Take A Seat. FLG Agrees With Barney Frank

FLG agrees with everything Barney Frank said here:


However, he disagrees with this assessment by Matt Yglesias:

Voters don’t have a great deal of knowledge about the issues, or a great deal of interest in acquiring knowledge about the issues. But they are human beings, equipped with our species’ excellent ability to read the emotional states of other human beings. If they see a politician acting defensive about his “side” in an argument, they conclude that this critics are probably on to something. If they see a politicians acting outraged and hitting back fearlessly, they’re likely to conclude that he has nothing to apologize for.

Most voters don't have day jobs blogging about public policy. So, they' always have less knowledge than Matt. Furthermore, FLG agrees that voters rely on emotional, intellectual, and ideological shortcuts. Put simply they don't have the time or skill to analyze every single policy that comes into public debate. So, in some sense, FLG agrees with Matt. What FLG disagrees with is the tone of condescension toward the unwashed masses. FLG has faith in the American people to analyze policy using their intellect even with these shortcuts.

Now, perhaps FLG has a vested interest in trusting these shortcuts. As FLG has said before, the nuance and sophistication that Liberals so often pride themselves on regard policy is largely based upon large amounts of detailed complexity. Complexity is the enemy when it comes to voter support. A thousand page bill, once it's under attack, will remain under attack simply because it's too complicated and long. Complexity is inversely related to trust. Nobody likes legalese or slick, fast-talking lawyers. That's what a 1,000 page bill is to the public. So, the complexity of liberal policy lends itself to public distrust.

If you look at successful liberal policy, or at least what most people consider successful, it's pretty simple. Social security was sold as retirement security. You pay in now to get money when you retire. Simple. Easy to understand. Whether it works exactly that way in reality is another question entirely, but I digress.

This health care reform with its medical exchanges and cost boards and government regulation of private insurers and mandates and public options and whatever other technocratic things congress, lobbyists and wonks have thought up is just too complex. That complexity is what is distrusted.

Furthermore, the complexity allows everybody to project whatever they want onto it. We have half a dozen different bills with thousands of pages. If I say it's socialist and won't work because of fifty clauses in this bill, nobody fucking knows if that's true. Nobody in the public can read the fucking thing. Shit. Congresspeople can't and won't read the fucking thing.

It's not so much that the people don't have an interest understanding policy. It's that liberals' technocratic tendency obfuscates the policy and allows the right to attack it.

Plus, as Radley Balko points out, the legislative language prevents anybody from knowing what the fuck is going on anyway:

"SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION. (a) Medicare. — (1) IN GENERAL. — Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended — (A) in subsection (s)(2) — (i) by striking 'and' at the end of subparagraph (DD); (ii) by adding 'and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and (iii) adding at the end the following new subparagraph: '(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1) … "

This is true of all bills, but especially problematic with something this complex.