Political Incentives and Health Care Debate (UPDATED)
Justin Gardner at Donklephant continues to profess confusion about what could possibly motivate Republicans to refuse to sign on to the Baucus health care bill. Says Gardner,
Long story short, it seems as if Obama doesn’t care if a “public” option is run by the government or not. That’s heartening to me because that’s the type of compromise Republicans should be excited about. But they’re not. Again…why?
Do know that I think it’s fair to point out that agreeing to this legislation may not be politically smart for Republicans, but they shouldn’t have strung Baucus along and feigned interest for compromise. That’s why I blamed Republicans for walking away…because Baucus (and the President by extension) has come towards them quite a bit when they could have just passed something with a 1 vote majority and been done with it.
So Gardner’s position seems to be that the Republicans deserve exclusive condemnation simply because they were dishonest — that they cynically pretended to be interested in compromise only to walk away at the moment of truth. Gardner rejects my view that purists among Democrats deserve a share of the blame because,
I especially don’t think that the left blogosphere has driven the debate. Especially since nearly ALL of the coverage about workable health care legislation has been on the Baucus bill.
I think Gardner misses my point here. Even if it is true that single-payer/public-option purists based in the blogosphere have not controlled the Congressional debate, they have shaped the political incentives that face Republicans now. Rather than adopting a removed position of outside moral authority that condemns Republicans for their failure to meet an abstract and self-sacrificing political ideal, I think it is more appropriate and fair to inquire into the underlying political context. To wit, what possible incentive has been offered to Republicans to get them on board?
Gardner assumes that the compromises written in to the policy in the Baucus bill should be enough. But politicians receive no benefits from policy compromises, especially in the uncertain future world of a health care reform plan that promises benefits that are, at best, speculative and complicated by very serious fiscal and political risks. The only way Republicans could receive benefits from the compromise would be if they were promised some kind of bi-partisan political cover in the context of the compromise effort.
And this is where the completely out-of-control bias, hatefulness, and abusiveness that characterizes the most prolific and influential outlets of the leftist blogosphere carry influence far in excess of their non-existent contributions to the actual policy debate. Because leftists had made it clear that they will never adopt any position other than 100% hostility towards Republicans no matter what Republicans do and because more moderate Democrats like Justin Gardner have lacked the ability and, in some other cases, willingness to successfully confront and limit the rhetorical impact of those extremists, Republicans simply perceive no political benefit to actually signing on to the compromise. They have learned from recent history that moderate Democrats will not confront the extreme left in defense of Republicans even if Republicans try to compromise.
If moderate Democrats like Justin were both willing and able to match the outrage that Republicans who compromised on health care would face on their own extreme wing with the promise of new allies in the center, then the political incentives faced by Republicans would be enough to probably bring over a few Republican votes. But since Republicans know that they would be attacked by the far right for such a compromise and that, in exchange, they would probably receive no countervailing benefit from moderate Democrats, who have established a record of willingness to remain complicit in harsh anti-Republican critiques no matter what Republicans do. As a result, they have no incentive to risk the ire of the far right for no likely gain.
Until Justin and other moderate Democrats become willing and effective in confronting the toxic influence of their own anti-Republican extremists, the incentive structure that drives Republicans towards their own far-right base will continue to dominate. That’s just the way political calculation works. And condemning it from the opposing party comes off as just at best naive.
Justin Gardner used to be among the leaders in pointing out that when Republicans were in charge, they had the primary obligation to begin the process of checking the power of their extremists. Now the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are in power, and Gardner needs to notice that the far-left extremists are the ones causing the exact same kind of toxic secondary effects that he used to note from the far right. This problem won’t end with health care and perpetually blaming the minority party while exempting
the majority from criticism may be emotionally satisfying in the short term, but will ultimately only perpetuate the cycle of non-accountability.
P.S. I do not mean to suggest that the Republican action is blame free. I agree with Justin’s point about the unjustifiable cynicism of Republican moderates regarding the Baucus compromise. But, unlike Justin, I am not willing to use that as the basis for letting everyone else off the hook for their own particular contributions to the near-complete collapse of substantive political debate in this country. Any attempt to redress this problem will fail unless it takes into account the entire political context, rather than trying to cut-and-trim the picture to focus exclusively on a single chosen set of “black hats”.
UPDATE: In a fantastic and timely illustration of exactly the problem I am talking about, TMV’s Kathy Kattenburg, who has been consistently vicious in her hatred towards the Baucus compromise bill***, condemns Republicans for not supporting the Baucus bill. This shows how the partisan game controlled by the extremists is played in a way that deters Republicans from any willingness to compromise — no matter what the Republicans do, in the eyes of Democratic partisans, they will always deserve (in Kattenburg’s own words) “nothing but contempt”. And as long as their partisan label alone is deemed sufficient reason to hate them no matter what they do or don’t do, it is unreasonable for Justin Gardner and other more moderate Democrats to condemn them for failing to fall on their political swords by compromising anyway.
