[LINK] "Yes, You Did"

[rfmcdonald]

(Canadian) blogger James Bow nails it.

I think most people can agree that the bill is not perfect, and that it has been watered down from what was initially promised, but I take comfort in what Allyn Gibson said: none of the landmark pieces of legislation of the past century were passed as single bills. Social security, medicare, even civil rights, were all passed as an incremental series of legislation, all against heavy and loud opposition that prevented an outright victory in the first go.

Such is the way of democracy. The days when one victory over one vote could turn night into day are rare, indeed. The way forward is always a long slog, changing perceptions and changing minds, battling back the forces of ignorance, complacency or simple fear of the unknown. In a perfect world, this would not be so, but in some ways democratic reform would mean less, perhaps, if the way was too easy. It’s not. People went to war to defend the things they believe in. It never has been.

President Obama was elected with exceedingly high expectations, and I know that some of my American friends have been disillusioned that he hasn’t lived up to those expectations in his first year of office. I think, though, that the message Obama should have repeated, once he was elected, until he took office, and beyond, was that the way forward in American democracy was not through him, and it never was. The way forward could only be walked by the people behind him, by the 69.4 million Americans who voted him into office. If these people wanted change, they could not stop with the election, they had to keep on working to bring about change, by talking to their friends and neighbours, writing to their congressmen and senators, by engaging opponents and changing minds. Obama should have presented himself not just as a leader, but as a symbol to these individuals — a symbol which said: hey, you got so far as to elect me; now go out there and see what else you can do.

The program certainly has its flaws--Bow was also kind enough to link to this Reuters timeline of the year-by-year implementation of the program--but it's something significant indeed. Many of the people complaining about the passage of the bill probably wouldn't agree with me that the pure's often the enemy of the good.

Oh, and I like Bow's commentary on the pundits and people who are calling this "undemocratic." Say what?

You have here a democratically elected president who campaigned on this issue. You have Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, whose congressmen and senators ran on platforms talking about health care reform. You had one of the greater repudiations of the Republican party in both the 2008 and 2006 elections. You have a president, congressmen and senators doing nothing more than fulfill the mandates that they were elected to. How is that undemocratic?

And you also have polls out there which confirm that most Americans still support health care reform, and those who support the status quo are, like the Republicans, in a minority. How is that undemocratic?

I realize that the 2010 senate and house elections are serious horse races, and that with the economy being as it is, the voters are volatile. However, if by chance the 2010 elections pass and the Democrats still control a majority of seats in either the house or the senate or both, what do these individuals lambasting today’s senators or congressmen for disobeying “the will of the people” do now? Whose “people” are they speaking about?