Liberals who basically support the Obama administration's approach to health care have believed all along that it favors a public option, but isn't willing to sacrifice the whole bill in order to get it. Many left-wing critics have been slamming us as dupes, parroting the empty gestures of an administration in the pocket of the health insurance industry.

TNR published a piece I did the other day examining the ideological underpinnings of the left/center split in the Democratic Party over the propriety of a universal health care system based on regulated and subsidized private health insurers. I suggested there was a burgeoning, if questionably workable, tactical alliance between “social-democratic” progressives and some conservatives to derail much of the Obama overall agenda. Then I made this observation:

[O]n a widening range of issues, Obama's critics to the right say he's engineering a government takeover of the private sector, while his critics to the left accuse him of promoting a corporate takeover of the public sector. They can't both be right, of course, and these critics would take the country in completely different directions if given a chance. But the tactical convergence is there if they choose to pursue it.

This statement has drawn considerable comment from people on both the Right and Left, mainly objecting to the argument that Obama’s critics can’t all be right.

Conservative theoretician Reihan Salam, writing for National Review, first argued that there’s not much substantive difference between the “New Democrat” deployment of private-sector entities in public initiatives and that favored by the privatizers of the Right. But then he pirouetted to make common cause with Obama’s critics on the Left:

It is entirely possible for both sets of critics to be correct. The concern from the right isn't that the Obama approach will literally nationalize for-profit    health insurers. Rather, it is that for-profit health insurers will continue evolving into heavily subsidized firms that function as public utilities, and that seek advantage by gaming the political process. Profits, including profits governed by medical loss ratios, can and will then be cycled into political action, which leads to the anxiety concerning a "corporate takeover of the public sector."

Salam’s friend Ross Douthat of The New York Times added an "amen" to this argument:

The point is that the more intertwined industry and government become, the harder it is to discern who’s “taking over” whom — and the less it matters, because the taxpayer is taking it on the chin either way.

But do conservatives really oppose this intertwining of industry and government? Rhetorically, yes, operationally—not so much.

The sense most people have of the health care debate is that it’s great drama in which President Obama is the central player. All the big news has centered around hints and whispers about what the White House wants. They’re abandoning the public plan! They’re standing by the public plan! They’re giving up on bipartisanship! The press has covered the story as if Obama is Moses and we’re waiting for him to come down from the mountaintop.

As someone who tends to take a pretty dismissive view of complaints about "corporate" media, I think Glenn Greenwald is dead on in his response to this NYT article about the truce GE and the News Corporation decreed between their two news networks, MSNBC and Fox: