A world with Hillary, a world without health care reform
This column was first published on November 10, 2010 at Washington Square News.
The president’s recent political troubles have revived a constant, if closeted, thought among liberals. With the economy still largely in the shitter (as far as the average American is concerned), the public still souring on the administration’s economic policy, and the rise of a Tea Party fueled by the crazed, rabid fear that Obama is secretly a foreign-born Taliban sympathizer (oh, and a Communist), talk about President Hillary Clinton is resurfacing.
Set aside any questions about Hillary 2012, which would have to come as a challenge to Obama for the Democratic nomination. Questions about 2016 are far more interesting, especially considering Hillary’s really suggestive way of deflecting them. The most interesting questions I’ve seen so far have asked, “What would the world be like if Hillary had won the nomination in 2008, and become president?”
It’s a tough question, especially for liberals. Obama was generally considered the more progressive candidate during the primary. Perhaps this has been the greatest contributor to liberal disappointment in his administration. He talked the liberal talk louder than anyone, but has turned conspicuously silent over the last two years. Hillary never excited liberals in the same way, but perhaps that would have made shorter the drop in expectations once the realities of governing set in.
As far as policy is concerned, it’s an even tougher question. Like Obama, Hillary would likely have pushed hard for a large stimulus in the early months of her presidency. But on health care, it’s likely the second President Clinton would have fallen far short of Obama. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post thinks that Hillary “almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months.”
Her fear of the 1993 health care reform debacle that almost sank her husband’s presidency (and her own reputation) would likely have led her to push through a few key provisions, like expanded children’s coverage and high-risk pools. Politically it would have been a big win, but in terms of the difference made in the lives of Americans, it would have been an astounding failure. Comprehensive health care reform eluded every president since Teddy Roosevelt, so the enormity of Obama’s success is often underestimated.
Democrats might have fared better in last week’s midterm elections, since the blue-collar white voters who turned on Obama were always more loyal to Hillary. And Hillary’s extra political capital may have also enabled more economic stimulus. But it likely would have come at the expense of the most serious and beneficial policy achievement of the last 20 years. Whatever Hillary might have said, that doesn’t sound like a fair trade to me.
