Hendrik Hertzberg dropped by PBC recently to talk about his new book Obamanos: The Birth of a New Political Era, a collection of his New Yorker commentaries on the historic 2008 presidential race, and how he thinks Obama and his administration is doing after almost a year in office. In this excerpt from our interview, Hertzberg, still a fervent Obama supporter and largely pleased with what he’s seen so far, considers what it will mean if, contrary to expectations and form to date, Obama’s presidency ultimately proves a failure. (We’ll have a video of the interview up in the next few days.)

Suppose Obama is a failure.  Suppose we don’t get any real change and suppose the country reverts to a reactionary defensive crouch after Obama, what’s that going to show?  I hope that it will show that Obama failed, that it was his fault somehow, because that would be a very unscary conclusion to come to, comparatively speaking.

But I’m more inclined to think a little more apocalyptically in the sense that right now this is about as good as it’s going to get in American politics from the point of view of somebody who has the beliefs that I do.  We have a president who on the whole I think, we’re not going to do better than.  There is a fairly, reasonably large Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.  Not a decisive one because of those pesky 60 votes in the Senate, but a bigger one than there’s apt to be for the next generation maybe.  So if that’s not enough, then let’s hope that the results can be blamed on mistakes by people that should have been avoided.

But if Obama and the Democrats just make the usual number of human mistakes or let’s say half the usual number of mistakes and everything still goes wrong, that won’t be a failure of theirs, that will be a failure of our system.  And the only upside I can see to it is that then we might have to start looking hard at our system.  And that’s been one of my themes.  That’s one of my themes in this book, it’s one of the themes in everything I write, that our political system–and I don’t mean, you know, that the capitalists run everything or that money governs or any of that stuff–I mean the mechanics of a hydra-headed federal system where there is no responsible single government that you can hold accountable; that  power–state power, government power, i.e., the power of the people through democratic processes–is so fragmented that it’s vulnerable to all kinds of special interests and veto points that make it impossible, even with the best of intentions and the best of abilities, to get done what needs to get done. If Obama and Obamaism turns out to be a failure, then we better start rewriting our constitution and getting ourselves a real representative democracy.

In this, the latest installment of PBC’s interview with Rep. Henry Waxman, the California congressman — who over three decades has become most powerful and effective lawmakers in Washington — reflects on the highs and lows of his career so far. For more, see Waxman’s recent book, The Waxman Report: How Congress Really Works, available at Progressive Book Club.

The high point was to be chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment and actually to pick issues to pursue for legislation and to push for them and see results.

The low point was the period of time for 12 years when the Republicans were in power, because they had all the chairmanships, they set the agenda.  And they acted as if the  Democrats didn’t exist when they simply tried to get their Republicans united behind a proposal which usually meant they went further and further to the right so that there was no basis to be with them.

But even during that disappointing, discouraging time we were able to figure out ways to get the legislation done.  We worked out some compromises where we had control of things, even though Republicans were in power — on pesticide legislation and safe drinking water.  Because after the Republicans closed down the government, they were looking for something to claim as an accomplishment and they weren’t getting much done.  I knew we had enormous leverage at that point, ironically enough, to get even better legislation in those two areas than we would have had when we were in control.

The LA Times today quotes Rep. Henry Waxman as saying, apropos of the healthcare legislation edging toward a vote in Congress, “The effort to reform healthcare is a balancing act. And we are limited in how much money we can spend.” This is consistent with Waxman’s pragmatic, get-things-done approach to government, as you’ll see below, in the latest excerpt from our interview with the influential California lawmaker.

In his recent book, The Waxman Report, Waxman tells how he got into politics and explains the principles that drive him. And he draws on his unparalleled experience over three decades to demonstrate, with vivid firsthand illustrations, how Congress really works, and especially how, for all its flaws and institutional torpor, it can — and often does — work in the public interest.

Here he shares his thoughts on bipartisanship and compromise.

Bipartisanship is very, very helpful for a lot of reasons, including, in my reality, that I had Republican presidents that had to sign the bills that I authored.  But it’s helpful to try to get as broad support for legislation as possible. Often the differences are regional, not partisan.

Unfortunately, today the Congress is a lot more partisan than it was when I first entered.  The reality is that since Newt Gingrich was so successful in tearing the House of Representatives where the Democrats were in power in order to gain power for himself, Republicans are still using that same strategy.

