The Heffalump Trap of Repeal, cont.

Speaking of Larison and impossibility of entitlement repeal, I thought he made an excellent — and oft-neglected point — about the deleterious political effect a repeal movement could have on the GOP:

After years and decades working to build a substantial Republican majority in both houses, most of these voters typically get little or nothing for all of their time and work, because the party does not actually represent the concrete interests of most of its voters, and then the discredited leadership that has misled them for years issues a rallying cry to give Republicans more power yet again. Frankly, health care repeal is another one of these political fantasies Republican and conservative leaders use to keep their supporters engaged and intent on turning out to vote. “Just keep voting Republican, and any day now we will repeal that awful health care bill…” Obviously, the party will have an incentive to reap the electoral rewards of whipping up the base while putting off repeal for as long as possible.

Proposing repeal without delivering it will keep the party’s supporters angry and mobilized, and the repeated disappointment of their expectations will actually lock them into supporting the GOP ever more reliably. In the meantime, the rest of the electorate adjusts and accommodates itself to the new entitlement, and repeal goes in a fairly short time from being a far-fetched but practical position to something that no elected representative from a competitive district would ever advocate.

After Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts, when it looked like Democrats were on the verge of completely abandoning the reform effort, activist Democrats threatened to abandon the party if it decided to go that route. And for good reason. Universal health insurance was a long-time goal of the Democratic Party, and if the party couldn’t use it’s majority to pursue it’s chief domestic policy priority, then what reason was there for supporting Democratic candidates in the future?

The same goes for Republicans if they decide to whip the base into a frenzy over the possibility of repeal. Repeal is virtually impossible, and while it’s tactically smart to motivate the base by way of repeal, it might not be beneficial in the long-term, given the high likelihood that Republican leaders will not seriously pursue repeal (thus demoralizing their base even further).

The Heffalump Trap of Repeal

In the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol offers comically bad sage advice to his Republican fellow-travelers:

The editors of National Review sensibly counsel conservatives, in the wake of last night’s victory for Obamacare: “‘Nil desperandum’–never despair.” I agree, though I’m more inclined to the mock-Latin motto of the Harvard band: “Illegitimi non carborundum”–don’t let the bastards get you down.

Why not? Because we can repeal it.

As National Review’s editors explain (and see also the strong Wall Street Journal editorial this morning), this legislation “will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.” So it will–if it is allowed to go into effect.

Luckily, key parts of Obamacare–especially the subsidies–don’t go into effect until 2014. So what Republicans have to do is to make the 2010 and the 2012 elections referenda on Obamacare, win those elections, and then repeal Obamacare.

Barring a drastic change in the institutions of the Senate, the same obstacles that kept Democrats from passing a more left-wing, more robust version of health care reform will keep Republicans from repealing the moderate, modest status-quo. As Matt Yglesias noted earlier today, it is mathematically impossible — at least in the immediate future — for Republicans to assemble the 60 votes necessary to repeal health care reform in the Senate, as well as the 67 necessary to sustain a veto. In the House, Republicans would have to win at least 30+ seats to repeal to health care reform and 90+ seats to sustain a veto (which assuming party unity and support from anti-reform Democrats).

This shouldn’t come as a shock — given his reputation for rank dishonesty — but Bill Kristol is selling Republicans a huge bill of goods about repeal. Not only is repeal a legislative impossibility, but Republicans are courting electoral disaster if they insist on pushing repeal to the forefront of their messaging strategy. As Daniel Larison astutely pointed out this morning, new entitlements create new constituencies for their perpetuation, and because this entitlement affects very American — by way of the tight regulations on insurers — it is very likely that Americans will have a fairly positive view of the legislation by the time November comes around. Beyond that, campaigning for repeal gives Democrats a near-endless supply of anti-Republican ammunition, “While I was protecting families from losing their health insurance, Rep. [Blank] was working tirelessly to help insurers deny coverage to your mother/child/etc.”

Structural reasons — unemployment, anti-incumbency sentiment, the cyclical nature of American politics — will ensure Republican gains this fall. But the GOP ought to be careful about how it moves forward; with health care reform on the president’s desk, Democrats are in a much stronger position than they were last week. If the economy continues to improve, if Democrats score a few more legislative victories, and if Republicans carry on with their anti-reform message, then there is a strong chance that the party will destroy their chances at a large and meaningful victory.

