David Frum makes a point similar to one I noted twice today (here and here):
The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
And, as such, he is correct that there was real and serious room for negotiation with Republicans, had they been willing to participate. And make no mistake: a conscious effort to create unified opposition was the GOP plan in regards to this issue—Obama and the Democrats would have been thrilled to have Republican participation in this process.
The thing that strikes me as curious is that despite the acknowledgement of the more rightward origins of some of the ideas at the base of this reform that Frum sees this as utter defeat for the the GOP. It strikes me that this bill is in some ways a testament to the influence of the right (and certainly far more than the right is willing to acknowledge). It will be interesting to see future assessments of this moment written from a less emotional and ideologically charged point of view. Despite the rhetoric, I continue to find it difficult to assess this legislation as hard left.
Things Frum is right about:
- “It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.”
- “No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?”
- “When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio.”
Indeed, I would recommend reading the whole thing.
March 22nd, 2024 at 12:19 am
Then why did the Democratic legislative leadership (1) lock Republican legislators out of “closed door meetings,” (2) not accept Republican amendments to the bill (until Joe Wilson’s “You Lie!” outburst, when they accepted Democratic amendments that were substantively identical to the Republican amendments), and (3) make every effort to say they would love to listen to the Republicans if the Republicans bothered to actually advance some ideas; when in fact the Republicans were attempting to do just that.
And if you disagree with my characterization of events, then why did Obama acknowledge this behavior when he did his Eleventh hour roundtable a month or so ago?
March 22nd, 2024 at 6:19 am
The bottom line remains that the GOP chose to make this bill, as Frum notes, Obama’s “Waterloo” and there was a clearly concerted effort to remain unified in opposition as much as was possible against the reform. Yes, there were token ideas offered (tort reform, usually) and I have no doubt that there were Dem meetings that Reps weren’t allowed in (as, no doubt, there were Rep meetings that Dems wouldn’t have been allowed in). But seriously, one cannot look at the process that had unfolded over the last year and say that the Democrats are the ones who shut out the Republicans.
Obama desperately wanted reform passed. And Republicans desperately wanted to stop it (or to scrap the whole bit and start from scratch, which meant, in effect, to drag it out until the next election and hope that the Dems had less votes.) It would have been far easier for the Dems to pass reform with GOP votes.
The silly summit bit was political theater, and had nothing to do with some admission that the Reps had been purposefully shut out.
Look, it is quite clear that the Dem preferred outcome was reform and the preferred Rep outcome was the status quo ante. As such, how can you argue that the Reps really wanted to be involved? Was not the hope of the party up and until the vote last night to defeat reform? Is not the goal of the party in the Senate to be to gum up the works as much as possible in regards to reconciliation?
March 22nd, 2024 at 6:22 am
And look: I have no problem, as general principle, with the Republicans doing what they did. It was a legitimate legislative strategy. They were, as a party, opposed to reform. Frum’s characterization of the basic strategic choices (from “death panels” and onward) is accurate. And, I would note, they came darn close to derailing the entire process.
Now, I think that they would have been smarter to have taken an active role from the beginning. However, they were not willing to hand a bipartisan victory to Obama. Do you really think otherwise?
March 22nd, 2024 at 6:22 am
Steven, I think you’re right on target in your analysis. Keep up the shrewd and insightful thinking!
March 22nd, 2024 at 6:33 am
John: Thanks!
March 22nd, 2024 at 1:09 pm
The idea that there is something unseemly or even sinister about Republican opposition to our new law relies on the underlying assumption that the Republican opposition was an unprincipled political move. And while you look at the last year and state “one cannot look at the process … and say that the Democrats are the ones who shut out the Republicans,” I look at the whole mess — starting with Obama’s “we won” statement, going through Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst, and culminating in last night’s vote — as a case study of the Democrats shutting out the Republicans. Clearly we are so far apart on this question that we aren’t going to resolve it any time soon.
