Public Option Publicly Supported

Yglesias, quoting Drum, says the right things about why a lack of public option in the healthcare bill does not necessarily mean electoral defeat for Democrats in 2010. Folks are worried about losing the House or Senate.

Listen, I get it: in the coming mid-term election, Dems can expect to lose a few seats in the House and Senate for a whole variety of reasons, and one of those reasons might be the failure of healthcare reform.

But let's not confuse popular support (in the form of a national poll) with Democratic support (or lack thereof) of reform. No, as Yglesias has pointed out, repeatedly, the reason we see such slow, patently unfair, and unvisionary progress when it comes to reform is that the Senate is an inherently unrepresentative body.

Repeat: the Senate is not a representative legislative body - it (as was it's design) unfairly gives preference to Senators from small (in population) states. Max Baucus, Senator from Montana, represents 0.16% of the United States, but as Chairman of the Finance committee, he completely controls the debate over healthcare reform. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) represents 6% of the country, but has absolutely no say in healthcare legislation, and is not even on the committee.

I'm a huge fan of the government the founding fathers (and mothers) set up - but let's not just assume it's a perfect body. Progress requires political institutions that accurately reflect the will of the people, and the Senate as a body fails at that charge.