JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 28, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In the middle of a generally persuasive column about Mitch McConnell, Ezra Klein makes a point I disagree with:
Withholding minority-party votes forces the majority party to hand its most moderate members — and the most moderate members of the other party — an effective veto, which drags the legislation substantively to the center, and in the current situation, to the right.
Health-care reform was more conservative than it would have been if more Republicans had been willing to support it.
I actually think McConnell's tactic of blanket opposition caused health care reform to be more liberal. McConnell successfully persuaded his entire caucus not to negotiate, and moderate Democrats, who were desperate for bipartisan cover, spent months fruitlessly pursuing bipartisanship anyway. After the Massachusetts special election, huge swaths of the Democratic caucus were ready to take half a loaf, or perhaps just a slice. Republicans wouldn't offer even a token gesture like expanded coverage for children. McConnell kept jacking up the stakes and making it an all-or-nothing choice.
Politically, that choice worked very well. The health care legislative process dragged out for a year and its public image drowned in a procedural morass. The GOP gained a lot of eats in the midterms. McConnell could have taken a much smaller substantive defeat by cutting a deal with Democratic moderates, at the cost of minimizing his political gain. He chose otherwise.
8 comments
As they say around the University of Maryland: Fear the Turtle
- Jonas
June 28, 2011 at 1:05pm
I don't know Jonathan. After the 2008 wipeout, there were voices that said the GOP needed to be a modern party that could win back independents. They didn't take that route. Instead they took the Mitch route of simply becoming complete amoral sociopaths. Even if today the GOP is less popular with the people than the Democrats, it doesn't matter. He has a base of Red State Senators that will be there representing a small part of the population but have enormous power. Sure he may lose here and there. But this guy took the tactic of I don't care if I contradict myself from 10 seconds ago, or if I lie through my teeth repeatedly every time I talk, I will oppose Obama. Can we really say it failed? No good deed goes unpunished and crime does pay. It seems to be paying off. Even if Obama gets a deal it will be heavily geared toward GOP priorities.
- MikeB.
June 28, 2011 at 1:17pm
When the Democrats passed the 1992 tax increases, they were vilified, disaster was widely predicted, and they lost the 1994 election, letting the Newt Gingrich "Contract with America" do-nothing congress in. Now, that rapid turn-around was based on raising taxes and predicted disaster. I fervently hope the Republicans will see a similar rapid turn-around based on Ryan-Care and the policies they've pursued since December 2010. 1992 shows it CAN happen. I hope it happens THIS time not because of the disaster the Republicans are predicting, but because of the disaster the Republicans are creating themselves. Because if the Democrats don't keep the Presidency, and the Senate majority, AND take back the House, I see no other way to prevent the Republicans from making the financial crisis under Bush-II look like a mere prolog for the REAL disaster.
- AllanL5
June 28, 2011 at 1:53pm
Precisely, J. The Republicans forswore a seat at the table and thereby, the PPACA wound up more liberal than it might have been.
- liberalref
June 28, 2011 at 2:55pm
I think whether the ACA would be more or less conservative with Republican input is speculative because it would depend on what was extracted by the Republicans. Obama may have been so eager for a bipartisan bill that he might have been willing to sign his name to a dead fish, if it was served on a plate with a donkey and an elephant glazed into the design.
- Nusholtz
June 28, 2011 at 3:03pm
One thing I'd point out is that the Republicans can do this only because they enjoy a monopoly of opposition. With that monopoly, they can unilaterally withhold bipartisanship from the governing party, thus making the governing party appear partisan. By contrast, in a multi-party system, no one opposition party can unilaterally withhold multi-partisanship from the governing party and any attempt to do so would quickly get that party identified as partisan. It is possible to become a multi-party system. The first step is to abolish plurality voting.
- sighthnd
June 28, 2011 at 5:20pm
"It is possible to become a multi-party system. The first step is to abolish plurality voting." Pray tell... How exactly would you about doing that?
- wkwami
June 28, 2011 at 7:55pm
"The GOP gained a lot of eats in the midterms." And getting themselves fed is, as we all know, job one for the GOP. Just look at Chris Christie. I would be interested to know, though, exactly what kind eats they gained. A whole container-load of Doritos? Denny's Grand Slam breakfasts for the entire Republican caucus every day for a year?
- AaronW
June 28, 2011 at 8:37pm