The Republican preferred outcome was significant tort reform; which the Democrats wouldn’t take on because they would lose trial lawyer campaign contributions. However, the fact that the Republicans fought hard against this budget busting bill does not indicate anything sinister (any more than, say, Democratic opposition to the Patriot Act). It’s only sinister if the opposition is a calculated political move. And, as far as I can see, that argument relies on believing (1) Republicans had *NO* principled objections to the bill (even some Democratic presidential candidates had significant problems with an individual mandate in 2024), (2) that Republican concerns with the budgetary aspects of the bill (start new taxes six years before new programs) or deals like the Cornhusker Kickback were only political theater, and that (3) Republicans had some moral obligation to jump onboard a bill that they believed was unpopular solely to give political cover for Democrats who were jumping onboard a bill that they believed was unpopular.
March 22nd, 2024 at 1:10 pm
I would also point out that Max Baucus spent a lot of time bending over backwards to try to get Republican support. Some people like Chuck Grassley may have started out negotiating in good faith but towards the end it was clear from his public statements that he was not.
Baucus’ version of the bill was watered down significantly in order to appeal to Republicans, much to the chagrin of the rest of his party. And at the end of the day all it garnered was Olympia Snowe being willing to vote it out of committee, and she explicitly said that you shouldn’t assume it meant she would vote for the final bill. At that point it didn’t make sense to try to continue to negotiate with the Republicans because it was clear there were no votes to be had. You can’t say the effort was not made.
March 22nd, 2024 at 1:26 pm
The Republicans would probably have even settled for a bill that actually targeted where the high costs in health care come from — which is not insurance companies (they just get to be the messengers): http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/excessive-health-insurance-company.html .
March 22nd, 2024 at 2:51 pm
@Max: when did I say that GOP opposition was sinister? See my comment #3 above. I never accused them of being unprincipled, either. I am simply saying that it was clearly the position of the party to oppose and not participate. Sure, they made some token noises, but that was it.
And yes, they would have taken tort reform. However, tort reform, as appealing as it sounds, is a nothing reform. The degree to which tort reform would have saved substantial amounts of money was (and is) marginal. Further, it wouldn’t have moved the country towards universality (the Dem goal). So sure, there could have been a tort reform bill the Reps would have supported. Indeed, I suspect if the Reps had really, truly wanted tort reform, they could have got it (and other concessions) out of the Dems. That’s really the point, isn’t it?
You have mentioned the “you lie” moment twice, and I am honestly not sure what the point is.
The “we won” statement may have been on the arrogant side, but it was also empirically true: the Democrats won, in 2024, 60 seats in the Senate, a large margin in the House and the White House. At that point it was hardly unreasonable to expect that the outcome would be health care reform.
I know you probably think I am huge booster of the bill. The fact of the matter is I have very mixed feelings. Allowing 30+ million people access to insurance is a very good thing, but I have sincere misgivings about increased regulation and serious concerns about funding the whole thing. By the same token, I must confess that it is hard to get as upset about the health care tab when the war in Iraq is costing more. Perhaps I am just inured to hideously large numbers and the rhetoric that goes with them.
Really, I have watched this mostly as an observer of process. And it is undeniable that the GOP did not want to play the game and choose to hope that they could obstruct the outcome (which was their right).
I would note, by the way, that if there was, in fact, a bubbling cauldron of GOP health care ideas that they wanted to share, they did a pretty good job of hiding them when they were in charge of the Congress.
I will reiterate that I hope very much for voter backlash in November if, in fact, the American people don’t want this bill. I am fan, overall, of the democratic process more than I am of any the parties involved or any particular legislative outcome at the moment.
March 22nd, 2024 at 4:22 pm
You did not use the terms sinister or unseemly. However, I get the impression from this and other posts that you believe the Republican opposition was political theater and not principled opposition. Or that the lack of Republican votes for this bill comes more from Republican Congressional leadership deciding that not playing ball would bode better in November than playing ball would. President Obama compared the lack of Republican support to back seat driving, and countless editorials complained that Republicans weren’t jumping on board with this bill.
