On Rationalizations

Jamelle, over at LOG, writes:

Plainly put, the “center” does not lead the political conversation, the “poles” do. It’s simply a fact that during the past twenty-plus years of conservative dominance, the “center” reflected the strength of the conservative movement. Accordingly, if Democrats want to gain and keep the support “of the vast, moderate, essentially reasonable group of voters who constitute a coherent political center,” the answer isn’t to propose mealy-mouthed “centrist” policies and hope that voters understand the underlying differences between that and a more liberal proposal, instead, it’s to move full-on with the most effective legislation possible, which in health care at least, happens to be the most liberal form of the legislation. After all, Democrats won’t be punished for partisanship, they’ll be punished for failure.

Jamelle also responds to a glaring rebuttal:

Of course, the obvious response is that Bush’s method of passing legislation resulted in Republicans losing both houses of Congress and the presidency. But I’m not sure if that’s actually the case; Republican losses last year and in 2006 had far more to do with the party’s failed policies and its obstinate refusal to change course on Iraq than it did with institutional minutiae and partisan composition of floor votes.

There seems to be an assumption among those in favor of health care reform with a public option that Clinton was punished in 1994 because he failed in reforming health care, as opposed to the more correct interpretation, i.e. mine, that Clintoncare failed because the American people were uncomfortable with it and that uncomfort spread to Clinton and the Democrats more generally. Democrats need to understand that the failure of Clintoncare and the 1994 midterm election were consequences of the same cause.

Now, as a public option proponent, I'd probably spin it differently too. Better to think that the political tactics and execution were the problem than to think that my overall goal is not supported by the American people. At which point, I always hear "But polls say.." or "Insurance and drug company propaganda..."

Polls can be misleading on health care. When asked if everybody should receive health care if they need it, then the answer will almost invariably be yes. When asked about specific policy proposals that cost actual money or coerce people into buying health insurance, then support wanes. Whether or not mandates are necessary, people don't like being told what to do and it's going to piss a lot of them off.

Unlike Matt Yglesias' insane belief that the American public's aversion to taxes was simply created by conservative propaganda, I can understand why progressive believe that insurance and drug company propaganda is largely to blame. Those Harry and Louise ads were damn effective back in '93.

So, let's assume that my analysis is correct. That the public is against most of the Democratic reform proposals -- public option, mandates, etc. Is it a wise political strategy to pound it through anyway despite public skepticism or antipathy? Even if you think the public is misguided, and Lord knows five minutes of listening to Sean Hannity callers will tell you that a good portion of the opposition is freakin' deranged, is it a good idea to say, "y'all don't know what's good for you. Here's health care reform." Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I agree we need to reform the health care system. Lots of the things the Democrats are talking about makes sense, but a public option is a deal breaker for me. We can accomplish many of the most important goals, i.e. increased competition, through other means, and I'd vastly prefer to pursue those other means before creating another government program. Also, while the specific proposals involved don't include anything like "death panels" it's not entirely unreasonable to fear that something like them will eventually appear in government run health care. Things change. For example, the social security number was never supposed to be used as a national identification number and yet it now is. To say that this bill or that bill doesn't have death panels doesn't preclude the emergence of them later. The incentive to cut or cap costs will forever lead to an incentive to create death panels.

But I'm getting off topic. The question is whether somebody who thinks that health care reform with the public option would be good for the country, or for that matter anybody who supports any policy that isn't supported by the general public, should push the policy through into law without regard to public opinion. One school of thought says that the people are, not to put to fine a point on it, too lazy or too stupid to understand something as sophisticated as health care policy, so let's us elites and experts get it done. We'll be vindicated on the back-end when things are better. This is an extremely appealing idea to those who support an unpopular policy, but one must realize that ramming something through despite public opposition is undemocratic and undermines public trust in the system. Yet, if it's something important, some have argued, as it is in the case of health care, then it's best to just get it done. But I wonder if not taking the public's opinion into account on something important is even worse. Wouldn't that just undermine public trust even more?

It's certainly open for debate. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly believe the best way to proceed in a democracy is to convince the public of the justness, rightness, or superiority of your cause or policy. Resorting to undemocratic processes, like court rulings or parliamentary maneuvers, to expedite your preferred results ultimately undermine your own cause and the political process itself in the long-run. Fortunately, elected officials are somewhat sensitive to public opinion and wary of ramrodding stuff through that are broadly opposed. Judges aren't so sensitive. Sometimes these things work out, like court rulings overturning segregation. Sometimes they don't, as demonstrated by the passage of Prop 8 in response to the California Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage. Sometimes they appear to work, but leave the policy with a sword of Damocles hanging over it, like Roe V. Wade.

Many on the left like to point out that the Republicans used parliamentary procedures, specifically the reconciliation process, to pass the Bush Agenda. They passed tax cuts and drilling in ANWR using that method. Well, tax cuts are always popular, so I'm willing to bet there wasn't widespread opposition and therefore I'm gonna argue that it wasn't undemocratic. ANWR may have been. I'm not sure what the poll numbers were at the time.

So, FLG, are you arguing that the elected representatives should be slaves to the opinion polls in their districts? Goodness, no. Representatives should follow their reason and conscience. If they find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion, then they should first and foremost try to convince their constituents. If that doesn't work, then they should try again. And keep trying. If at some point the representative concludes that they will never be able to convince the public of the rightness of his or her cause, then the representative should re-examine their conclusion. If after that he still feels compelled to pursue what he thinks is right, good, or just in opposition to public opinion, then he should vote his conscience and accept that he very well may lose the next election.