Perils of the Progressive Block

As I said below, and as Chris Bowers isn’t shy about pointing out himself, over the past 24 hours the “progressive block” strategy he’s been advocating seems to be bearing fruit. The idea here is that rather than progressives always caving to more moderate members in the name of pragmatism, that progressives need to draw a line in the sand (in this case around the public option) and say that they will spike any bill that doesn’t meet their demands.

Today this looks to be working, but it is worth saying that this is a dangerous game. One recalls, for example, the time when Richard Nixon almost brought us universal health care:

Despite the heated politics of Watergate, national health-care legislation was proceeding in Congress thanks to a compromise brokered by a young Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, a Nixon nemesis.

But then, according to a 1974 political almanac published by Congressional Quarterly, the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers lobbied successfully to kill the plan. Unions hoped to get a better deal after the next elections.

In retrospect, that particular iteration of the progressive block strategy doesn’t look so smart. And it’s possible that this time around, too, it’ll turn out that the votes aren’t there for a bill with a strong public option and the votes aren’t there for a bill without one either.