Obama to Republicans: With or Without You

Justice William J. Brennan (1906-1997)

The Washington Post reports that  President Obama has openly considered health reform legislation without Republican support:

“Sometime in September we’re going to have to make an assessment” about whether to keep trying to negotiate with Republicans, he told MSNBC.

Obama said he “would prefer Republicans working with us” but that getting his main priorities for a health care overhaul are more important. It represents a marked change from the emphasis Obama placed on bipartisanship when he launched his campaign for a health care overhaul at a White House summit in March.

Referring to the gang of six, Wapo reported that Obama

…said he is encouraged that a small group of three Democratic and three Republican senators on the Finance Committee continue to negotiate, but signaled impatience with protracted talks that haven’t yet produced legislation.

As a few have noted on this blog, the gang of six represent less than 3% of this country’s population.

With the addition of Al Franken to the Senate, we’ve done the math here, and the calculus of governance in a previous post:

Which is to say that given a unified Democratic Senate, under Rule XXII,  the threat of a Republican filibuster would now only be the threat of a thirty hour delay.

That, for Democrats, it would seem, is a commanding position.

In Chapter XXII of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius,” 1531, he has this to say about such positions

And here we may note that he who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command; and those give proof of knowing this who properly estimate their own strength with reference to that of those who have to obey, and who commands only when he finds them to bear a proper proportion to each other, and who abstains from commanding when that proportion is wanting.

Of course, Democratic unity is not a given. But I suppose either is Republican unity. Perhaps either could be had. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, idealist pragmatic that he was, is said to have asked his new clerks assembled each term the following:

“What is the most important Rule of Law?”

And the clerks, new to Mt. Olympus, would invariably cite to ex post facto, the rule against perpetuities, the First, or one, or any number of the Amendments, until Justice Brennan would just shake his head “no,” and raise one outstretched hand and say “Five.”

“The most important rule of law is the rule of five–that’s how many Justices you need for a majority.”

The rest is just history and dissent. There was, after all, opposition to the New Deal– the benefits of which have long outlived any of the dissent.

Earlier in the day, before a crowd in Indiana, President Obama stated: “I promise you, we will pass reform by the end of this year because the American people need it.” As the summer wears on, and the gang of six plays on, the calculus of both Justice Brennan and Machiavelli seem more and more pertinent.

Early last month, when Senator Chuck Schumer met with Senator Grassley on Face the Nation, we posted the following:

However, faced with strident opposition to the Public Option from Senator Grassley, the realization of Democratic Party power was evident in Senator Schumer’s response.  Schumer cited the “strong public option” contained within the current proposals from both the House and the Senate’s HELP Committee and stated that in “the Finance Committee, we’re trying to come to some form of compromise. But make no mistake about it, the President’s for this strongly and there will be a public option in the final bill.”

Perhaps it is time for Democrats, internally, to make sure that the math works– and then, like Obama and Schumer, to speak in public and at the table as though they have simply done the math.