For the first time since the issue was put on the table I’m actually interested in the healthcare debate. The problem is that it’s mostly for the wrong (or right, depending on your point of view) reasons. I love the political chess game that is going on right now. Where we are at on February 08, 2010 is that the GOP has been successful in pretty much setting the game back to the first quarter. The problem is that the Left doesn’t want to admit it. that in itself is kind of fun to watch as they try to spin the last year into something productive and try to lay blame at the feet of the guys not in power despite the historic evidence that the tactic never really works.
So this is sort of a political goldmine for the Right and it can play out in a few different ways. One is that we stay tough, demand the original bill be scrapped, cooperate on a reasonable compromise and we look like rock stars in November. The second path is to refuse to come to the table, watch Democrats fail to pass a stinker, thus shooting themselves in the foot. Or they pass it without us which is really even better. The last scenario is that this gets dragged out for another 6 months and we clean up in November because the public still wants jobs. Looking at the poll numbers for healthcare and after seeing what happened in Massachusetts, I’m completely comfortable in predicting that no matter what happens, Republicans come out of this better off than Democrats.
Sadly, some of Obama’s most ‘energetic’ supporters still think this is a masterstroke (ahhhh, the ignorance of love). Others who are a bit less in-the-tank see this for what it is; political theater. From Megan McArdle:
Asking Republicans to be part of a televised forum on health care reform is a clever move: put up or shut up. Nonetheless, I’d guess it probably fails. Republicans are saying what you’d expect them to: we won’t engage in sham negotiations. If you want us to come to the table, shelve this monstrous and unpopular plan and let’s start over.
Democrats should recognize the tactic: they invented it. And used it successfully against Social Security reform in 2005. Sure, they wanted to do Social Security reform, they said. All Republicans had to do to bring them to the table was get rid of the central point of the reform: the private accounts. Astonishingly enough, they did not suffer at the polls, even though the president tried to stir up public discontent with their “obstructionism”. The problem is, the public doesn’t get mad at you for obstructing things the public doesn’t like.
The public has spoken on this one. There is a perception that this is not a bipartisan bill (i.e. conservative concerns not adequately addressed) and they aren’t going to support it until it is. The politician with the most to gain here is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who is seen as the Republican point-man on healthcare and is a hero of both the conservative Left and the moderate Right (in other words, the mythical Center). His plan, if properly contrasted to Nancy Pelosi’s version, is sure to win more support. Seriously, Google Paul Ryan+healthcare and count the pundits falling all over themselves to talk him up.
With the jobless rate hovering near 10% I bemoan going down this road again, but it looks like it’s going to happen. Maybe it’s a pride thing for the President. Maybe they think that if they don’t pass something they are doomed. Either way, I wish they would get their priorities straight. I just don’t see it happening.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 9, 2010 at 12:10 am
ACG
First, love the mixed metaphor (chess has quarters? Almost Brannigan-esque!). Second, cf.
with
Are you trying to argue that the GOP hasn’t been playing the obstruction game? Or that we won’t succeed in painting it that way?
February 9, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Mike at The Big Stick
Well you HAVEN’T succeeded in painting it that way (hence the dropping suport for healthcare and Brown’s victory in MA) and you WON’T succeed in doing it down the road. It just doesn’t work. We couldn’t do it after SS reform failed, and Dems won’t be able to do it after this….but by all means please waste a lot of time and money trying.
As for whether or not we have been obstructing – it depends on how you view things. McArdle was right on when she said, “…the public doesn’t get mad at you for obstructing things the public doesn’t like.” When the public doesn’t like your plans our ‘obstructionism’ begins to look more and more like loyal opposition. We’re doing the public’s bidding. You aren’t. We win.
February 9, 2010 at 10:28 am
MarshallDog
I don’t think you can compare privatizing social security with the health care debate. While the health care bill might be unpopular right now, the idea of health care reform is still very popular noation wide. Social security privatization was never popular except with the far right. The democrats were right to demand that proposal should not be considered a solution because it would destroy a vital government program.
Republicans have had almost a year to step up and negotiate in good faith on health care reform. Several of their ideas are already in the bills, which they refuse to acknowlege. The reasonable compromise republicans should be focused on is making the current bills better, not blowing them up and starting over again. Perhaps Obama is staging a bit of polical theater- I say it’s about damn time. All the republicans want to do is play politcal theater, and they’ve managed to gridlock the government. A little push by Obama might get this legislation back on track.
February 9, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Mike at The Big Stick
The effort undertaken in 2005 was not an effort to privatize SS. It was an effort to reform SS so it would stay solvent. Privatization was just one aspect, sort of like the public option was just one part of the larger Democrat proposals on healthcare.
The problem is that only the most moderate / centrist of Republican ideas are in the bill. Where are some of the truly conservative measures like those proposed by Paul Ryan? Just because the Left got some Republicans to put their names on liberal ideas doesn’t mean this is a Republican-friendly plan. Now if you’re argument is that the Dems are in the majority and it shouldn’t be a Republican-friendly plan…well then why are we still part of the conversation? Why not just do it yourselves?