ELECTIONATE JUNE 28, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
After months of deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a historic 5-4 decision. Make no mistake: the electoral consequences of the Court’s decision pale in comparison to the implications for the health care system and the scope of federal authority. On those far more important questions, I’ll be reading Jonathan Cohn and Jeffrey Rosen for superb insights and analysis, and you should be too.
While many of the policy and legal consequences of the decision will probably be found in the text of Roberts' opinion, the political fallout is uncertain. There is no question that the ruling represents a “win” for the President—his central legislative accomplishment survives and so does its cornerstone, the individual mandate. But beyond the basic “win” or “loss” formulation for the administration’s agenda, today’s decision is unlikely to translate into substantial electoral gains for either side.
If the Court had gone a different direction, the electoral consequences could have been more significant. But since the ruling preserves the status quo, the fundamentals of the health care debate remain essentially unaltered. Dissatisfaction with the health care law is already priced into the President’s approval ratings—Obama’s pursuit of health care reform was a defining element of his first term, and voters have already judged him on that basis. Opposition to the health care law was never driven by arcane constitutional concerns, even if many viewed it as government overreach. Indeed, constitutional concerns were not given much credence in mainstream media discussions until long after the passage of the ACA.
Today’s decision will not dissuade Romney from vigorously campaigning against job-killing ObamaCare, but the President’s response could alter the trajectory of the political debate. Polls consistently show that the public disapproves of the ACA, suggesting that the Obama campaign would be wise to move the discussion away from health care as soon as possible. But while the intensity of the law’s detractors justifiably receives attention commensurate with their outrage, many Americans harbor mixed feelings. Why are so many unsure about such a controversial and well-known bill? Many simply do not understand the ACA, which is not surprising given the rancorous political debate and the complexity of the legislation. According to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation, between 42 and 55 percent of voters say they are “confused” by the health care law, and 39 percent say they do not know enough about the law to assess how it will affect them personally.
With belated validation from the Supreme Court, Obama could be tempted to resell the bill. Will Obama attempt to capitalize on the law’s newfound legitimacy, to the extent that the Supreme Court offers any? Prior to the Supreme Court’s hearings, the Obama campaign seemed to embrace the ObamaCare label, perhaps indicating their intention to promote the bill once legal issues were resolved. While it might seem unstrategic for Obama to return attention to an unpopular proposal, a resell could produce better results than the initial attempt, if for no other reason than the absence of an on-going partisan debate in Congress. Perhaps more importantly, Obama is better positioned to promote the law against Mitt Romney, who enacted a similar health reform scheme in Massachusetts. Romney’s previous measures will complicate his ability to credibly challenge the ACA and particularly the individual mandate. In that respect, Santorum was surely correct.
Reselling the health care law would not be easy. Although polls suggest that many of the ACA’s components are quite popular, voters do not view the ACA as an assembly of popular components tainted by the mandate—and analysts who assume they do based on polling have been misled by the organization of a questionnaire. Opinions of the health care law are probably quite entrenched at this stage, and only a concerted and sustained effort could succeed in moving a skeptical public. But such an effort would detract from Obama’s ability to focus on the economy or Romney’s record, or could be vulnerable to the criticism that Obama is not focused on creating jobs. The law is certainly unpopular enough that Obama would be taking a big risk by devoting any more attention to the law than necessary.
Even in the best case scenarios for either candidate, today’s ruling is unlikely to fundamentally reshape the race. The most consequential moments of the last two years have not realigned perceptions of the President’s performance. Obama’s approval rating has tracked on either side of 47 percent for two years with just three exceptions: the Giffords assassination attempt, the Bin Laden assassination, and the debt ceiling debacle. In each case, perturbations to long lasting trends were temporary and Obama’s standing returned to its moors. The health care ruling may be significant enough to add a four perturbation to the long term trend, but the presumption should be that it will prove temporary, like those that came before it.
The Osama Bin Laden assassination is particularly instructive. At the time, many wondered whether the strike ensured the President’s reelection, but, thirteen months later, the historic operation has subsided into the background. If the Bin Laden raid did not fundamentally alter perceptions of the President, why would the health care ruling? Unlike today’s decision, the Bin Laden assassination truly represented a possible game changer: it introduced new and plausibly decisive information about the President’s performance that the public had not yet incorporated into their calculus. No matter how groundbreaking today’s decision may be, it does not represent such a decisive event. Obama already passed the ACA and the public has judged him on that basis. Unless today’s ruling prompts a pronounced shift in Obama’s efforts to sell the law, expect the fundamentals of the race and health care politics to continue unaltered.
12 comments
I disagree pretty vehemently here. The status of ACA may be "priced into" the President's current approval ratings, polling, etc., but only as a controversial, uncertain piece of legislation. What's NOT already considered by polling is today's status of ACA as a piece of passed, challenged, and finally Supreme-Court-approved piece of legislation. It leaves Obama's administration (and campaign!) revivified, embarasses Romney ("Your idea's so great it swayed Chief Justice Roberts!"), and leaves the House exposed as a crowd of deranged lunatics who are only ones left trying to strip healthcare from millions of Americans for no other reason than to embarass the President. Getting comprehensive healthcare reformed after a century of trying is a hell of a lot more impressive than getting a comprehensive healthcare reform bill passed after a century of trying only to lose it less than three years later. But now we get to see Obama campaigning as not a President struggling to get things accomplished, but as one who has now secured his place in history...
- janus
June 28, 2012 at 11:19am
I'd just like to split a hair or two here. People LOVE most of the actual proposals in ObamaCare, besides those who think the law doesn't go far enough, they hate ObamaCare basically because it's Obama's and not Romney's.
