SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home How to Sell the Darn Thing

WILLIAM GALSTON MARCH 24, 2010

How to Sell the Darn Thing

Sunday night’s House vote on health reform clarified the contours of the mid-term elections. The contest has been nationalized, with two dominant issues—the economy and health care—and one overriding theme: the proper role of government.

The administration and Democratic congressional leaders should not believe that the new health care legislation will speak for itself. In fact, the debate over the next eight months may well be as robust and consequential as was the debate during the past eight months. If the public can be persuaded to modulate its doubts about the wisdom of health reform, House Democrats may be able to minimize their losses, as the Republicans did in 1982. If not, the results could resemble the catastrophe of 1994.

Three recent surveys define the challenge Democrats face between now and November. In a Pew Research Center survey released last Thursday, only 38 percent of the respondents said that they favored the health care bills currently in Congress, while 48 percent were opposed. A CNN survey made public on March 22 showed an even more negative reaction: 39 percent in favor and 59 percent opposed. Although the March Kaiser Health Tracking poll found somewhat more support for the pending congressional legislation, it showed that only 42 percent of the people wanted an up-or-down vote on that legislation; 36 percent said Congress should go back to the drawing board, and 20 percent wanted Congress to drop the topic entirely. A plurality of 45 percent favored a bipartisan approach over a Democrats-only bill. Forty-one percent believed that the proposed bill would force them to change their existing health care arrangements. Only 35 percent thought it would make them and their family better off; 32 percent said worse off, and 28 percent said no difference.  (Again, the CNN survey was even more negative: 47 percent of respondents thought it would make them and their families worse off, and only 19 percent expected to be better off.) Fifty-five percent of the Kaiser respondents and 70 percent of the CNN respondents thought the bill would increase the budget deficit—a significant finding in light of rising public concern about our fiscal future.

A Gallup survey released this Tuesday, after the bill’s passage, paints a somewhat rosier picture for Democrats: 49 percent said it was a “good thing” the bill passed, with 40 percent calling it a “bad thing.” Democrats were overwhelmingly satisfied (82 to 11), Republicans dissatisfied (79 to 16), while independents were split down the middle, 45 satisfied to 47 not. Nonetheless, there were signs of a continuing gap in motivation between the bill’s proponents and detractors. Only 29 percent of Democrats described themselves as “enthusiastic” about the bill’s passage, versus 41 percent of Republicans who said they were “angry.” Among independents, 20 percent were angry, versus 10 percent enthusiastic.

So where is the opening for the Democratic counterargument? There are four areas of opportunity. First, the Kaiser poll has long shown a strong plurality (often a majority) supporting the proposition that the country as a whole would be better off if Congress passed health reform, and voters often ask “How are we doing?” not just “How am I doing?”

Second, both surveys suggest that the public regards the congressional legislation as superior overall to the status quo. Pew reports that while 51 percent think that health care costs would increase if the proposal passed, 63 percent think costs would increase if it didn’t. And according to Kaiser, far more think that key areas—health care costs, access to insurance, and quality of care—would improve with reform than with the status quo.

Third, there are appealing features of health reform that begin quickly and will make a tangible difference in the lives of individuals and families—among them, allowing young adults to remain on parents’ policies until age 26 and eliminating preexisting conditions as grounds for denying coverage to children.

And finally, despite their current adverse judgment about the health reform bill, Americans continue to trust President Obama and the Democrats on this issue more than they do the Republicans. Even the CNN survey, while strongly negative about the politics of the bill overall, found President Obama more trusted than congressional Republicans by a margin of 51 to 39 percent, and congressional Democrats more trusted than congressional Republicans by 45 to 39 percent.

Half a century ago, political scientists Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril observed that while Americans are ideologically conservative, they are operationally liberal. If the debate between now and November is generic—about the role of government—Democrats will probably lose. If the debate is more specific—comparing the bill to the status quo and pointing out its concrete advantages—the public’s view may well become much more favorable.

