As Paul Begala wrote last week, when Social Security was first passed, the occupational definitions excluded jobs that were held by black people and women -- agricultural workers, domestic workers, and the like. This was deliberate. In order for the legislation to pass, it had to not be seen as benefiting those at the bottom of the American social hierarchy, because so many Democrats in particular were opposed to such people advancing. I'm currently reviewing CUNY Sociology Professor Richard Alba's book, Blurring the Color Line, for TAP, and it seems to me that the origins of other progressive policy initiatives are instructive in the current health care fight.
But it wasn't just Social Security that was discriminatory. Franklin Roosevelt created the Federal Housing Administration in 1933 in order to provide a home financing system, and the manner in which the benefits were doled out was done specifically to exclude African-Americans -- while providing a method for social advancement for white ethnics, who were beginning to be included into the larger mass of white society. The same was true of the original G.I. Bill, which like the FHA, helped provide mortgage loans on favorable terms to returning soldiers, but in practice excluded black soldiers who were hemmed in by formal and informal redlining practices. These homes provided the financial basis for the rise of white ethnic groups in the post-World War II era, and the financial resources passed down through the generations are part of the reason for the large wealth disparity between whites and nonwhites. Redlining was eventually outlawed by the 1997 Community Reinvestment Act, which many conservatives have erroneously pointed to as the cause of the mortgage crisis. The more things change, right?
The point is that progressive policy initiatives often begin as narrowly as politically possible, but grow into being much more expansive and effective than their opponents ever wanted. The same is going to be true of health-care reform, if it passes, and particularly if Democrats follow Mark Schmitt's advice and use the reconciliation process in subsequent years to ensure inclusion of some of the more controversial elements of the plan. But none of this can happen if nothing passes -- and make no mistake, Republicans aren't trying to kill end of life counseling. They're not trying to kill the public plan. They're trying to kill reform itself, because they know that even if reform falls far short of liberal expectations today, someday it won't.
Democrats in the House appear to be drawing a line in the sand over the public plan. That's good if it puts leverage on the White House to push centrists in the Senate away from the arbitrary positions they seem to be taking, but I have my doubts about the president's ability to sway them. But the public plan is not worth killing the bill over -- there's a lot left in the bill worth fighting for. If Democrats kill health care reform in order to win a political game of chicken with Republicans, they'll have missed the big picture. And that's exactly what the GOP wants.
-- A. Serwer
