Print
Ross Douthat assumes that health care reform played a key role in the debacle, and asks:
Was the 111th Congress’s flurry of legislative activity worth the backlash it helped create? Were the health care bill and the stimulus worth handing John Boehner the gavel in the House of the Representatives? Did it make sense to push and push and then keep on pushing, even after the polls and town halls and special-election outcomes made it clear the voters were going to push back?
I don't think that the decision to pursue health care reform was a bad one. Obama ran on health care reform. This was the holy grail of Democratic policy for 60 years, and if Douthat wants to imagine the base's response to Obama deciding not to do it with huge majorities in each house, he should imagine a Republican president appointing an openly pro-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court justice when they are 4 votes to overturn the decision. And the public as a whole demanded it as well. In February of 2009, the public by 59%-12% favored health care reform. They may have turned against the bill as it dragged through Congress, but they always insisted that some kind of reform happen. (That's why Republicans had to disingenuously couch their opposition as a plea to "start over.")
But let's accept Douthat's premise for a moment that the decision to pursue comprehensive health reform hurt Democrats. Would I accept the trade-off? Yes, I would. Chances like this simply don't come along very often.
I'd also note that the decision to pursue a comprehensive plan was as much a GOP choice as a Democratic choice. Numerous Democrats in the Senate were desperate for bipartisan cover and only mildly committed to comprehensive reform. If any Republican Senators had put a deal on the table, almost any deal at all, however puny, at least one of those Democrats would have jumped at it. But Republicans were following Mitch McConnell's astute analysis that any bill with bipartisan support would become popular, and thus that withholding bipartisan support would hurt the Democrats but not Republicans. Republicans persistently followed an all-or-nothing strategy, and Democrats took all.
Which is to say, if Douthat is correct about his political premises, both parties had to choose between politics and policy. Democrats could have minimized their losses at the cost of sacrificing the health reform they wanted. Or Republicans could have minimized the scope of health care reform, at the cost of minimizing their potential wave. Democrats chose the best policy, and Republicans chose the best politics. I'm happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to around a lot longer than the former.
The statement "withholding bipartisan support would hurt the Democrats but not Republicans" is only true, in my estimation, if there is nothing to compare the Democrat's health plan to. We don't have the luxury of knowing exactly how much my health insurance will be 10 years from now with and without reform, but if we did, then we could do some real talking about the blessings of Obamacare. If Republicans use their HSA's, my monthly premium will be greater than the five digit address of my house.
The statement "withholding bipartisan support would hurt the Democrats but not Republicans" is only true, in my estimation, if there is nothing to compare the Democrat's health plan to. We don't have the luxury of knowing exactly how much my health insurance will be 10 years from now with and without reform, but if we did, then we could do some real talking about the blessings of Obamacare. If Republicans use their HSA's, my monthly premium will be greater than the five digit address of my house.
The Democrats could have had both if they had not sucked up to the Republicans and then allowed them to control the narrative. There was white hot partisan warfare, but only one side was fighting. If you concede the framing to the other side without even contesting it, you are destined to lose. That is what the Democrats did because Obama foolishly believed his own conciliatory rhetoric.
Nusholtz, the real issue is the cost of health care, not the financing. Admittedly that has been dealt with at the margins only, a bit of curve-bending, and still must be dealt with, but the cost is not caused by the health carefinancing reform, which was also desperately needed. The cost of health care ... view full comment
The Democrats could have had both if they had not sucked up to the Republicans and then allowed them to control the narrative. There was white hot partisan warfare, but only one side was fighting. If you concede the framing to the other side without even contesting it, you are destined to lose. That is what the Democrats did because Obama foolishly believed his own conciliatory rhetoric.
Nusholtz, the real issue is the cost of health care, not the financing. Admittedly that has been dealt with at the margins only, a bit of curve-bending, and still must be dealt with, but the cost is not caused by the health carefinancing reform, which was also desperately needed. The cost of health care was and is on an unsustainable path and must be reined in. The choice was to extend coverage first, and that was correct. We will never go back and the necessity of controlling costs will soon be overwhelming, but not achieved by denying care.
Chait, I would like to read an article on the worst case scenario of what Repbulicans can do to undermine health care reform short of outright repeal. I suppose this is an assignment for the other Jonathan. But it seems like a serious risk that is being underplayed in the liberal press.
Chait, I would like to read an article on the worst case scenario of what Repbulicans can do to undermine health care reform short of outright repeal. I suppose this is an assignment for the other Jonathan. But it seems like a serious risk that is being underplayed in the liberal press.
