No matter how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Obamacare this week, the progressive movement’s massive overreach with healthcare reform likely will go down as one of the biggest political mistakes in American history.

President Barack Obama was the best hope progressives have had to transform America in the past 100 years. Had he and they not chosen to put all their eggs in the Obamacare basket when they had control of the White House and Congress, with 60 votes in the Senate, they might have succeeded.

When all the dust had settled from the 2008 election, and Democrats had unilateral control of the executive and legislative branches of government, they had a rare opportunity to do what Barack Obama promised he would do during his campaign—transform America.

Had President Obama and Democrats not forced Obamacare down America’s throat but instead focused on economic recovery, been just a little more cooperative with Republicans, and sustained the “hope and change” image that got them elected, President Obama would have been a shoo-in for reelection.

Conservatives will argue that even if Obama hadn’t pressed for Obamacare, his progressive economic policies would have done him in. Perhaps, but given the momentum and the good will of the American people he came to office with, he wouldn’t have had to accomplish all that much. All he would have had to do was make a credible argument that the country was moving in a positive direction economically, which he hasn’t.

With four more years he could have achieved most of what he set out to do; and he likely could have appointed more left-of-center judges to the Supreme Court, ensuring rulings favorable to the liberal-progressive agenda for years to come.

Converting a vision into reality, however, requires a strategy for success.

The strategy the White House chose was to begin with healthcare reform, at the exclusion of economic recovery. They believed that if they could achieve federal government control of healthcare in America—18 percent of GDP—they could begin to transform America into the social-welfare utopia they have dreamed about since the early 20th century.

The question so many ask today, and will continue to ask, is why didn’t they use the opportunity they had to focus on jobs and the economy? If they had, they could have reversed the downturn, and President Barack Obama wouldn’t be in the political trouble he’s currently facing—defeat in November, a one-term presidency, and the evaporation of the progressive dream.

The answer to that question is that they believed that by 2010, when they knew they would lose seats in the House and Senate, the U.S. economy would be on the road to recovery on its own. They failed to grasp how bad things were and how much worse their policies would make them. They didn’t understand, or they refused to accept, how the capitalistic free-market system works in America and what happens to it when it’s overregulated and government tries to pick winners and losers—a perennial progressive blind spot.

Now it’s too late to do anything about economic recovery, jobs, deficit spending, entitlement reform and tax reform before the election. The stated unemployment rate will remain above eight percent until well into next year. The real unemployment rate that takes into account those no longer looking for work is approaching 20 percent. No American president has ever been reelected in such circumstances.

Democrats argue that it has been Republican intransigence that has prevented them for turning the economy around. Democratic officeholders and pundits repeat that mantra at every opportunity. But voters, Independents in particular, aren’t stupid. They may not hold the Republican brand in high esteem, but they understand progressive's definition of compromise. “We expect you to compromise, and you can expect that we expect you to compromise.”

If President Obama is not reelected, which seems ever more likely, Republican Mitt Romney will move into the White house; and Republicans could very well control both the House and the Senate. If this happens, the progressive dream will evaporate regardless of how the court rules; and it could be another hundred years before it’s rekindled. Even if the court upholds Obamacare, Republicans would move quickly to repeal it next year.

If the court upholds the law but rejects the individual mandate, the funding mechanism for Obamacare collapses; and even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a prime driver of Obamacare legislation, agrees that the law can’t survive without the mandate.

The majority of expert observers of the high court doubt it will rule the entire law unconstitutional. Nevertheless, this is a distinct possibility; the law contains no severability clause. And despite what Democratic pundits are saying, whether the court rejects the mandate or the entire law, both outcomes contribute to likelihood President Obama will lose in November. The president that is supposed to be a constitutional law expert will have gotten it wrong on what was supposed to be the signature achievement of his first term in office.

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court could uphold the entire Obamacare law. Voters could buy into the Obama campaign’s premise that, despite the failings of the Obama presidency, Mitt Romney is an unacceptable alternative and reelect the President. President Obama in a second term could revive the progressive dream, appoint judges to keep it alive after he leaves office, and transform America; but I doubt it.

If President Obama fails to win reelection, his decision to make Obamacare his top priority will prove to have been one of the biggest political, albeit salutary, mistakes in American history.