Aug 28th 2009

Stuck In a Moment You Can't Get Out Of

by Bill Schneider

Bill Schneider, a leading U.S. political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow and Resident Scholar at Third Way and the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor Public Policy at George Mason University in Washington, D.C. He has been CNN's senior political analyst since 1990. He is also a contributing editor to National Journal and The Atlantic Monthly. Schneider has been labeled ``the Aristotle of American politics'' by The Boston Globe. Campaigns and Elections Magazine called him "the most consistently intelligent analyst on television.'' He is a member of the CNN political team that was awarded an Emmy for its 2006 election coverage and a Peabody for its 2008 coverage.

How did everything fall apart so quickly?

After the first 100 days, President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress were on top of the world. The President's job ratings were in the 60s. In the Pew Research Center poll, Democrats had a 19-point edge in favorability over Republicans (59 percent favorable for Democrats, 40 percent for Republicans).

By August, the President's job approval had dropped to 51 percent in the Pew poll and the NBC News poll. The Democrats' lead over the Republicans in favorability had dropped to 9 points -- entirely because of a sharp drop in positive opinion of the Democratic Party.

It's not the economy, stupid. While the nation's economic gloom has certainly not lifted, people don't think things have gotten markedly worse. In the August Washington Post-ABC News poll, more people said President Obama's economic program was making the economy better (43 percent) rather than worse (23 percent). And more Americans expect the recession to be over in the next year (28 percent in February, 49 percent in August).

The problem is health care, of course. By every available measure, confidence in President Obama's health care policy has diminished. In the Post-ABC poll, Americans approved the President's handling of health care by nearly two to one in April (57 to 29 percent). Now they narrowly disapprove, 50 to 46. In the NBC poll, the number who think President Obama's health care plan is "a bad idea'' went from 26 percent in April to 42 percent in August. Only 36 percent now say it's "a good idea.''

President Bill Clinton's experience stands as a warning to Democrats. During Clinton's first two years in office, the economy actually got better. The unemployment rate dropped from 7.4 percent when Clinton got elected in 1992 to 5.6 percent in November 1994. And so what? The Democrats still got blown away in the 1994 midterm. Not because of the economy, but because of voter anger over taxes and gun control and gays in the military and midnight basketball and, above all, health care.

The big surprise is that the backlash over health care reform came as such a surprise. The force of voter anger seemed to astound both parties. President Obama's formidable political movement failed to mobilize until the threat was in their face. Some Republicans seemed ready to work with the Administration until they saw the ferocity of the protesters. Those who believe the protests were staged by the GOP are giving the Republican Party too much credit. They're not that well organized.

It's not that the public rejects health care reform. It's still a popular idea. The Kaiser Health Care poll continues to show solid support for requiring all Americans to have health insurance, with subsidies for those who can't afford it (68 percent). And the public favors requiring employers to offer health insurance to their workers (68 percent). People even support the idea of a public option -- "a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans'' (59 percent).

When asked specifically about changes to the health care system being proposed by President Obama and Congress, the public is split. But what matters is not just numbers. It's intensity. And the opposition is more intense: 40 percent say they're "strongly'' opposed while 27 percent are "strongly'' supportive." In the Pew poll, 38 percent of Republicans say they'd be angry if health care reform passes. Only 13 percent of Democrats say they'd be angry if health care reform fails.


Why did this happen?

Recriminations have already started. The Obama Administration overcompensated for President Clinton's failure 15 years ago. President Obama did not turn the issue over to a secretive task force headed by an unelected First Lady and a team of policy wonks (remember Ira Magaziner?). Instead, Obama let the Democrats in Congress come up with a plan. Or more precisely, several plans, all making their way through congressional committees. That approach gave the President more options and greater flexibility. But he has no actual proposal for Democrats to rally around. No one is sure if President Obama even intends to fight for a public option.

Recriminations are, of course, a favorite Washington pastime, but the real reasons for the backlash are deeply rooted in American culture. In two places, to be precise -- ideology and psychology.

Distrust of government is a core value of American populism. The people are "us.'' Government is "them.'' Distrust of government is embedded in the Constitution, which was written by men who disliked central government (King George III) and intended it to be as weak as possible. Hence, the elaborate system of checks and balances and separation of powers and the many ways in which decisive action can be blocked. In fact, the Constitution replaced an earlier document, the Articles of Confederation, in which government was so weak it was unworkable.

Distrust of government is a principle of faith among conservatives these days, but the sentiment is not limited to the right. For the first century of American politics, Democrats were the anti-government party. Then, as now, Democrats were the party of the poor and the oppressed, but government was then seen as a bastion of privilege. Reaganism can't hold a candle to Thomas Jefferson's and Andrew Jackson's attacks on centralized power. What changed was the discovery -- first by Progressives, then by New Deal Democrats -- that government could be used to attack privilege and promote economic and social justice.