- GSpinks
June 28, 2012 at 11:41am
I wouldn't go as far as janus, but I think he's right: this ruling reinforces an image of Obama as a guy who gets stuff done, as opposed to the Republican counter-image of Obama as a guy who's a miserable failure. Meanwhile, the Republicans have lost one of their stronger arguments--that the Democrats are running roughshod over the Constitution. (The high priests of the Constitution disagree.) Now, how many votes will that get Obama? I have no idea; it's just too vague. Meanwhile, many people will receive rebates this fall from insurance companies who have spent too much on overhead, as mandated by the ACA. That's gotta be worth something.
- benjamin81
June 28, 2012 at 11:46am
I disagree too. My household (2 humans, 3 cats) (ok so they are very intelligent cats who watch CNN) all think this is a huge boost for Obama. For one thing it tanks the idea that he's a dictator, which is a favorite meme on the far right, who's passing laws in the dark without consent (also, they're having a fit because majority ruled - simple majority - lolz) who is trying to coerce Americans into a Marxist state. Plus it is fun watching guys lose it on the tube and turn the color of rare roast beef. PS now I think it's time to really explain the law. I honestly think people don't understand it, FOX et.al. have been lying and Obama has been diffident about it.
- Sophia
June 28, 2012 at 11:48am
I don't see the political upside for the President. The Act is still generally disfavored whether the unwahsed masses understand its benefits or not, and Romney now has the running room to say "I respect the Supreme Court's decision...so now it's time to elect a Republican Congress and White House because I'll repeal it on Day One!" He makes it a key campaign issue and the President does what? Run saying how great the law is? That worked like a charm in the 2010 mid-terms, didn't it? Even worse in my view is that it takes away the President's ultimate trump card with disaffected/disappointed liberals; namely, his ability to say "hey, you're disappointed about (fill in your favorites here), I get it. But who do you want appointing the next four years of Supreme Court nominees, me or the Republicans?" Instead, we now have John Roberts, the Great Compromiser and Protector of Supreme Court Non-Partisanship. Maybe progressives don't completely relax on this issue, but I don't believe they engage as fully as they would have a day ago. Anti-ObamaCare folks on the other hand? Well, their work is clearly cut out for them and they have a clear path to channel their energies to repeal this Socialist Outrage...elect Romney and a Republican Senate and all will be well. On Day One. So, ok, ObamaCare is "priced into" current approval ratings, but in terms the decision's effect as an energizing catalyst, I'd hold the celebrations at Obama/Biden Headquarters if it was my call.
- SteveJudd
June 28, 2012 at 12:15pm
From Mr. Cohn's post on the decision elsewhere on this site and as I was speculating... "In issuing this ruling, the Court has not only validated the Affordable Care Act. It has also validated its own reputation. *** [F]ive justices demonstrated that judges should act with caution and humility, overturning major federal legislation only in cases where such legislation represents clear violations of the Constitution. Roberts and the four Republican appointees put down markers that could, over the long term, seriously limit federal power. But they did so in a way that interferes minimally with laws that today's lawmakers have enacted." Sounds like there's nothing to worry about Supreme Court-wise, anyway.
- SteveJudd
June 28, 2012 at 12:44pm
Look, this certainly didn't pick him up many "new votes," (though, if he finally starts marketing it on the campaign trail a few independents might pick up on the fact that's it awesome and jump on board) but it is a huge boost to the Obama campaign and far more importantly, gives a needed reason for those dour & cynical liberals to get out there and vote. Lets face it, the biggest threat to Obama is going to be to many people staying at home on Election day. With this material it just may give the needed boost of energy that Obama has been looking for. The Ball of course is in his court now.
- ARealHero
June 28, 2012 at 12:47pm
Spinks is right--the individual provisions of ACA are popular. And the Supreme Court's ruling has made it easier to talk about those. For one, it takes away the right's ability to argue against the law in a vague, hyperbolic, "unconstitutional" act of hand-waving, and forces them to get specific. For two, the Court ruling gives Obama a huge boost in the media, who will pay more attention and give more respect to Obama's pronouncements about health care. Obama won't have to talk about the ACA generally anymore. He simply has to say, "we made sure that insurance companies couldn't drop you at random...that your children could stay on your family plan longer..." etc.
- polcereal
June 28, 2012 at 1:09pm
Aw, but now Romney has something "substantial" to run on (for awhile, anyway), the Repeal Of Obamacare. Shoot, Republican Propaganda turned 2010 into a referendum on their poisonous characterization of Obamacare, why should 2012 be any different? Except it was a stupid idea in 2010, the result was to put a bunch of resist-everything Tea-Party Republicans in the House, and we've had 2 years to observe the effects. It might guarantee Romney's loss, but since it worked in 2010, we'll have to see.
- AllanL5
June 28, 2012 at 1:24pm
Romeny already had a platform of "Get those dirty liberals out of office!!!!" That still stands, and thus, the right is unlikely to experience any change from this.
- ARealHero
June 28, 2012 at 1:50pm
"If the Bin Laden raid did not fundamentally alter perceptions of the President, why would the health care ruling?" I remember after the attack on 9-11, Bush commanded respect (Lewis Lapham sarcastically described: "On September 11, like Pinocchio brushed with the good fairy's wand on old Gepetto's shelf of toys, the wooden figure head turned into flesh and blood.") But when President Obama obtained vengeance for us, he was immediately criticized for not giving credit where credit was alleged to have been due. Why did Bush command such respect and not President Obama?
- Nusholtz
June 28, 2012 at 9:14pm
Why did Bush command such respect and not President Obama? Only Karl Rove knows. On the other hand, maybe Obama will be a case of the tortoise and the hare.
- skahn
June 29, 2012 at 10:49pm