It takes two sides to sustain a polarizing partisan war. The Republicans do deserve their share of the blame for the contributions of their own whackadoodle extremists, but Democrats don’t deserve a pass. More importantly, granting Democrats a pass actually helps perpetuate the cycle of partisan non-accountability at the critical moment of truth.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(*** …along with anything and everything else in her lengthy list of extremist far-left demands presented in her distinctive tone of argument-free talking points matched with lazy use of lengthy passages lifted from other people’s writing. As Althouse points out, Kathy Kattenburg consistently continues to be a major embarrassment to the good writers at The Moderate Voice.)
“If moderate Democrats like Justin were both willing and able to match the outrage that Republicans who compromised on health care would face on their own extreme wing with the promise of new allies in the center, then the political incentives faced by Republicans would be enough to probably bring over a few Republican votes.
But since Republicans know that they would be attacked by the far right for such a compromise and that, in exchange, they would probably receive no countervailing benefit from moderate Democrats, who have established a record of willingness to remain complicit in harsh anti-Republican critiques no matter what Republicans do. As a result, they have no incentive to risk the ire of the far right for no likely gain.”
Right, “A game of quid pro quo” is tough when (whether we like it or not) the “non-watered down” portion of each group is controlling the debate…
I for one happen to lean harder right on this particular issue. But I can step outside of myself on this…does that make me “part of the problem?” or just standing by certain principles (the same question can be applied to the other side)
Yet even being so hard right on this ine issue…I am for reform, even further…there are issues I could be budged on, but others that I will not budge on. (cost reductions, no public option, and who it covers being the 3 main issues I am concerned about)… where I am willing to “wiggle” all the ways we can cut costs, in a private system, and cover the most people without. One example I like is allowing competition of insurance companies across state lines. I am not sure what that hasn’t been embraced by the left, if cost is a concern.
I am opposed to any health care reform that costs the tax payers a single dollar.
We are broke as a nation. Adding another 800 pound gorrilla to the backs of the American Tax payers is an egregious crime of untold proportions.
We cannot afford this….it will not pay for itself and it will run out of control. Because once the bill in in place then guess what……..REGULATORS TAKE OVER…they can do what they damn well please and trust me…this is the government…they will be very pleased to raise taxes out the ying yang to pay for ever increasing health care while
DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE DEFICIT.
Count me out of any healthcare plan that costs us a single dollar. We simply cant afford it. They are nothing but magazine peddlers coming to my door and telling me that for 250 dollars I can have playboy for 5 years….
The problem is I have no money and dont read playboy and its a bad deal anyway.
Mr. Obama added, “If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.” Dateline Wednesday.
This is classic. The Obama administration and his followers are now dragging in the immigration debate to further attempt to marginalize the GOP by making them look like not only racists for not wanting Obamacare but now they are gonna paint us as Bigots as well.
Republicans/Conservative. >>Racists. Bigots. Party of NO. Don’t listen to them. They hate poor people. They hate non white people. They hate Immigrants. They only want to fight wars and hate people.
Wow….What an argument for bankrupting the nation.
>Lets bankrupt the nation because Republicans are Racist/Bigots. Gotta love that argument.
The problem with health care is everyone assumes its gonna pass. I don’t. I keep fighting one more tax dollar. Not because I oppose higher taxes I just oppose higher taxes for more benefits while doing NOTHING for the deficit.
OUR ENEMY IS THE DEFICIT….not each other.
Why the Obama Administration wants to bankrupt America.
The Bachus bill alone promises 80 billion per year costs.
Additionally secretly released with parts redacted by the Treasury Departyment Global warming cap and trade costs could hit $300 billion annually, the Treasury Department admitted in documents released today – late in the afternoon and on the day of the Jewish New Year celebration. The same documents had been released by Treasury earlier this week but had important parts redacted. Now, the document is available in its entirety for public scrutiny.
The new information reveals that Treasury estimates that not only could cap and trade cost $300 billion annually, “domestic policies to address climate change and the related issues of energy security and affordability will involve significant costs and potential revenues, possibly up to several percentage points of annual GDP (i.e. equal in size to the corporate income tax).”
Remember this is the federal government. The estimated costs to the deficits of just these two programs Barak Obama is bringing to America is 300 billion plus bare minimum of 80 billion OR
380 Billion per year of new DEBT. While Not touching our current debt of 787 billion dollars per year.
Why I protest. Why those in the streets are protesting. DEFICIT spending is out of control and the democrats in the name of three pet projects want to totally destroy this country without even touching the deficits.
Cap and Trade. Immigration. National Health Care.
We simply cannot afford what they are selling. We just cant.
and that’s just an estimation. Figure close to a trillion in reality
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-conservacare20-2009sep20,0,3539118.htmlstory
3rd and 4th are better examples IMO
Interested.
One of the solutions given on your link was:
Deregulate?..I think not. We saw what happened to the finance sector when we let them run amuck.
The problem with the mindset of health care reform is that its advocates want to…..WITH ONE BILL…..Cure, fix and once and for all solve all health care issues that have ever plagued America for the last 50-60 years.
Ain’t gonna happen. It needs to be a slow process. Tackle one problem at a time till we get it fixed.