On to the Next One

I hate to cut the well-deserved celebration short, but it’s important to note that even with health care reform off the table (at least for now), there is still a mammoth-sized agenda on the president’s desk. Unemployment is still unacceptably high, our immigration system is broken, our tax structures are in desperate need in renovation, our infrastructure is crumbling, and we’re still fighting two wars.

For what it’s worth, I think immigration reform ought to be President Obama’s next target. Yesterday, more than 150,000 people marched on Washington to demand comprehensive immigration reform, and for good reason. Our decades-long strategy of border militarization has been a clear failure; since 1992, the U.S. Border Patrol’s budget has increased by more than 700 percent. Yet the number of undocumented immigrants on American soil has tripled to 12 million during that same period. The Center for American Progress a great report detailing a progressive strategy for comprehensive immigration reform that’s worth reading in full. As the report’s authors detail, dealing with illegal immigration effectively, fairly and humanely requires coordinated action in a huge number of areas, from border control, to workplace enforcement (cracking down on employers, especially), to a concerted effort to streamline our utterly dysfunctional system for legal immigration.

At present, the Senate is actually working on an immigration bill. And as the Prospect’s Gabriel Arana details, the Schumer-Graham blueprint for immigration reform is a problematic and half-hearted attempt that doesn’t actually address the underlying issues. Given the high likelihood that Democrats will demand a bipartisan bill, it is critical that activists and allies jump into the debate as soon as possible, in order to move it towards something far more reasonable — and far more just — than biometric cards and deportations.

Political writers should try reading political science sometime

On Twitter, Ned Resnikoff (a long time Friend of the Blog) flagged this column by Kathleen Parker which demonstrates, for the umpteenth time, the degree to which most political commentators are completely ignorant of basic research on political behavior:

Another movement percolating right in front of our noses seems to be equally invisible to establishment eyes. Independents — neither right nor left but smack dab in the broad middle — today constitute 42 percent of the electorate, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll.

Approximately 70 million strong, these are America’s new homeless class, people who are equally disgusted with both traditional parties and the special interests that control them. They’re all ages, sexes, races, ethnicities, though younger Americans are crowding the front rows. Of those born after 1977, 44 percent identify as independent.

Independents as a group outnumber either party, in other words. Yet, given the hyperpartisanship that began under George W. Bush — and has accelerated during President Obama’s first year, thanks in large part to the enabling mechanism of the Internet — one would think that America were divided into hard left and hard right.

We’re not. We’re a vast middle, slightly right-of-center nation. How is it that so many feel so disenfranchised by so few?

As I’ve said many — many — times before, this simply isn’t true. As John Sides pointed out a while back, “When asked a follow-up question, the vast majority of independents state that they lean toward a political party.” Moreover, these “independent leaners” are almost behaviorally identical to partisans. In 2008, almost 75 percent of independent leaners voted for the presidential candidate of their preferred party, which varies only slightly from election to election.

As far as independents are concerned, it’s not that they don’t have partisan ideological commitments, it’s that they’re reluctant to admit to having partisan ideological commitments. The sooner pundits can figure this out, they sooner they can write political analysis that actually bears some resemblance to reality.

That was the night everything changed…

First thing’s first: last night the House of Representatives passed one of the most monumental pieces of social legislation in recent American history. Not only have we stepped on the road to insuring 32 million Americans, but we have declared — from here on out — that health care is a right Americans deserve and not a privilege they afford.

Obviously, I don’t expect conservatives to be particularly jubilant about this outcome. And I’m not surprised! I would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot. But it’s one thing to feel disappointment; it’s an entirely different thing to let that disappointment explode into disingenuous madness, as it has in Megan McArdle’s case:

One cannot help but admire Nancy Pelosi’s skill as a legislator. But it’s also pretty worrying. Are we now in a world where there is absolutely no recourse to the tyranny of the majority? Republicans and other opponents of the bill did their job on this; they persuaded the country that they didn’t want this bill. And that mattered basically not at all. If you don’t find that terrifying, let me suggest that you are a Democrat who has not yet contemplated what Republicans might do under similar circumstances.

[...]

If the GOP takes the legislative innovations of the Democrats and decides to use them, please don’t complain that it’s not fair. Someone could get seriously hurt, laughing that hard.

