New Democrat Update - January 2010
THE TEST OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
Two big factors will have a lot to say about the political fate of Democrats in Colorado this coming November. The first is obviously the health of the economy. If unemployment starts to decrease in the near term, the mood of the electorate will improve and the party’s prospects will brighten considerably.
The other key factor will be how effectively Democrats at the federal and state levels have governed. Much of that will be determined by the public's perception of how well the country’s major problems are being addressed. A party, viewed as being in disarray, is not likely to inspire much confidence or support.
The economy is always a political wild card. While public policy plays a key and indispensable role (education, infrastructure, etc.), the large majority of jobs will be created by the private sector, driven by the mood and confidence of millions of consumers and investors here in the United States and, in this now-globalized economy, around the world.
The competence of a coalition is a more “controllable” variable. How the many different strains of the Democratic Party work together (or do not) will significantly influence how the public feels about us. Voters want to believe that adults are in charge.
Democratic cohesiveness was a much easier proposition during the days of the disastrous Bush administration and Republican Congress. As the Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne recently wrote, “The whole effort was summarized nicely by the party's slogan in 2006, ‘A New Direction for America.’ There was no need to specify north or south, east or west, up or down. Compared with Bush, any alternative destination seemed appealing.”
Now that we are running the federal government and State Capitol, delivering on promises, solving problems and improving the lives of everyday Americans are the criteria for continued success. Republican incompetence during the Bush administration had a lot to do with Democrats getting the chance to govern in the first place.
In the wide-spanning coalition that is the Democratic Party, pulling everyone around a coherent and effective governing agenda is no small task. Will Rogers was not kidding when he said that he did not belong to an organized political party (he was a Democrat). According to a Gallup poll taken in October 2009, Democrats are across-the-board when asked to describe their ideology. About 39 percent see themselves as moderate, 37 percent liberal and 22 percent conservative. In contrast, 72 percent of Republicans say that they are conservative, 24 percent moderate and four percent liberal.
In many ways, successfully tackling health care reform is the ultimate test of the Democratic coalition. Overhauling a complex and fragmented system to improve quality, curb rising costs, and cover more people, while contending with the many powerful interest groups that have a stake in the debate, is wired to be politically difficult.
There is a reason why it has not been solved since first brought up by President Theodore Roosevelt. There is a reason why the modern-day Republican Party avoided it like the plague when they were in power.
Those obstacles, combined with the wide ideological diversity of our party, a dysfunctional U.S. Senate and a Republican Party unwilling to reach across the aisle, ensures every progressive will not be entirely happy with whatever is the final product.
Nevertheless, today’s Democrats find themselves on the cusp of a dramatic and historic social achievement - a significantly more secure and inclusive health care system. The stakes are much too high for any part of our coalition to let their version of the perfect get in the way of the very doable good.
President Barack Obama said it best when he characterized the insurance reforms in the House and Senate bills as "a patient's bill of rights on steroids." The list of new protections is impressive, including coverage that can be counted on, prohibition of denials for pre-existing conditions, the end of increases in premiums or losing coverage when sickness strikes, no lifetime or annual limits on coverage, help with premiums when jobs or spouses are lost, free preventive care, discounts for healthy behaviors, and more.
Both versions also include “exchanges” that will make it easier to find the right plan for small firms and individuals who must buy their own health insurance. More financial assistance will be available for low-income families while a higher number of the very-poor will be eligible for Medicaid. The bills also start pushing Medicare (which should lead the rest of the system) toward reforms that improve quality and lower costs.
The focus of progressives now must be on picking and choosing the best from both bills and combining them into one measure that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President. For example, the House should accept the Senate’s “Cadillac” tax to discourage expensive health plans and squeeze more cost out of the system. In turn, the Senate should embrace the House’s higher premium subsidies for working families.
PROGRESSIVISM, NOT POPULISM
Strangely enough, rather than celebrating the good this measure will do and working to make it even better, many on the left, especially among those in the “netroots,” are sniping over what has or has not been included. Some are even advocating junking it and starting all over again. That would most likely mean putting off meaningful health care reform for at least another decade or maybe a generation. No one would be more pleased than hard-right Republicans in Congress.
Much of the disgruntlement has been over symbolism rather than substance. Too much has been made of some compromises that had to be made along the way - specifically, the restrictions placed on abortion coverage and the absence of a public option.
As National Journal columnist Ron Brownstein aptly argues, “there's little evidence the legislation would seriously constrain access to abortion, and the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has estimated that only about 6 million people would choose a public option. (It was equally irresponsible for the Senate centrists to threaten to sink the bill over such tangential provisions.) Even political scientist Jacob Hacker, widely considered the father of the public option, wrote this week that it ‘would be wrong’ to derail the bill because it still contains ‘vital reforms.’ ”
Since its birth, the netroots movement has been trying to turn the Democratic Party into a leftist version of Karl Rove’s Republican Party. They want Obama and other elected Democrats to be more “in the face” of the opposition and polarize our politics even more.
A “take-no-prisoners” approach focuses on the wrong target - the obstructionist GOP - and overlooks our real mission - improving the lives of the middle class and those less fortunate. Especially within a coalition party like ours that includes liberals, moderates and conservatives, an “all or nothing” mentality never moves the ball forward.
It is also wrong-headed politics to walk away from health care reform. Rank-and-file progressives, who have been consistently supporting the health care bill since last spring, would be deeply disappointed. Independent voters, who value competence above all else, would conclude that Democrats are incapable of running the country.
Politics in a democracy has been, and always will be, the art of the possible. "Knowing when to fold ‘em and when to hold ‘em" is the mark of a smart and mature coalition. Historically, level-headed progressives have always gotten much more done than angry, fire-breathing populists.
The time for venting over health care reform has passed. The time to deliver it is now.