However I see that position as the logical equivalent of “this bill would have had some Republican support if the Republican leadership had not thrown a monkey wrench into the works.” If we expand out the definition of “this bill” we get the statement “A bill that (1) imposes an unfunded mandate on most Americans, (2) imposes a mandate on nearly all Americans for lawful residency in the US, (3) has pro-life groups upset, (4) has questionable impact on the budget for the forseeable future while we are already looking at Social Security and Medicare insolvency, (5) raises taxes during a recession, (6) has anti-immigration groups upset, (7) does not appear to actually address rising health care costs and in fact bans some policies that health insurance companies have used to contain costs, etc. would have had some Republican support if the Republican leadership had not thrown a monkey wrench into the works.” I really can’t imagine a world where such a bill would have Republican support (and, for the record, there are far more problems with the bill than those I listed in the previous sentence). Additionally, looking at the seven points I did list, Democrats with concerns about these same issues were taken seriously, while Republicans were accused of simple obstructionism (cf., Stupak).
Some Republicans had stated that they considered the bill unacceptable because while it did have a ban preventing subsidies from going to illegal immigrants it did not enforce that ban. Those Republicans had tried to file amendments that would have enforced the ban, but those amendments were rejected as unnecessary. During a speech to Congress, President Obama mentioned these efforts with the statement, “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” This is the statement that Joe Wilson called a lie.
It’s very clear that Democratic Congressional leadership was trying to paint the Republicans complaining about the bill not enforcing its own ban as simple obstructionists engaged in nothing more than political theater. Additionally, I cannot see any way to read President Obama’s statement other than as a claim that such Republicans were simple obstructionists engaged in nothing more than political theater.
But the strange thing is that the day after Joe Wilson’s outburst, Democrats proposed amendments to the bill that sounded very similar to the rejected Republican amendments to fix a problem that both the President and the Democratic Congressional leadership said did not exist. And those amendments were accepted. Why, it’s almost as if the original amendments were rejected not because of their substance but because of their sponsors. At the time you wrote ( http://poliblogger.com/?p=16805#comment-1382146 ) “However, there are any number of reasons for the rejection of the amendment, not the least of which being that it was a minority amendment to a majority bill. Why should the majority accept the amendment?” Clearly the Democrats had no obligation to accept the amendments when proposed by Republicans, but by rejecting the amendments specifically because they were proposed by Republicans the Democrats were telling Republicans they would have no input on the bill. That is the definition of being shut out of the process (or do you have a different term for it?). But after shutting Republicans out of the process, the Democrats complained that they weren’t getting Republican support. And they’ve been complaining ever since.
Yes. And the “we won” statement was specifically to tell Republicans to stop complaining that they were being shut out of the process (i.e., that their input was being ignored). It’s hard to look at that statement, and at the last year, and then say “those silly Republicans, claiming that they were shut out of the process when in fact they were not.” But that is precisely what you have done.
March 22nd, 2024 at 4:42 pm
Or that the lack of Republican votes for this bill comes more from Republican Congressional leadership deciding that not playing ball would bode better in November than playing ball would.
Well, yes, I think that that is true, actually. I am not sure that I would call such a tactical decision “unprincipled” however.
I do think that it is disingenuous for the GOP to pretend like they were left out when, in fact, they made a strategic decision to oppose the bill.
No, the “we won” statement was to point out that the GOP was not in the driver’s seat–that they weren’t going to be setting the agenda.
Look, I am not entirely sure what we are arguing about. It is clear to me that a) the Dems won, and therefore were setting the agenda and b) that the GOP’s main strategy was opposition and obstruction. This is, to me, normal party behavior in a legislature. Did both sides often use rhetoric and such to try and make themselves looks good and the other side look bad? Of course. Were they all 100% transparent about their motives and behaviors? Of course, not.
It’s hard to look at that statement, and at the last year, and then say “those silly Republicans, claiming that they were shut out of the process when in fact they were not.” But that is precisely what you have done.
I am vexed that you are both telling me that the GOP took a principled position of opposition and also were purposely shut out in a process they wanted to participate in. Which was it?
And again, setting preferences aside, what did you expect Obama to do? If the roles were reversed and there was a GOP president and Congress and something of a mandate to pursue a major GOP policy goal, would you have expected the overall process to proceed differently? Wouldn’t the GOP have acted like (if not boldly declared) that “we won”?
In regards to the amendment issue: that’s the way legislating works. Minority parties ALWAYS offer amendments and they tend to be rejected. Again, it worked that way when the GOP was in charge and the Democrats offer amendments. It is run-of-the-mill legislative behavior. I could not comment on he specific amendments without knowing their precise contents, btw.