The scholar Seymour Martin Lipset used the analogy of loaded dice to describe how values work. Once certain values are loaded by defining historical experiences, they will come up again and again and shape later events. That is happening now with health care reform. The anti-government backlash started building up even before Barack Obama became President, when President Bush endorsed the Wall Street bailouts. The backlash intensified with the automobile industry bailout, the economic stimulus plan, the energy bill and mounting deficits. Health care reform gave conservatives the opportunity to light the fuse.

The wonder is that American government actually does work, even though it was designed not to. It works when there is a crisis -- when an overwhelming sense of public urgency overwhelms blockages and lubricates the system. That is supposed to be the case now with health care. But it is not. Sure, there's sense of crisis in the country, but it is over jobs more than health care. When Americans are asked to name the major problems facing the nation, the economy towers over everything else. Health care ranks third, after the economy and government spending.

That's where psychology comes into play. President Obama has put out a mighty effort to create a sense of crisis, warning voters about the cost of inaction. "If you're worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that's what's happening right now,'' the President said in his weekly address on August 15. In the NBC poll, only 24 percent of Americans said they thought the quality of their health care would get better if the Obama plan passes. Forty percent thought it would get worse.

Americans overwhelmingly say they're satisfied with their health care (83 percent in a CNN poll) and their health insurance (74 percent). A whopping 71 percent are satisfied with both. What's striking is that nearly half of that "satisfied majority'' still favor health care reform (44 percent in the CNN poll). They believe all Americans should be covered. Their view is, if people don't have health insurance, the government should see to it that they can get it, even if it means taxing the rich. But they see no reason why that means their own health care has to change.

The psychology of health care is not driven by economic rationality. People rarely choose a doctor or a hospital or a treatment based on price. (Medications, yes.) In the current health care system, costs are largely hidden from consumers. Try telling employees that their employer-paid health care benefits should be taxed as income. It's income they never see. Economists argue that rising health insurance costs for employers have been supressing wages for years. But most workers are unaware of the real and growing costs of those benefits. Somebody else pays most of them.

People's sense of security about their health care may be false and irrational. But it is real. Just like the warning Members of Congress hear over and over again from seniors at town hall meetings: "You tell the government to keep its hands off my Medicare!''

Does this mean President Obama's health care agenda is doomed? No. A lot of people continue to support reform, and the Democrats have solid majorities in Congress. They don't want to pull the plug on health care reform as the Democratic Congress did in 1994. For one thing, they don't want to bring down their own President. The failure of health care reform in 1994 forced President Clinton to shrink his agenda from big ambitions to protecting the safety net. For another thing, congressional Democrats know who paid the political price of failure in 1994. They did.

Some version of health care reform will very likely pass, possibly including a public option. But it will pass on a partisan vote. What's wrong with that? Democrats won spectacular victories in 2006, when they took control of Congress, and in 2008, when they took the White House. If that's not a mandate to govern, what is?

But for a major policy initiative to be politically secure, it needs a bipartisan base. Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which actually got a higher proportion of support from Republicans than from Democrats (in those days, there were still a lot of conservative southern Democrats). Any policy that passes on a partisan vote is subject to constant sniping and threats of reversal when the other party gains power.

President Obama will probably win on health care reform. But voter backlash has steeled the Republican Party to mount a full- scale opposition. Victory on health care will be a triumph of the partisan culture that President Obama pledged to defeat.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author, they do not represent the views of Third Way.

