain the loyalty of their campaign contributors.

For the foreseeable future, Blue Dog Democrats—not to mention party-line Republicans—continue to falsely claim that a public option is against the will of the people. It is an unfortunate reality with which the president and the rest of the Democratic Party will have to deal.

There are many options for compromise on the table—including Republican Senator Olympia Snowe’s widely touted “triggered public option” plan. Overall, it remains likely a bill will pass. If we are to take the president at his word, we will ultimately choose whichever plan achieves the prize: passing a bill that covers everyone and begins to lower costs—even if the public option must be swapped for votes.

In some liberal circles, this kind of political finesse, rather than a confrontational approach, seems unacceptable. They would argue this policy only offers the Republicans more room to drum up their misleading excuses for selfishness.

From another perspective, one which I generally tend to agree with more, President Obama is now doing quite gracefully what many during the campaign feared he could not: He is playing the savvy realist, and not only in terms of maneuvering legislation. The president’s approach may produce an imperfect bill—but it is more likely to return trust in Washington than a stubborn strategy that would produce no bill at all.


Raúl A. Carrillo ’10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House.