The Republicans denied President Clinton an opportunity to get health care reform in ’93 and ’94.  And then they were successful in winning control of the House and the Senate in the ’94 election.  I think they want to replay that dance card, but I don’t think it’s going to work.  And I think they do themselves a disservice by looking like they’re strictly for the status quo, which most people want to change.

There’s nothing wrong with a compromise.  A lot of people, especially progressives — and, I’m sure, the other side of the spectrum as well — think that it’s wrong to compromise, that it’s an abandonment of principles.  I think it’s a way to get your principles in action.  When people tell me health care has got to be only as a single payer system, as much as I could see the advantages of a single payer system that seems to me to say to the tens of millions of people who don’t have health insurance, It’s not important enough to get you insurance coverage even though your life and your family’s lives may be at stake, until we get it perfect.  We’ve got to get the best we can.  It’s better to get a half a loaf than nothing.  And you can always come back and fight another day to improve things.

Henry Waxman is one of the most effective legislators of recent times. Since entering Congress as a member of the “Class of 1974,” the first post-Watergate group of representatives, the congressman from California’s 30th District has left his imprint on an impressive number of landmark laws. Because of legislation he helped champion, our air is cleaner, our food is safer, and our medical care better. And thanks to his pioneering and determined use of the oversight process, we found out a lot more about the workings of the Bush administration than we otherwise would have.

In his recent book, The Waxman Report, the congressman tells how he got into politics and explains the principles that drive him. And he draws on his unparalleled experience over three decades to demonstrate, with vivid firsthand illustrations, how Congress really works, and especially how, for all its flaws and institutional torpor, it can — and often does — work in the public interest.

Over the last few days I’ve been posting excerpts from a PBC interview with Waxman, conducted over the August recess when the congressman was on a visit to New York. In this one the congressman talks about how he came by his political values, in particular his convictions about the role of government in American society.

My grandparents and parents were immigrants. My parents were very scarred by the Great Depression, which happened in their youth, and they revered Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.  They saw government as acting in a positive way to help people, not just the powerful and the rich.  There’s a quotation at the Roosevelt memorial in Washington which I’m not going to be able to do anything by paraphrase, but it [says] government is there not to help those who don’t need help, but to help those who do need help.  And not to help you know the rich and the powerful but the people who are struggling.* And that was a value my parents strongly imbued me with — that government could and must play an important role.

I went to public schools all the way through law school. I was the first one in the family to be able to go to college.  My father had to quit high school to go to work to help support the family.  He later got his high school degree.  But he worked in the grocery store business, he was a member of the Retail Clerks Union, 770.  He took me to union meetings and explained to me how important it was to have unions fighting for you, because he alone against the management wouldn’t have opportunity to get benefits or, or have a decent schedule that could allow him to have a family life.  They would probably just have him come in when they’re busy and needed him and then have him off and not being paid during the times when they didn’t need him.

So he shared the importance of unions, collective bargaining, trying to make the economy more just and the role that government needed to play.  That has been a guiding philosophy even to today.

(* “I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Second Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., January 20, 1937.)

Henry Waxman is one of the most effective legislators of recent times. Since entering Congress as a member of the “Class of 1974,” the first post-Watergate group of representatives, the congressman from California’s 30th District has left his imprint on an impressive number of landmark laws. Because of legislation he helped champion, our air is cleaner, our food is safer, and our medical care better. And thanks to his pioneering and determined use of the oversight process, we found out a lot more about the workings of the Bush administration than we otherwise would have.

In his recent book, The Waxman Report, the congressman tells how he got into politics and explains the principles that drive him. And he draws on his unparalleled experience over three decades to demonstrate, with vivid firsthand illustrations, how Congress really works, and especially how, for all its flaws and institutional torpor, it can — and often does — work in the public interest.

Over the coming days I’ll post excerpts from a PBC interview with Waxman, conducted over the August recess when the congressman was on a visit to New York. They’ll cover his early life and career and his views on bipartisanship and compromise, the role of government, what it takes to be an effective legislator, career highs and lows, and more.

In his book, Waxman offers counsel to new members of Congress, advice that he summarizes in this excerpt.

Sometimes people think they have to be a senior member to have an influence or being chairman of a committee or subcommittee to make policy.  I think there are great opportunities for people that are willing to put the effort into understanding it and mastering certain policy areas.  People will listen to you and respect your judgment if they realize you know what you’re talking about.  Trying to think about how to develop coalitions behind different ideas so that they could become politically more successful.  And I use as an example, I think I used it.

