JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 31, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics continues to argue that health care is a huge part of the cause of Democrats' political difficulties:
The Democrats' control of the House did not become tenuous recently. At best, some of the more immediate warning signs - e.g. individual incumbents like Betty Sutton now appear to be in jeopardy - have manifested themselves recently. But there has been a real danger of losing the House for some time, a danger that predates "Recovery Summer" and goes back to the health care debate. ...
It was during the health care debate that the essential building block of the Democratic majority - Independent voters - began to crumble. It was evident in the generic ballot. It was evident in the President's job approval numbers. It was evident in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
It's obviously true that the Democrats lost a lot of support "during the health care debate." The health care debate took about a year. My argument is that, during a period in which unemployment was rising and the Democrats controlled the entire government, Democrats would have bled support regardless of what they were debating. If they declined to carry out their campaign promises, they would have lost support. If they cooperated with Republicans to continue or deepen Bush-era tax cuts for the rich -- the only policy upon which bipartisan cooperation was possible -- they may have bled somewhat less support because people like bipartisanship, but it would have been terrible policy.
You can make some counter-factual argument that never attempting to pass health care would have been a good political alternative, although you have to account for the massive liberal firestorm this would have provoked. You can make a better argument that passing health care quickly instead of spend month after month sitting on Olympia Snowe's doorstep would have been a shrewder plan. I think the conservative argument that, after investing months and months into health care, taking high profile votes in both chambers, it would have been shrewd to then abandon the whole thing to failure is transparently unconvincing. That's a recipe for absorbing almost all the costs of passing health care reform, getting none of the benefits, and driving your base wild with rage at you.
Of course, I can't prove that counter-factual, either. None of these counter-factuals is something that you can prove. But the method of saying that Democrats lost support during (very long) event X, therefore (very long) event X caused them to lose support, is not a persuasive argument.
8 comments
The lousiest part is it didn't have to be this way, with HCR causing the damage that it may have done. The WH lost the debate way too soon, sitting on the sidelines while the hysterical liars cried "death panels" and the like. Maybe in the end the WH shouldn't have pursued HCR. Let the system collapse just to show Americans how well the private sector always is in making outcomes that are the best for society. In other words, like Ray Davies said 30 years ago, "Give the people what they want. The more they want, the more they need, and everytime they get harder and harder to please."
- tnmats
August 31, 2010 at 10:38am
the combination of the stimulus package followed by health care reform, a one-two punch, as drafted by the out-of-touch liberals in the House, e.g., Waxman, is how the Dems lost the Independents in 2009 . The WH outsourced both, and now all Democrats except those like Waxman in their gerrymandered safe districts reap that whirlwind. The Dems should have started with the Wyden-Bennett health care plan, AFTER a serious stimulus plan that did not throw in so many longterm projects. That is what Harry Truman or LBJ would have done. "massive liberal firestorm" of what, 20% of the voters who call themselves liberal?
- K2K
August 31, 2010 at 11:06am
- RCP has two graphs that suggest a different narrative for the past 18 months for Obama and congress. First, Congressional Job Approval reveals the best congress could achieve was a 52 negative in March of '09. Their disapprove number climbed until it hit the mid 60's in October of '09 and remained in the 60's (disapprove) until February '10 when disapprove shot to the 70's and held steady for the past eight months. The other chart, President Obama Job Approval shows he began with a disapproval in the low 30's and held it for two quarters. It rose to the 40's in July '09, but held steady for a year. Obama's higher disapproval v. approval only appeared in the last two months and he still kept his disapproval to the high forties as congress has been in the seventies most of the year. I doubt a single bill is responsible for congress's trend from bad to worse. And yes, the effect of the siege by Republicans can be seen on Obama's numbers. Their problem? Win or lose in November, the GOP will realize they can't help themselves without boosting Obama's numbers. And they will need to polish their reputation. The formula that managed to push his negatives past the high forties has left them in the 70's. Not smart. In this game of brinkmanship, the GOP is closer to the cliff than Barack so it would be wise for them to quit pushing.
- michaelg
August 31, 2010 at 12:30pm
I like your caution when it comes to causality, Jonathan. It is a harsh taskmaster and difficult to figure, often enough. But none of this slows down conservative scribes and bloggers who are huge devotees of the Wehner Fallacy. One of the pleasures of reading the literature of the right, e.g., the Conservative Chronicle, Human Events, National Review, the Weekly Standard, is that the articles that they carry are frequently unintentionally funny. The pat little narratives, the precious sermonettes, the epistemic closure there, is too rich to be missed. Also, mailings from the Conservative Book Club strike me this way. Recently, they were hawking a DVD that blames the collapse of the financial system on the spirit of the 1960s. This is so hilarious I can't even imagine the "thinking" behind it. There was just the teaser, so one can only imagine. The rightist rap on the 60s has always been that it was egalitarian, utopian, lawless, anti-materialistic, hedonistic .... wait, hold it right there, it was the hedonism of the Yippies that caused the Quants to go wild. You posts are getting denser by the day, K2K. So you are a fallen-away Democrat? Right at the time of epistemic closure and general lunacy on the right. It all makes so much sense. And Jonathan wasn't implying that the entire electorate is liberal, just that there would have been a huge firestorm on the port side if the health care bill would not have passed. Who can doubt that? Even with its passage, there is a lot of discontent with Barack Obama on the left and there is the lack of motivation on the part of so many liberal voters. Finally, I would wager 1k right now that you have health care coverage and damn good coverage, to boot.
- liberal reformer
August 31, 2010 at 12:38pm
- On planet K2K, "The WH outsourced both [stimulus & HCR].". Would that be China or India? No, K2K thinks the US Senate was the place to go but "The Dems should have started with the Wyden-Bennett health care plan". On planet K2K the Senate Finance Committee only needed the persuasion of K2K and they would have lined up behind the Healthy Americans Act. I'll trust Ezra Klein who said, "The plan has a lot more fake support than it has real support. If every Republican who has co-sponsored [HAA] would commit to voting for it, the plan might pass. But they haven't.".
- michaelg
August 31, 2010 at 3:10pm
The plan K2K is talking about is kind of like the same thing Paul Ryan is. It is a GOP talking point to show they have an "alternative." When push comes to shove, they never actually vote for it.
- MikeB.
August 31, 2010 at 3:40pm
Jonathan, I agree with most of what you wrote -- it's just debunking the Wehner Fallacy -- but here's one area where I disagree: "If they cooperated with Republicans to continue or deepen Bush-era tax cuts for the rich -- the only policy upon which bipartisan cooperation was possible -- they may have bled somewhat less support because people like bipartisanship, but it would have been terrible policy." Not quite. If Democrats had cooperated with Republicans in their pursuit to deepen the Bush tax cuts, we'd have 12% unemployment right now. Democrats, who hold the majority and have the responsibility to pass legislation, would be even less popular than they are today. That trope that "it's always the economy, stupid" just won't die. ...
- jimbomoron
August 31, 2010 at 3:59pm
Extending the Bush tax cuts would have been terrible policy but it is ludicrous to asseverate that unemployment would be 2.5% higher than it is now if this would have happened. Sometimes reading this site is like reading right-wing publications. We can assert anything, we will assert anything!
- liberal reformer
August 31, 2010 at 5:22pm