March 22nd, 2024 at 4:44 pm
And yes, there was a scenario in which the GOP could have had more input, as the Dems would have been willing to pay the price to say that they had a bipartisan bill that avoided the legislative fight we have seen.
Again: it is fine if the GOP wants to be in opposition. Yet it is disingenuous to say that they were shut out when that is the route they took. Although, granted, its politics.
March 23rd, 2024 at 5:50 pm
Let’s try a hypothetical.
Imagine that somebody donates $1 million to your department. You and 19 other professors/administrators form a committee deciding what to do with the money, a majority vote from the committee is binding. 11 form a voting bloc and start circulating drafts for something stupid — let’s say a hair sculpture ( http://tech.mit.edu/V110/N23/hair.23n.html ). They do not let you comment on the drafts. They do not invite you to some meetings. I don’t know what you call that in Alabama, but on the West Coast that’s called “being shut out of the process.”
Do you (1) decide to wine and dine the members of the voting bloc or do you (2) take the issue to the students via editorials in the school paper and lists of things that $1 million buys?
You can be shut out of a process that you don’t want to participate in. If my grandmother were on life support, and I were not allowed input on whether to keep her on life support I would be “shut out of the process” regardless of whether I wanted to participate in it.
The original post stated “there was real and serious room for negotiation with Republicans, had they been willing to participate.” It’s the “had they been willing to participate” that bothers me. Some Republicans were willing to participate — they tried to attend meetings, they tried to propose amendments, they tried to organize debates, they offered proposals that avoided the problems Republicans saw with the bill, and they put a lot of effort in trying to keep Congress from driving off a cliff — but their input was ignored. Again, maybe there’s a different term for it in Alabama, but where I come from that’s called “being shut out of the process.”
I believe we both agree that the Democrats would have been in a stronger position had the law passed with bipartisan support. I believe we both agree that such support was possible. In fact, I believe we both agree that if the debate had started on better footing that the results would have been much different. I’m only making the point that the debate started with Republicans shut out of the process and by the time the Democrats realized they weren’t going to get bipartisan support they had burned too many bridges to bring anybody on board, so they spent that last few months complaining that Republicans weren’t jumping on board a sinking ship. As far as I can tell, you’re making the point that “had [Republicans] been willing to participate” they could have somehow had their proposals accepted, their amendments voted on, their concerns discussed, etc. I really don’t see the basis for that position.
March 23rd, 2024 at 6:10 pm
I don’t accept you analogy as one that accurately describes the last year, which I think is our fundamental disagreement. I concur that the Democrats were only willing to go so far in terms of GOP inclusion, and I am sure that they, at different times in the process, ignored the GOP outright. However, that does not alter the fact that the basic GOP approach was across-the-board opposition with not real intention of serious negotiation.
I think that the Democrats would have preferred to have had GOP votes. I think that the Dems would have preferred an easier process. However, I also think that at this stage of the game, the Dems win and GOP loses–which is really Frum’s point from above. Any chance to substantially affect the outcome was lost by the GOP by the tactic they chose. It was, I will note again, a legitimate tactic–and one that almost worked. You assertion that this all started with the GOP totally shut out is simply wrong. They chose not to participate fully because they a) wanted the reform to fail, and b) didn’t want to give the Dems a “bipartisan” bill. All of that is legitimate legislative strategy, but it doesn’t fit the narrative you are arguing for.
And yes, the Dems always had the superior bargaining position and were always going to want to run the show. But as I keep noting: they had large legislative majorities. Therefore they were never going to allow the GOP to be an equal partner. If that is what you mean (that the GOP was never allowed to be an equal partner) then you have a point. But, that would have been an unrealistic expectation, yes? I suppose part of my fundamental point is that since it was always possible for the Dems to get what they wanted sans the GOP (as happened), it was always going to be the case that the GOP could only expect to get only a portion of what they wanted–and to do so was going to require them to compromise quite a bit. That they chose to eschew that path makes, as I have repeatedly said, sense. But to deny that they made a choice to do so is simply incorrect as far I can tell from watching the last year.