JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 10, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Now this is the kind of Democratic primary challenge I can get behind:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Democrats in safe seats like Kucinich would be insane to vote against this bill. Of course, Kucinich is insane, but that's all the more reason to replace him with a Democrat who isn't.
Meanwhile, even non-Kucinich Democrats need some pressure. They all clearly have a strong political interest in passing. The trick is to get House members, especially ones who voted against the first bill, to support it this time around. As Karen Tumulty notes, Democrats who voted against the original bill have a collective action problem -- they badly need the measure to pass, but they'd prefer for it to pass while they vote no. The logical response for the Democratic base to do is threaten to defeat members who fail to support reform if the bill dies. This kind of thing is exactly what needs to happen:
In a series of conversations with the Huffington Post, many of labor's leading voices pledged to launch a massive, arm-twisting effort to help persuade skeptical lawmakers to pass health care legislation into law. And in addition to their traditional ammunition -- from email campaigns to town hall events -- talk also centered on exacting electoral revenge against those who end up voting against reform.
"I hope this sends a message to Congress," Gerald McEntee, president of 1.6-million-member AFSCME, told the Huffington Post. "I think we have to demonstrate that we are not going to stand aside, that we are going to take them out if they don't help us at all."
Normally I oppose this sort of friendly fire. But this is an extreme circumstance, and the Democratic base needs to let its representatives know that the they will intentionally work to defeat members who try to save their own skin in a way that just gets everybody (including themselves) killed. It's kind of like the logic of executing deserters in wartime: Yes, the enemy might shoot you if you fight, but we will shoot you if you don't. That tends to clarify the muddled incentive structure. I'd prefer that the Democrats not let this become standard operating procedure, which it basically is in the GOP, but unusual circumstances call for unusual measures.
6 comments
A strategy shown to be successful at Stalingrad. If you attacked, the Germans would shoot you. If you retreated, the NKVD would shoot you. It worked for the Soviets; maybe it will work for the Democrats.
- lsernoff
March 10, 2010 at 11:04am
And defeated the Nazis.
- ironyroad
March 10, 2010 at 11:32am
Stalingrad. How horribly apt. Of course, that makes us the Soviets. Let's hope it doesn't have to be as bloody.
- ClumsyMohel
March 10, 2010 at 11:48am
Yes, but in 1942 they were on the same side as the U.S. I'm tempted to add "unlike today's Republicans," but I won't.
- ironyroad
March 10, 2010 at 12:48pm
Eric Massa of the 29th District in NY says this plan is already afoot.
- drbobi
March 10, 2010 at 1:06pm
I'm usually opposed to DINO-hunting -- I think it does more harm than good -- but I agree with Jonathan that HCR is an issue of extraordinary importance which calls for extraordinary measures. Ideologically, this bill is what the Democratic party is all about, and while it is far from perfect, any Democrat who opposes it is outside the pale. Politically, defeat of HCR would be devastating for the Party in general -- the political future of individual Democratic seats is, frankly, of secondary importance. Any Democrat who opposes the Senate bill ought to be primaried. No one who votes "no" should receive DCCC support. And prominent Dems who oppose HCR should be stripped of committee chairmanships (Ike Skelton, are you listening?)
- snsinger
March 10, 2010 at 3:33pm