Obama vs. Clinton - Public vs. Private Talks
By Ron Callari
What is the evolution of unresolved negotiations? Have we benefited from failed diplomacy and conflict management over
the years? Does mankind actually learn from its collective mistakes? If so, why do so many disagreements fail or stall
for extensive periods of time, like the Writers strike in the US or last for decades like the Israeli vs. Palestine
dispute? Coming to terms with historical antecedents on both sides of a conflict, offer the promise of a collective
narrative, or a thread of commonality between opposing viewpoints. However, throughout history, we have seen national
leaders, special interests, lobbyists and politicians restructure and obfuscate collective memory. Often this is
accomplished by the omission of certain facts or the reshuffling of the deck in ways to best suit a small body of
people.
In recent history, executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 to
develop a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still debated to this day. The task
force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force
discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to
release a list of participants.
So what is missing the negotiation equation? Where does the public come into play in decisions that affects their
well-being? If the verdict for many relies on the negotiations of a few, can the end result aid society fairly? Perhaps
the current Democratic campaign can shed some light on the need to redesign the system.
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama during the recent debates at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles
said that health reform efforts led by Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 1990s
failed because she conducted negotiations in private and that he would televise negotiations of his health care
proposal.
He stated, "I admire the fact that President Clinton and Senator Clinton tried to reform health care (in the 1990s). But
I believe they did it in the wrong way." He added, "their theory was you go behind closed doors, you come up with your
theory with the help of your technical experts."
The inference here was that, she did not invite members of Congress or receive any kind of feedback from the American
people regarding any part of the negotiations and discussion. And while they were behind closed doors, the health care
industry, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies were given ample time to reshape public opinion.
The effort was controversial from the start. Members of Congress complained they were excluded from the process, while
Clinton's insistence that the task force meet in secret was successfully challenged in court. The outcome surfaced a
plan that was declared dead "in the water" in late 1994, just weeks before midterm elections that would hand Republicans
control of both the House and Senate.
Obama's plan is to create a public forum of transparency where invitations would be extended to doctors, nurses and
patient advocates. The insurance companies would also get a seat at the table; "they just would not get to buy every
chair." He also added, "I would put my plan forward ... and these negotiations would be (presented) on C-SPAN ... so the
public would be part of the conversation and would see the choices being made". (Source-Kaiser Family Foundation)
An under-the-radar effort is taking place on Capitol Hill that seeks to advance a new political idea called "Public
Talks." This group, from the Institute for Public Dialogue in Sausalito, CA, held a series of successful meetings at
Senate offices November, 2007
As a follow-up, they are now presenting "A Proposal to Establish the Operating Principles for Public Talks" and are
seeking, among other things, to get a meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Public Talks is a globally oriented communication process that is designed to come into play after all other
negotiations have collapsed. The scale of this process is extremely large, and that is an argument against it. But the
fundamental premise is very simple in that it allows adversaries to challenge each other in a very public way with rules
and terms that ensures an equal platform for both sides.
The closest precedent for Public Talks can be found in the fruitful communication process of the Federalist and
Anti-Federalist Papers of 1787 and 1788 where James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were responsible for
establishing the Constitution of the United States.
The central motivation for Public Talks is its potential ability to influence American and world opinion. If one accepts
that national leaders are motivated by rallying world opinion to their views, the logic behind this proposal is strong.
These principles can be applied to the debate of health care and which leader could outperform in tackling an issue that
has taken decades to resolve. If Barack Obama is willing to embrace the premise of Public Talks, are we one step closer
to obtaining the first comprehensive health care program for the people of the United States?
According to John Connolly, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Dialogue, "Amidst the 'battle of ideas'
taking shape today, US support for Public Talks will show the world community that Americans are interested in not just
the symptoms of international conflicts, but also in the underlying causes."
Public versus Private talks should be a consideration in determining the next leader of the free world. And its
ramifications are far more reaching than just one central issue, as we, as a country continue to vacillate on our
involvement in the Middle East.
ENDS
**************
Ron Callari is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in Alternet, Counterpunch, Sacramento News & Review, Albion Monitor and the World and I. He is author of "Uncle Dubya's Jihad Jamboree", published in 2005. See: www.kiddmillennium.com/writer.htm