One thing is clear: Democrats will have to be more focused and effective in the next eight months than they were in the past eight months. Their wobbly, ever-changing rationale for health care reform nearly undermined the entire effort. To raise their game, the White House and congressional Democratic leadership would be well advised to take a page from the standard Republican playbook: decide on the key points to emphasize, agree on punchy language to describe them, and stick to that script between now and November. In electoral politics, repetition is a necessary condition of persuasion.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 3 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

3 comments

We have just been through a period that demonstrated better than most the fact that public opinion can be swayed over a period of months through baldfaced lying and distortion. People (and many organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce) whose clear interests are served by health insurance reform have been convinced to oppose it by various combinations of mouthy ignorance and short term political calculation. Now we have authors like this one who seem to think the current transient pattern of ignorance-based have-conceived biases is some sort of geological fact upon which strategy can be based. The key to the Democrats hopes in the November elections rests with whatever potential leadership and proactive messaging may have, not on this sort of braindead persevoration about poll numbers.

- bwkling

March 24, 2010 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They can't do it, at least not any better than pigs fly. Because they cannot shut up, and they aren't sufficiently self-aware to know they are (and this may come as a shock to children) dumb. If Obama (i.e., Emanuel) couldn't develop a narrative (it was very late and not particularly good), how can we expect Senators and Members to do it. Fuuny thing is, nobody has to be demonized, not even the insurers. I suspect everybody knows somebody who has been sick or injured (and even actually died!), so the entire population (at least those awake) is prone to be sympathetic. This is so easy, even a caveman could do it. But not the Democratic leadership. How about TNR keeping a tally of the insipid statements made by Democrats about HCR between now and the election. You will need a computer to keep count.

- raylward

March 24, 2010 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It may be possible to sell health care reform to enough of the American citizens to avoid a rout of the Democrats in November. But really, what difference does it make. The Democrats have grown the government sector over and over again and the Republicans have never rolled any of it back. They both have relied on the ability of people to lie to themselves: "I earned this Social Security check", "I paid for my Medicare", "Health care is a right and it will save money in the long run", "I earned this government pension and lifetime free health care." To hell with the producers and taxpayers; they're all chumps. Most people do not want to think of themselves as parasites. Yet more and more, they are. Senators and Congressmen, state legislators, and nearly all government employees and contractors are parasites in addition to the more obvious ones like welfare (in its hundreds of incarnations) recipients. Even if Republicans were to get a veto-proof majority, they will NOT roll back Obama-care. They will tinker with some of the provisions (many of which will not be significant) but mostly they will leave it in place. They will claim to have made it better and maybe they will but o nly at the slightest of margins; after all Republicans are like Democrats with a 10% discount. They campaign like libertarians but govern like Democrats (see Bush 41, Bush 43, McCain & Dole). Health care is not a right and cannot be unless you believe in slavery, which most politicians do, (they don't admit it and they just exempt themselves from the bad laws). My health care premiums will rise; my preferred catastrophe-only plan (which is the only part of health care "insurance" that is really insurance) will be illegal, my medicare taxes will increase, taxes on my investment income will increase, and probably my state taxes will increase. I already pay more than 50% of income in federal and state income taxes, social security, and medicare taxes. Add another significant amount for property taxes, business taxes (and as a freelance consultant with no employees, I am not really even a business), and other miscellaneous taxes and I pay the government about two-thirds of my income; I get to keep one-third, but that is too much for the Comrade-in-Chief and his commie-pinko buddies. And when I die, they'll take half of whatever is left. Even if I try to leave the country, they'll steel most of my savings before I leave so I's need to be willing to go with nothing but the clothes on my back. Is this a great country or what? The solution to the so-called health-care crisis is to rid ourselves of the cause of the problems — to dismantle governmental involvement in health care, especially Medicare and Medicaid. Only a complete separation of the state and the health-care market can permanently solve the problem. Instead of asking for free medicine from the state, we should be asking to free medicine from the state. Dale Ogden, Libertarian, 2010 Candidate for Governor of California; http://www.daleogden.org http://www.daleogden.net

- dalefogden

March 25, 2010 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close