Published with kind permission of Third Way.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Feb 11th 2019
The first step to defending Europe from its enemies, both internal and external, is to recognize the magnitude of the threat they present. The second is to awaken the sleeping pro-European majority and mobilize it to defend the values on which the EU was founded. Otherwise, the dream of a united Europe could become the nightmare of the twenty-first century.
Feb 7th 2019
Watching a sophisticated democratic society knowingly walk into a predictable and avoidable national disaster is a rare and alarming experience. Most British politicians are well aware that leaving the European Union with no agreement on the post-Brexit relationship will cause enormous damage to their country. They are not sleepwalking into the abyss; their eyes are wide open. A minority of deluded ideologues doesn’t mind the prospect of Britain crashing out of the EU with no deal. A few chauvinist dreamers on the right, egged on by sections of the press, believe that the bulldog spirit of Dunkirk will overcome early setbacks and Great Britain will soon rule the waves again as a great quasi-imperial power, albeit without an empire. Neo-Trotskyists on the left, including Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, seem to think that catastrophe will spur the British people to demand true socialism at last.
Feb 4th 2019
We’re off to the races - the 2020 presidential races, that is. Since the beginning of the year, at regular intervals, new candidates have been coming forward to announce their intention to compete for the presidency. Some are interesting and/or exciting, while others frankly leave me scratching my head and asking “What are they doing? How on earth do they think they’re going to be elected?”      
Jan 29th 2019
Extract: "As it happens, on that Friday night when Trump buckled, I was at a restaurant where Pelosi and her husband, Paul, were dining with another couple. When the House Speaker left her table, customers and staff alike applauded her. A waitress standing beside me was nearly in tears. She choked out, “We need someone who will fight for us.” "
Jan 28th 2019
Recognizing that opinion in Parliament is moving strongly against leaving the EU on the terms proposed by May, with a growing number of members even in favor of a second referendum to test whether we should leave at all, some right-wingers have flirted with the idea of trying to close down the House of Commons for a time. They want the government to be able to get its own way without any democratic opposition. It is a sign of their desperation to get Britain out of the EU whatever the constitutional or economic cost. Is May prepared to get to grips with this? If she runs away from the task, despite growing Parliamentary unease about the path we are on, Britain is in big trouble.
Jan 25th 2019
At the end of last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had completed final testing of an “invincible” new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, the “Avangard,” calling it “the best New Year gift” for his country. With Putin seeming to up the ante on his increasingly frequent doomsday rhetoric, should the world be bracing itself for a nuclear conflict?................In recent months, popular support for Putin in Russia has declined sharply, with his approval rating falling from over 76% to 66% in the second half of last year. At the same time, a kind of neo-medieval thinking, focused on the restoration of autocratic monarchy and the supremacy of the Orthodox Church, has been gaining prominence in Russia. Putin’s fire-and-brimstone rhetoric may actually reflect the mindset of these fundamentalists, who view nukes as a “practical solution” to the world’s problems.
Jan 24th 2019
Over the past three decades I wrote more than two hundred articles about Israel, envisioning it to be a democratic state, independent and free, a champion of human rights, a force of unity for world Jewry, united in its citizenry, admired by its friends, envied by its detractors, and above all at peace with the Arab states and especially with the Palestinians. My vision about Israel was founded on my deep sense of the Jews’ turbulent and tragic history and their yearning for a home of their own in which to live in peace and security. As the years went by, I became increasingly disillusioned with Israel’s endemic political disunity, its inability to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, the growing public complacency, the loss of the country’s unity of purpose, and the abandonment of its moral responsibility.
Jan 22nd 2019
China’s strategy for economic growth has been a work in progress since Deng Xiaoping launched the country’s “reform and opening up” in 1978. While the last 40 years of reform have been far from error-free, the government has displayed a willingness to adapt, as well as a capacity for navigating complex transitions, supported by a healthy internal policy debate. But how is China’s development model likely to evolve in the future, as external conditions pose new challenges to economic growth? A defining feature of China’s four decades of reform has been the state’s evolving role in the economy, about which there is still significant domestic disagreement. Some argue that the state – and, by extension, the Communist Party of China (CPC) – must retain a prominent role, in order to uphold the social stability needed to sustain economic development. Others claim that spurring the innovation needed to reach high-income status requires the state to be less like a market participant and more like a referee, regulator, and arbiter of economic and social priorities.
Jan 16th 2019
Consumer studies academics have been picking up on changing habits for a number of years. This includes an increased ambivalence towards consumption itself: people are buying less often and less overall. This is particularly true in the clothing industry, where research shows that millenials are especially unforthcoming – even after you factor in the shift to online retail. A lack of bricks and mortar did not, for instance, prevent online fashion retailer Asos from shocking the City with a profit warning shortly before Christmas. The American car industry is another harbinger of generational change: sales are stalling because younger people seem less interested in ownership. The average age of a new car buyer in the US was 50 in 2015. Or to give one more example, witness Apple’s recent trading problems. People are not only opting for cheaper smartphones, but they are keeping them for longer. If the world’s first company to pass the trillion dollar value mark is showing signs of struggling, we ought to take note.
Jan 15th 2019
[Eurozone] trades mainly within itself, re-invests its own savings, and doesn’t rely on large transfers into or out of other regions. So if another financial or commercial shock sends the rest of the world running backwards, the unloved single currency area may defy gravity as stubbornly as it resists reform.
Jan 11th 2019
Nine years ago, Britain generated nearly 75% of its electricity using natural gas and coal. In 2018, this dropped to under 45% – a remarkable transition away from fossil fuels in under a decade.:
Jan 10th 2019
What would have to happen for this to be a tranquil year economically, financially, and politically? Answer: a short list of threats to stability would have to be averted.
Jan 9th 2019
In the past, the US, despite all its own flaws and criminal conflicts, still stood as a force for good. An ideal of American openness and democracy was still worthy of admiration. At the same time, again as in the case of Western Europe, dependence on US military protection has had a less positive affect. It made Japan into a kind of vassal state; whatever the Americans wanted, Japan ends up having to do. This can have an infantilizing effect on politics. In the age of Trump, America is no longer so dependable. This might at least help to concentrate Japanese minds on how to get on in the world without the Americans. But the US has also ceased to be a model of freedom and openness. On the contrary, it has become an example of narrow nationalism, xenophobia, and isolationism. Japanese nationalists need no encouragement to follow this model. If they do so, Trump certainly will not stand in their way. They will echo the worst aspects of contemporary America – and throw away the best of what the US once had to offer.
Jan 8th 2019
Swedish academic Hans Rosling has identified a worrying trend: not only do many people across advanced economies have no idea that the world is becoming a much better place, but they actually even think the opposite. This is no wonder, when the news focuses on reporting catastrophes, terrorist attacks, wars and famines. Who wants to hear about the fact that every day some 200,000 people around the world are lifted above the US$2-a-day poverty line? Or that more than 300,000 people a day get access to electricity and clean water for the first time every day? These stories of people in low-income countries simply doesn’t make for exciting news coverage. But, as Rosling pointed out in his book Factfulness, it’s important to put all the bad news in perspective.
Jan 3rd 2019
If hardline Brexiteers aren’t willing to do what it takes to maintain a frictionless border with the EU in Ireland, they need to acknowledge the likely consequences. Northern Ireland will then want to choose, in a referendum, whether to remain in the UK or to unify with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member.........Such a step would be allowed under the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended the civil war and included a promise from the UK, Ireland, and the EU to keep regulations aligned across Ireland. Indeed, that deal leaves open the possibility of a reunified Ireland, if majorities in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland decide, by referendum, that that is what they want. In 2016, Northern Ireland voted by a clear margin of 56%-44% to remain in the EU. Though the minority Conservative government is being propped up by the ten MPs representing Northern Ireland’s pro-Brexit Democratic Unionist Party, an even larger majority of Northern Irish voters would probably choose the EU today..........Last June, when asked about business leaders’ fears over Brexit, Johnson infamously declared, “Fuck business.” If he were honest, he would apply the same crude dismissiveness to Northern Ireland and Scotland. At least then it would be clear where the Brexiteers actually stand.
Jan 3rd 2019