"I'm happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to around a lot longer than the former."
Damn straight.
"I'm happy with the choice. Mitch McConnell won his election, and Democrats won health care reform. The latter is going to around a lot longer than the former."
Damn straight.
Isn't this like the question Madeleine Albright is supposed to have asked Colin Powell, when he was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and was resisting efforts to intervene militarily in the Balkans: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" What's the point of having congressional majorities if you're not going to use them to get your policies enacted?
Isn't this like the question Madeleine Albright is supposed to have asked Colin Powell, when he was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and was resisting efforts to intervene militarily in the Balkans: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" What's the point of having congressional majorities if you're not going to use them to get your policies enacted?
It's infuriating that Chait essentially accepts Republican framing on this issue: that it was an either/or choice. With a real effort at political communication, i.e. messaging (as well as certain strategic changes like not letting Baucus to impound HCR for so long), the Dems could have passed HCR, AND avoided getting pummeled for it, as Roid noted above. The same is true about numerous aspects of the Democratic agenda; no one knows what they stand for, and so, in that vacuum, people tend to believe whatever the right says. Why? The right's depiction of liberals and center-left policy is the only game in town. There IS NO OTHER narrative.
I demonstrate this now and then by talking to my c ... view full comment
It's infuriating that Chait essentially accepts Republican framing on this issue: that it was an either/or choice. With a real effort at political communication, i.e. messaging (as well as certain strategic changes like not letting Baucus to impound HCR for so long), the Dems could have passed HCR, AND avoided getting pummeled for it, as Roid noted above. The same is true about numerous aspects of the Democratic agenda; no one knows what they stand for, and so, in that vacuum, people tend to believe whatever the right says. Why? The right's depiction of liberals and center-left policy is the only game in town. There IS NO OTHER narrative.
I demonstrate this now and then by talking to my colleagues and students. Many have a vague, general idea of what Republicans stand for*, if not what So far, no one aside from one liberal ex-room-mate of mine who follows politics closely, has been able tell me what the Democrats stand for these days, or what they ran on in this election. Sometimes people proffer vague notions of burdensome regulations or bank bail-outs.
Franklin Roosevelt, in his way, rescued the financial system--yet no one viewed him as a shill for bankers, and the majority didn't view him as an enemy of banks, either, despite the shrilling of his enemies. I wonder how he managed that? For a supposedly 'silver-tongued' politician, Obama doesn't communicate worth a damn; it's possibly that his admirably pragmatic attitude prevents him from identifying with any political values (i.e. fairness, egalitarianism, etc) strongly enough to communicate on their behalf.
*granted, what I hear about the Republicans is often self-contradictory...but that's sort of understandable, it seems to me, since the party is currently sort of self-contradictory on a number of issues, i.e. taxes and deficits
The question is not if but how. What hurt the popularity of health care reform and by implication the president was not that it happened, but that weirdos like Ben nelson and Blanche Lincoln decided to use this as an opportunity to exercise their power as the rump of the senate majority, slow it down, hold out for silly deals, etc.
not sure what Obama could have done about that, but I think that was the problem.
on the bright side, if we were going to lose some senate dems, Lincoln was not such a bad person to see go.
The question is not if but how. What hurt the popularity of health care reform and by implication the president was not that it happened, but that weirdos like Ben nelson and Blanche Lincoln decided to use this as an opportunity to exercise their power as the rump of the senate majority, slow it down, hold out for silly deals, etc.
not sure what Obama could have done about that, but I think that was the problem.
on the bright side, if we were going to lose some senate dems, Lincoln was not such a bad person to see go.
Bill Clinton tried to do healthcare, failed, and lost the House (and Senate). Obama tried to do healthcare, succeeded, and lost the House. Clinton is today considered a pretty adept politician, but his political skills didn't help him keep Congress in Dem hands, and he wasn't even staring down 10% unemployment at the time. Actually getting healthcare, yet losing the House, seems preferable to not getting healthcare, yet losing the House and Senate.
Bill Clinton tried to do healthcare, failed, and lost the House (and Senate). Obama tried to do healthcare, succeeded, and lost the House. Clinton is today considered a pretty adept politician, but his political skills didn't help him keep Congress in Dem hands, and he wasn't even staring down 10% unemployment at the time. Actually getting healthcare, yet losing the House, seems preferable to not getting healthcare, yet losing the House and Senate.
I am happy with this choice, too. Thank you for the eloquent post, Jonathan.
I am happy with this choice, too. Thank you for the eloquent post, Jonathan.