- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
David Sirota: Good Health-Care Policy Makes Good Politics, and Vice Versa
I don’t get it. I know that’s the simplistic refrain of every 10-year-old, but I’m 33 and I mean it: I just don’t get it.
Specifically, I don’t get why Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe — or any Republican senator, for that matter — is attracting so much attention.
In the past few months, Democratic senators eliminated the public option and substantially weakened their health-care proposals in order to buy insurance-industry acquiescence and, thus, Snowe’s vote. Now, based on the deafening media noise, all of U.S. politics is focused on this unaccomplished backbencher and whether she’ll endorse the final bill. It’s as if Republicans control Congress — as if Snowe, not President Barack Obama, won the biggest presidential landslide since Ronald Reagan.
This is bizarre for what should be obvious reasons.
First of all, Snowe’s much-celebrated initial vote for an embarrassingly flaccid health-care initiative wasn’t necessary to pass the bill — Democrats had enough votes to move the legislation out of the Senate Finance Committee without her approval. That’s a mathematical fact, as is the fact that Democrats control the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster with or without Snowe; as is the fact that Democrats have the 51 votes to enact health-care reform through a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation — again, with or without Snowe.
So the notion that Snowe’s vote — or any GOP vote — is inherently pivotal to health-care reform is a fantasy created by the Beltway media and the Democratic congressional leadership. The former is desperately trying to manufacture headline-grabbing drama; the latter is looking for a Republican excuse to water down the bill and protect corporate interests — all while absolving Democrats of legislative responsibility.
Second, the idea that Snowe’s support will result in the final legislation being called “bipartisan” — and that such billing will politically protect Democrats — is absurd. How do we know this? Because Democrats themselves taught us that via the Iraq War.
Recall that with solid Democratic and Republican backing, the 2002 Iraq resolution was far more “bipartisan” than any health-care bill will ever be. Yet, Democrats turned right around and used the Iraq War to criticize Republicans — and because the conflict was so wildly unpopular, Americans in 2006 and 2008 were willing to overlook the contradiction and vote for the only major party echoing any semblance of an antiwar message.
On health care, it will be the same in reverse: The GOP will invariably attempt to turn any bill into an electoral cudgel against Democrats — regardless of how many Republicans end up voting for it.
The lesson, then, is simple: If Democrats’ hypocritical Iraq criticism worked only because the war was such a disaster, then the GOP’s inevitable health-care attacks — however hypocritical — can only be thwarted by making health-care reform the opposite of Iraq (i.e., a major success). For Democrats, in other words, good health-care policy is great politics, and bad policy is the worst politics.
Whether passed by one congressional vote or 50, real reform that improves the system (i.e., a bill with a public option, tough insurance regulation and universal coverage) will transform the Democratic Party into an election-winning force forever known as “the generous protector of middle-class interests,” as GOP strategist William Kristol admits. Conversely, even if passed unanimously, bad legislation that makes the system worse (i.e., a bill empowering insurance companies, preventing a public option and leaving millions uncovered) will make GOP criticism of Democrats extremely effective.
That’s a truism, no matter if Snowe or any other Republicans add their support to a health-care bill that doesn’t actually need it in the first place.
— David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books Hostile Takeover and The Uprising. He hosts the morning show on AM 760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. Click here for more information. He can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 10.20.09 @ 08:41 AM
Good for David Sirota. Nice clear and rational thinking on health care and politics.
» on 10.20.09 @ 11:27 AM
Thanks, Noozhawk, for giving us Sirota’s work. He is another voice of real reason. I totally agree with his main point: The goal of bipartisanship, per se, is overrated at best, and in this case toxic. Trying to get the Republicans to agree on something only means the bill will be ineffective. They GOP won’t take any responsibility for the outcome, and instead will just hammer away at the Dems. The public, having a crappy health care reform handed to them won’t support the Dems, either. Then we’ll have more years of gridlock and gouging by insurance companies.
In this case trying to compromise with the Republicans is just dealing with the devil, and no good will come of it.
» on 10.20.09 @ 01:42 PM
Politely disagree with Sirota’s generally well reasoned essay.
First, it has been so darned hard for Republicans in Congress to find anything they can be FOR (besides the two wars, and John McCain’s now-famous “earmarks”) that many journalists do find it newsworthy when a Senate Republican is willing to publicly stand up in SUPPORT of anything that helps average people (however flawed that may be).
Second, a whole bunch of cowardly Senate DINOs have repeatedly told their sad boss, Harry Reid, that they are too scared to publicly vote to improve their constituents’ health unless they could point to any kind of “bi-partisan support”. Snowe is that “bi-partisan”.
Third, since Senate Republicans in the Bill Frist/Karl Rove days began systematically
purging Senate Republicans who tried to listen to all sides, or take centrist positions
the mere fact that Snowe and Susan Collins are still in office is a living testament to the fact that small remnants of the Party of Lincoln, TR, Ike, Nixon, still survive, even
if it’s Way Down East in Maine.
» on 10.20.09 @ 03:40 PM
Long Time Resident makes some very good points. Well said.
I meant to mention in my first post that the one thing I disagreed with Sirota on was calling Snowe an “unaccomplished backbencher”, when she has for many years been one of the sanest members of the GOP. People of disparate persuasions in Maine absolutely love her, and dissing Snowe disses Mainers.
More Local News »
House Poised to Vote on Historic Health-Care Bill Sunday
As Democrats scramble for last-minute votes, Capps touts legislation's reforms
Does Local Currency Make Dollars and Sense for Santa Barbara?
Economic hardships fuel questions but you may not know we've tried it here before
Phil Wyatt Builds High-Tech Company with Low-Key Approach
Wyatt Technology's founder and CEO serves as a steady guide for his staff in pinpointing a niche in laser-based instruments
Santa Barbara Airbus Picks Up and Moves to New Location
The company will have more legroom at its new home on Technology Way in Goleta
Residents Get Look at Master Plan for Santa Barbara
An open house kicks off a public-comment period designed to help shape the future of the city
Weather: Fair 50.0º
Search Noozhawk »