Many years ago, I came across an pre-Islamic Arabic poem describing a camel running across the desert. Suddenly, the camel freezes in mid-stride.

Dec 28th 2018
Extract: "..........the eruption of the Yellow Vest protests [in France] was less about the fuel tax than what its introduction represented: the government’s indifference to the plight of the middle class outside France’s largest urban centers. With job and income polarization having increased across all developed economies in recent decades, the unrest in France should serve as a wake-up call to others............To be sure, France, like a number of other European countries, has its share of impediments to growth and employment, such as those rooted in the structure and regulation of labor markets. But any effort to address these issues must be coupled with measures that mitigate and eventually reverse the job and income polarization that has been fueling popular discontent and political instability."
Dec 27th 2018
A fog of political uncertainty hangs over Britain after Christmas. Only four things seem clear. First, the Conservative Party will have growing difficulty accommodating its fanatical English nationalist wing. Second, to save the UK from disaster, Parliament will have to get a grip on the process. Third, life outside the EU will, in any case, leave Britain poorer and less influential in the world. And, lastly, whatever the outcome, Brexit will be a divisive issue for years to come. The Brexiteers lied. The costs of leaving the EU were always destined to outweigh the benefits. Alas, the responsible, imaginative, and inclusive political leadership needed to minimize the damage is nowhere in sight.
Dec 19th 2018
Over the centuries, Jews have been blamed for all sorts of ills in Christian and Muslim societies, from the Great Plague of the fourteenth century to the financial crashes of modern times. In 1903, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, produced by Imperial Russia’s secret police, “exposed” a diabolical Jewish plot to achieve world domination by promoting liberalism – and became a pretext for anti-Semitism in Europe. These narratives endure to this day, only now they are being projected onto a single Jew: George Soros............A disciple of the philosopher Karl Popper, Soros has promoted open societies as the ultimate guarantee of freedom from tyranny and religious or ideological indoctrination.....
Dec 17th 2018
Theresa May has survived a vote of no confidence in her leadership but to quote the prime minister: “Nothing has changed.” The Conservative Party remains just as divided as it was before. While divisions over Europe have been very prominent recently, they have been a thorn in the side of the party leadership for many years now. That said, looking at the situation today it’s hard to imagine how these rival ideologies have managed to coexist within the same party for so long.