SAME holds true with Immigration Reform….WITH ONE BILL….they want to FIX IT ALL…..aint never gonna happen ever.
OUR Government needs to realize that they need to approach health care, Environment, Immigration in incremental steps. Slowly lets get the changes in place, see how those work and then change some more till we get it fixed.
This nation wasnt founded on Conservative(SLOW CHANGE)principals for nothing.
I believe one of Justin’s primary errors is his assumption that because industry groups aren’t opposed, Republicans should be in favor. The assumnption being that the GOP is representing the industry groups rather than the voters whose votes are required to keep them in office.
There’s also the continuing assumption (not necessarily Justin’s, but the entire partisan left’s) that because the bill is not pure socialist-left the GOP should jump on the “bipartisanship” bandwagon. They seem to think that if they (the left) don’t get their entire wishlist it is somehow a compromise desrving of “bipartisanship.” Which is BS, of course — the Dems in Congress and the White House pretty much slammed the door in the face of the GOP in Congress months ago, and tried to redefine “bipartisanship” as “do it our way or fuck you.” Which didn’t sell.
A month ago my handicapping had the GOP picking up 15-30 seats in 2010. At the Dem’s current rate of active “bipartisanship” (the redefined version) I figure they’re now 1 to 2 underdogs to not lose control of the House.
Miss W? Hell, I miss Jimmy.
Tully,
First, no, I’m not assuming that because industry groups are playing ball that Repubs should be in favor. I think it should at least be considered, and I’ve said as much, but you seem to be ignoring all of my other arguments, specifically the ones I wrote in response to this.
As far as Dems behavior, well, I think you need to check your time line and your facts. Agreed that the Dems in the House are clueless, but they lost control of health care a LONG time ago when the White House tapped Baucus to come up with something else since Pelosi was acting like Gingrich circa 1995. And so the Gang of Six…which is still alive and talking.
Also, what exactly did you think a bipartisan bill would look like when Republicans have such little actual power? 50/50? For the last 20% of the bill that they don’t agree on, Republicans are getting compromises on the public option, mandates on small business coverage and other concessions. That’s a good deal if you’re a Republican because you can avoid Dems using the full brunt of their power to pass what they really want.
Last, I’ll take that bet about 2010. Poll after poll shows that the only politicians voters trust less than House Dems are House Repubs…usually by at least 10%. My money is on a wash. No seats lost and no seats gained. Republicans just don’t stand for anything right now so this will not be a repeat of 1994.
How much and at what odds would you like to offer me on a no-seats-lost scenario for House Dems, Justin? Money talks.
Sorry, but the House Dems built this trap for themselves and Obama has continued to preach their gospel even as the public has made it clear it’ll sink. I am quite familiar with both the time line and the facts, including Obama’s ineffective come-to-Jesus attempts this very month, and his complete shutting of the GOP out last spring when overt bullying didn’t work. Wishful thinking won’t change that.
As for the rest, we obviously differ. Buacus’ bill is unlikely to pass. The process you are seeing is not a bill in the making, but negotiations among those Senators for future incrementalist reforms. Not that Obama won’t seze ANY bill he can wave about as reform, but Obamacare is dead. Baucus’/Obama’s attempts to use HHS to bully Humana back into line will fail, and right now it’s fueling senior’s (correct) perceptions that Obamacare would gut Medicare Advantage.
Also, what exactly did you think a bipartisan bill would look like when Republicans have such little actual power?
IOW, you’re confirming that YOUR idea of “bipartisan” is a few bones tossed at the GOP hoping to buy just enough key votes to slide SOMETHING through that can be called “reform.” QED.
Tully,
Okay…$100. I say they’re going to stay pretty much even. You say they’re going to take back the House. Whoever comes closest wins. But I think you should handicap me a bit since you’re the seasoned politico.
Second, I’m not disagreeing with you about the House Dems, but Obama has gotten firmly behind the Baucus bill. He also rebuked Pelosi’s “UnAmerican” calls. And he’s completely moved away from the public option as House Dems positioned it. He knows very well that they’ll fall in line and play ball once the Baucus bill gets going.
And as far as bullying, give me a break. Republicans came out of the gate calling Obama a socialist for the recovery package and then said we couldn’t afford healthcare before we even got started…which is the same stuff they’re saying now.
Baucus’ bill is unlikely to pass? Care for another bet?
As far as bipartisanship, you can call it a few bones, but I obviously disagree. Those are significant concessions. But yes, when one party holds the majority they’re bound to have more of their ideas in the bill. There are different levels of bipartianship. Would you rather I call it compromise and concessions? Rarely do we see things that can make both sides equally happy. Come on man, this is the sausage making of politics and you know damn well that the Dems could have used reconciliation to slam this thing through…like the Republicans did with nearly everything they passed. And yet they didn’t.
In the end, if insurance gets reformed so there are no preexisting clauses and more people can buy health care, then those are big wins for the country. And you and I both know that these things come in waves and health care will continued to be reformed in the coming years. That’s how it always happens in this country and this time it’ll be especially so since this issues is so contentious.