I’m pretty sure I used this example in the book — about Al Gore, who was a member of our committee and was very, very bright and eager to do whatever he thought he could do as a member of the House; who, even though he wasn’t on the committee that dealt with nuclear armament issues, figured out by bringing in all the leading experts in the world to talk to him about it, a way to provide for a mutually assured destruction policy that would penalize a first strike.  He explained it to me and I still to this day can’t repeat it, but he was persuasive enough to convince many military experts of that during the Cold War, this approach would be a successful one.  I admired the fact that he just had the ambition and the gumption to stake out areas and do something and to try to get things done.  I think others can do that as well and I’ve seen other members of Congress become very active and important participants in the legislative process and get things done.

Henry Waxman is one of the most effective legislators of recent times. Since entering Congress as a member of the “Class of 1974,” the first post-Watergate group of representatives, the congressman from California’s 30th District has left his imprint on an impressive number of landmark laws. Because of legislation he helped champion, our air is cleaner, our food is safer, and our medical care better. And thanks to his pioneering and determined use of the oversight process, we found out a lot more about the workings of the Bush administration than we otherwise would have.

In his recent book, The Waxman Report, the congressman tells how he got into politics and explains the principles that drive him. And he draws on his unparalleled experience over three decades to demonstrate, with vivid firsthand illustrations, how Congress really works, and especially how, for all its flaws and institutional torpor, it can — and often does — work in the public interest.

Over the coming days I’ll post excerpts from a PBC interview with Waxman, conducted over the August recess when the congressman was on a visit to New York. They’ll cover his early life and career and his views on bipartisanship and compromise, the role of government, what it takes to be an effective legislator, career highs and lows, and more. In this excerpt he talks about healthcare reform. (The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which Waxman chairs, had recently passed its healthcare bill.)

I feel optimistic. We’ve got a good bill out of our committee. We had to make comprises, but I thought the compromises were reasonable. They’re going to enhance our ability to pass a bill on the House floor. We’ll have a final piece of legislation with the active involvement of the three groups that have to write laws — the House, the Senate, and the Executive. And the president is going to be  involved in a way that no other president has.

Some day, people are going to say it’s unbelievable that we had the most expensive health care system in the world and we had 48 to 50 million people without insurance coverage.  And those who had insurance were insecure whether they’d have it if they got sick or if they lost their job.  And that the costs were going up so high and so fast that people didn’t know if they could continue to afford to pay for their policies.  So that’s why I’m so strongly fighting for President Obama’s proposal to accomplish the goal of making every American able to buy a health insurance policy, and to hold down those costs so it’ll be affordable.

You may know that in his infamous 1979 “malaise” speech President Jimmy Carter didn’t once utter the word “malaise.” And you probably know that the televised July 15 address, more properly dubbed the “Crisis of Confidence” speech, instantly and irrevocably crystallized Carter’s image in the eyes of the American people as a pessimistic, can’t-do president, hopelessly outmatched by events–which in 1979 included an energy crisis featuring soaring gas prices, endless lines and sporadic violence at the pump, runaway inflation, economic stagnation, and a theocratic revolution in Iran. Carter made the elemental mistake, so the story goes, of blaming the American people for the country’s troubles, conveniently absolving himself of responsibility and self-righteously lambasting Americans for their materialism, their consumerism, their loss of nerve. And the American people responded by turning decisively away from Carter.

But it’s not so neat and tidy. As Kevin Mattson convincingly shows in What the Heck are You Up To, Mr. President?, the immediate response to Carter’s speech was in fact pretty positive — one measure of which was a double digit jump in the president’s approval numbers! (Admittedly, Carter was starting from a low base: in the summer of 79 he was more unpopular than Nixon had been at the height of Watergate.) Americans, it turned out, appreciated a bit of straightforward honesty, however harsh, from their president. And by way, read the text or watch the video of the speech and you’ll see that Carter was every bit as hard on himself as on the American people.

In the PBC interview below, Kevin Mattson explains how Carter came to give this extraordinary address, how it went over at the time, how he quickly squandered the gains it won him, and what the malaise speech has to say to us today. Mattson is the Connor Study Professor of Contemporary History at Ohio University and the author of several books.

