Tying One's Hands

Senator Roland Burris (D-Ill.) appeared on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" on October 21. Though many of his Democratic colleagues seem determined not to acknowledge his existence, Burris announced unequivocally on the program that he will not vote for health care reform legislation in the Senate unless it contains a government-run insurance option, and he refused to rule out the possibility that he might join a filibuster to preclude a final vote if the bill doesn't contain the public option. Burris wisely left himself room for flexibility on the most important issue--that of parliamentary procedure--but effectively declared that his intention on October 21 only to vote "yea" on a bill containing the public option must govern his actions henceforth. In the event that a fundamental change of circumstances would seem to counsel prudence rather than dogmatism, if he is not to go back on his word, Burris must eschew future invitations to weigh the interests of his constituents and country against his own interest in appearing to maintain a semblance of public trustworthiness.

Far more alarming (and consequential) for liberals is Senator Lieberman's (I-VT.) disclosure on FOX yesterday that "if the public option plan is there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote." Aside from the terrific presumptuousness and arrogance which must have motivated the statement--Lieberman assumes not only that he alone has the power to prevent the upper house of our national legislature from voting on the most critical domestic issue of our time, but that he should have that power!--he, too, has fettered his future actions to the contents of an unscripted remark he may or may not come to regret. Lieberman may now be inclined to support a filibuster of the "trigger" plan or a bill that allows individual states to opt out of a government-run insurance system, but his colleagues have demonstrated surprising levels of creativity in their desperation to get something passed, so it's certainly not unthinkable that Lieberman may come to realize the unwisdom of having rigidly cast his lot with a position that might properly be viewed in an entirely different light as conditions change and arguments evolve.

But the award for imprudently premature obstinacy clearly goes to the 41 pro-choice House Democrats who signed a letter addressed to Speaker Pelosi vowing to oppose any final health care bill that contains any functional manifestation of the Stupak (anti-abortion) amendment. As reported on Greg Sargent's blog, those 41 Democrats affirmed without qualification that "[w]e will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law." Because several signatories voted "aye" in Saturday night's historic, Stupak-laden 220-215 vote, unless the amendment is stripped from the final bill, or unless a sufficient number of these legislators renege on their promises, comprehensive health care reform in America will fail. By publicly avowing their unwillingness to compromise on an issue so trivial in comparison to the totality of what health care reform represents and what it would mean for millions of Americans, these 41 Democrats have allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and they have jeopardized the likelihood of an outcome they would otherwise deem indispensable to the health (no pun intended) of our republic.