Despite being something of a procedure nerd, I wasn’t aware that using majorities to pass legislation on a party-line vote was a “legislative innovation.” Likewise, I wasn’t aware of the rule requiring legislation to perfectly reflect public opinion. And on that note, in fact, I’m a little surprised to learn that the legislators themselves aren’t legitimate, despite having been elected by a majority of Americans in fair elections (or at least, as fair as we can make them).

Okay, snark aside, it’s actually not that uncommon for large legislation to pass Congress without broad public support (see Medicare) or overwhelming legislative majorities (see the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Pace McArdle, nothing has actually changed in the hours since the health care vote; American democracy will continue shambling along. The only thing different is that McArdle’s preferred party lost out, and that makes her sad.

Anti-abortion Democrats still hold the cards

I just read Michelle Goldberg’s most recent piece, and to second Matt Yglesias, it really is a great feminist case for the current health care bill (cheap shot at utilitarians notwithstanding). Here’s a taste:

The simple fact is that health-care reform, even with its awful provisions on abortion, will hugely improve the health of American women. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 17 million women are uninsured, and millions more are underinsured. “In 2008, one in seven privately insured women reported she postponed or went without needed care because she couldn’t afford it,” Kaiser reports. Women are more likely to rely on their spouse’s insurance coverage, leaving them vulnerable if they’re divorced or widowed, if their husband becomes old enough to qualify for Medicare, or if their partner’s employer decides to drop dependent coverage, which is happening with increasing frequency. As a study by the National Women’s Law Center found, “Overall, women are more likely than men to have difficulty obtaining needed health care (43% vs. 30%) — a difference more pronounced for uninsured women (68% vs. 49%).”

This reminds me of something I wrote a while back when I was guest-blogging for TAPPED. The post was called “The Case for Pro-Choice Republicans” and dealt with the irony behind the disproportionate influence of anti-abortion Democrats in the party coalition. Here are the relevant parts from the post:

Since the Democratic Party is the only major political party committed — however nominally — to reproductive rights, pro-choicers have had no other choice but to ally themselves with the party. Democrats can afford to sacrifice pro-choice priorities precisely because pro-choicers have no other choice but to work with the party.

The opposite is true for anti-abortion activists and politicians. Not only are anti-abortion voters an important part of the Republican Party coalition, they are an integral part of the Democratic Party’s large majority. As a result, anti-abortion politicians and activists have a huge amount of leverage over Democrats, because they can credibly threaten to withdraw their support for Democratic initiatives. It’s actually kind of ironic — Democrats won in 2006 by expanding the party to include minority viewpoints on reproductive rights, but by expanding the size of the Democratic tent and giving anti-abortion activists the option of leaving the Republican Party, they inadvertently gave them a whole lot more leverage and power than they previously had.

This is pretty much still the case, and unfortunately, I don’t think it will change anytime soon.

Glenn Greenwald needs more evidence for this one

Glenn Greenwald on whether or not progressives are chumps:

Again, whether progressives are doing the right thing by changing their minds and supporting the health care bill is a separate question from the one I’m discussing here. I never argued for this bill’s defeat, so that’s not my issue; I think that’s a reasonable debate to have. As I said, it perfectly reasonable to oppose something all along and then — one the process is over — decide [you'll] accept what you previously said you wouldn’t. But what’s not reasonable [is] to pretend that Emanuel wasn’t right in his core assumption about progressive behavior. Nobody likes to acknowledge their own powerlessness, but no good can come from shutting one’s eyes and pretending it’s not true. It’s a genuine problem that the threats and demands of progressives (for lack of a better term) aren’t taken seriously at all, and will be taken even less seriously now. Facing that problem is a prerequisite to finding a way to solve it.

I don’t think it’s that straightforward. Greenwald is right to say that progressives are weak relative to other members of the Democratic coalition, but he fails to take account of the fact that the strength of any faction comes vis a vis the issue itself. Rahm Emmanuel could confidently ignore progressive demands on health care reform because progressives are genuinely committed to health care reform. As Greenwald himself says in his post, even if your preferences lie further to the left, it’s difficult to oppose something that extends coverage to 30 million people, sharply limits the power of insurance companies to screw customers, and provides a basis for further reform.

The real test of progressive influence will come when the tables are turned and progressives hold the leverage in negotiations. How will the situation look when progressives are lukewarm about a proposal that centrists are enthusiastic about? Assuming progressives are critical votes, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the White House making concessions to the left side of the aisle, in order to pass legislation favorable to the right.