Let’s start a couple of weeks before Jimmy Carter gave the televised address that came to be known as the “malaise speech.” It’s July, 1979. Carter’s advisors feel he needs to make a speech about energy. Gas prices are sky high and there are endless lines and even violence at the pump. The networks have blocked off air time — but suddenly Carter says, Forget it. No speech, I can’t do this. What happened?

Kevin Mattson: Well, Carter had been out of the country doing a lot of diplomatic work. And the month of June was an especially bad one with gas lines growing. There had been a violent truckers strike against the rising cost of diesel and the dwindling supply of diesel. And there had also been a riot in late June in Levittown, Pennsylvania, all around the issue of the dwindling supplies of gas that’s all tied into the fact that the Iranian revolution had occurred recently and Iran had cut off its oil supply.

So he comes back in early July, and his advisors are saying, You’ve got to give an address about the energy crisis. But he had already given a number of addresses about the energy crisis and was skeptical about whether it was the right thing for him to give at that moment. But he says, I’m going to think it over. They essentially send him a speech that’s written in haste. He finds it incredibly boring, can’t make it past the first few pages. He calls up the White House and says, Cancel the speech. When he’s pressed by his people, as reported by Hendrick Hertzberg, Carter says, “I don’t want to bullshit the American people anymore.”

But no public explanation, which sets off a media frenzy.

People wonder if Jimmy Carter’s gone crazy, if he’s actually escaped the country. People wonder, as one press person asked the White House, [whether they were] installing rubber wallpaper in the White House yet? It looks really bad. And that’s what really sets up a domestic summit that Carter holds at Camp David and then that leads up to the speech that’s given on July 15th, which is completely different from the speech that had been scheduled for July 5th. Read More

Check out this Publishers Weekly interview with Uwem Akpan, author of Say You’re One of Them.  (Learn more and/or buy Say You’re One of Them here.)

In their recent book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, Chris Mooney Sheril Kirshenbaum argue that while science matters more than ever before to domestic and world affairs, to our economy, and to our very future, Americans are paying less and less attention to science and scientists. Whether the subject’s climate change, the energy crisis, controversial biomedical research, the threat of global pandemics, nuclear proliferation, or tech-savvy terrorism–the list goes on–the American public lacks the most rudimentary knowledge it needs to weigh in on important policy decisions.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum argue pretty persuasively that there’s more than enough blame to go around for this sad state of affairs–it lies with public education, with the media, with political partisanship and with scientists themselves. And they put forward some common-sense initiatives aimed at bridging the divide, or starting to, between the scientific community and the rest of us.

I had Mooney and Kirshenbaum on the phone last month to talk about Unscientific America. Take a listen and let us know what you think.

Part 1 (11:28)

Click here and press play.

• How they got to worrying about the disconnect between science and the public.
• Some scientists are conscious that this is a problem.
• Science and the 2008 election.
• The Obama administration is pretty science friendly, but the problem goes way deeper than who’s in power.
• Media coverage of science dwindling even as science becomes more important.
• Why the explosion of new media is a mixed blessing for science coverage.
• Post World War II was a golden age for the public interest in science. How we got from there to here.

Part 2 (7:18)

Click here and press play.

• Increasing specialization has made scientists more isolated from the public.
• If you think science is throwing some difficult policy challenges our way, wait till you see what’s coming.
• How we start closing the gap between science and the larger culture. Start with how we train scientists. Create “an army for science.”

About Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

Chris Mooney, author of Storm World and the New York Times bestseller The Republican War on Science, is a contributing editor to Science Progress. He writes for many publications, including Wired, Slate, and the American Prospect. With Sheril Kirshenbaum, he blogs at The Intersection.

Sheril Kirshenbaum is a marine scientist and research associate at Duke University. She previously served as a congressional science fellow. With Chris Mooney, she blogs at The Intersection. .

Captured on July 21st, 2009, from a live stream of Howard Dean at the University of California Washington Center in Washington DC for a discussion centered on the latest health care debate (sponsored by PBC and CampusProgress).

Dean, a six term Governor, physician, chairman of the PBC board, and author of the newly released book Howard Deans Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform, will be there to help separate what is real and factual in the health care debate from what is simply rhetoric. As Dean writes in his book, now is the time to “take back the health care reins.”

Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform is available now at the Progressive Book Club.