Of course, I could be wrong; progressives really could be huge chumps, and there might not be anything you can do to change that. But given that we haven’t really seen what happens when progressives are in a position to kill legislation, I don’t think it’s possible for Greenwald to make a broad, sweeping conclusion on the relative power of the progressive bloc.

Your Morning Anti-Filibuster Rant

Ross Douthat:

I think it’s a good thing that the countermajoritarian customs of the Senate, as adapted by the minority for a more ideological age, have made it very difficult to pass a sweeping overhaul of America’s de facto constitution. But I also think it’s appropriate that there exists, for an extremely determined but not-quite-super majority, mechanisms that allow legislators to overcome these hurdles and push a controversial piece of legislation through. “Hard but not absolutely impossible” seems like the right bar to set for a bill of this nature.

Maybe I’m a little bit of a radical here, but I honestly don’t see the use for any rule that holds up legislation for the sole purpose of allowing the minority to complain about it. The filibuster, even a reformed one, doesn’t make the process of legislating any more democratic — and judging from how the filibuster has been used for the last few years — it doesn’t actually make it any more deliberative, either. Eliminating the filibuster and making the Senate more majoritarian is far preferable to forcing majorities and minorities to engage in this awkward middle school slow-dance of obscure parliamentary manuevering.

Yes, by eliminating the filibuster, you heighten the risk that a majority would run roughshod over a minority, but not by much. The obstacles to parliamentary-style governance are huge. Not only are our institutions chock full of veto points (even without the filibuster!), but there’s also the issue of party discipline (even the highly disciplined Republican Party is a shadow of preternaturally disciplined European political parties), intra-party ideological disputes, and the regular business of legislating. In Jamelle’s ideal majoritarian world, senators will still need to contend with making deals, building coalitions, pacifying interest groups, and satisfying constituents. Besides, given that we already have one majoritarian legislature — the House of Representatives — and given that there are plenty other examples here and abroad, the fear that we will devolve into Athenian mob rule is really unfounded.

CBO releases its score of health care bill, Democrats rejoice

The Congressional Budget Office has released it’s score of the fixed Senate bill, and it’s good news all around (via Greg Sargent):

The score finds that the fixed Senate bill will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years, a senior Democratic aide confirms.

It will cut the deficit by $130 billion in that time, the aide adds.

Ezra Klein has more:

According to a Democratic source, CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. But here are the basic numbers: The bill will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years and reduce the deficit by $130 billion during that period. In the second 10 years — so, 2020 to 2029 — it will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. The legislation will cover 32 million Americans, or 95 percent of the legal population.

To put this in context, that’s more deficit reduction than either the House or Senate bill, and more coverage than the Senate bill.

This is easily the most significant effort at deficit reduction since Clinton’s 1993 budget. If this doesn’t sway the remaining Democratic holdouts, then nothing will.

Health care reform: the only lifejacket left for Democrats

Marc Ambinder asks if “Dems are making a safe bet on health care?”

I know I’ve been beating this drum for awhile, but the point is worth restating, if only because mainstream pundits don’t quite get it. At basic, there’s only four things you need to know to understand the likely outcome of the midterm elections:

1. A significant portion of the current Democratic majority comes from marginal or conservative districts. Which makes sense, given that Democrats won the majority of contested seats in the past two election cycles.
2. Unemployment continues to haver at around ten percent.
3. Barring extraordinary circumstances, the President’s party always loses seats in the midterms.
4. Because midterm elections usually see low turnout, the key variable is party enthusiasm, as strong partisans are far more likely to vote than weak partisans or independents. If your base is excited, you will do well. If it isn’t, you won’t.

The first three virtually guarantee significant Democratic this November. Indeed, if the election were held today, Republicans would pick up a hefty 27 seats, the vast majority coming from traditionally conservative districts with little appetite for the Democratic agenda. Democrats — as well as pundits — should take it as a given that this will be a bad year for Democrats.

Number four is the silver-lining in all of this. If Democrats can keep their base motivated through the rest of the year, then they can avoid the catastrophic losses that are on the table. Unfortunately, Democratic voters aren’t particularly enthusiastic about the party; as I pointed out last week, the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans is large and growing. But, there is hope. Passing health care reform might not please “independent” voters, but it will almost certainly revitalize the Democratic base, and give them a reason to continue supporting Democratic politicians.

So, to answer Ambinder’s question: yes, Dems are making a safe bet on health care.