RSS Feed MenuPoliticians think speechwriters are miracle workers: “I was just arrested on charges of soliciting underage prostitutes and charging the cost to my government department … can you write a speech that will turn things around for me?”
Barack Obama is not in that kind of trouble, not yet anyway. But his health reform plans are sinking, and so Wednesday evening he will try to rescue them with a big speech, a televised address to a joint session of Congress.
Bill Clinton tried exactly the same thing, on exactly the same subject, almost exactly 16 years ago. The speech briefly boosted the poll numbers for Clinton’s health plans. But it could not overcome the political realities that doomed the Clinton plan. Will Obama succeed better?
Only if he understands exactly why he is in trouble. The President’s supporters may believe that he is being battered by a fear-mongering right wing. In reality, the President’s ambitions are bumping up against hard realities of American politics — and unless he accommodates those realities, he will fail.
Reality 1: The people who care most about health care are senior citizens — but senior citizens are the biggest losers under the Democratic plans.
Americans over age 65 are covered by the U.S. Medicare program. Medicare is hugely popular but financially unstable: If the program followed private-sector accounting rules, it would be underfunded by US$34-trillion.
The version of health reform enacted by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives proposed to cut US$500-billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years. Most of that savings would come from curtailing Medicare Advantage, a sub-program within Medicare run by private insurers that offers a more attractive package of benefits. About one-fifth of American seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
Predictably, seniors dislike the idea. They know that Medicare is in trouble as is. Now its problems are to be made worse in order to finance an expansion of benefits for people under 65. No surprise that of all age groups, the over 65s are most hostile to the President’s plans. Over 65s also are more likely to turn out to vote than any other age group — especially in off-year congressional elections like those in 2010. It will take more than a speech to reassure seniors.
Reality 2: The President’s liberal supporters are in no mood to compromise — but lack the votes to win without compromising.
The House bill includes a so-called “public option,” meaning a government-run insurance program. This public option has become a fetish for liberals, who claim that as many as 60 House Democrats will oppose any plan that fails to include such a thing. On the other hand, not only Republicans but important moderate Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad will oppose any bill that includes a public option.
Democratic liberals often look back wistfully at previous reform proposals they rejected — like the plan for universal coverage offered by Richard Nixon in 1969. They promise themselves that if they ever get the chance again, they will learn from past mistakes. Now they have that chance — and they are repeating their past mistakes. It will take more than a speech to discipline rambunctious House liberals.
Reality 3: The U.S. public debt is bulging to the point that it has become a voting issue — and all independent analysis shows that the President’s plans will make the debt burden even higher.
The recession plus the Obama stimulus plus the spending increases in the ordinary budget plus the cost of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq together imply that the debt will rise by the middle of this decade to nearly 100% of GDP, a level last seen at the end of the Second World War.
This immense debt is seriously frightening voters. More than 80% tell Gallup they are worried about the accumulation of debt, and Obama scores worse on handling of debt than any other issue. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House plan will add US$200-billion to the U.S. budget deficit, lethally contradicting the President’s promises that his plans will actually save money.
It will take more than a speech to convince wary taxpayers that the country can afford the President’s ambitions.
Can those three realities be confronted and overcome? Yes theoretically. But can they be overcome by Barack Obama? Does he have the wisdom, restraint and flexibility to jettison the bad approach foisted on him by liberal House Democrats and build a broad national consensus? More than soaring rhetoric, it is the presence or lack of those qualities that will determine the success of Wednesday’s speech, of health reform — and indeed of the Obama presidency.
Originally published in the National Post.
balconesfault // Sep 8, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Jesus, get a clue… It was a major issue and Clinton campaigned on it in 1992.
So the Democratic Party nominated Clinton in 1992 while he was promoting welfare reform. Sort of blows any reason for them to stage a primary challenge to him in 1996 over the issue, don’t you think – particularly since he hadn’t whipped the Congress up to that point (early 1996) to force through a welfare reform bill, the way that Bush whipped Congress to force through a socialism expanding medicare drug plan.
And you’re also stuck with arguing that welfare reform is against Democratic principles. Democrats favor effective social programs … just like some Republicans used to. If there is no cost-control in social programs, then eventually they will be unsustainable. And that was essentially Clinton’s argument – that some measures geared towards personal responsibility were necessary to preserve welfare from those on the right who would demonize “welfare queens” with the goal of eliminating welfare altogether.
The fact is the liberal wing of the Democratic party hated Clinton from 1994 to just prior to his impeachment.
Hmm – I’m considering it progress that you realize there was a liberal wing of the Democratic Party. At the time, I would have expected you (well, maybe not you, but certainly escapereality) to have been talking about the Klinton push to turn the USA into a communist nation.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been rather toothless for quite a long time, as the party as a whole has moved to capture the American political center. Until the Repubs quit trying to scream that the public should move more to the right, and instead try moving to the center to recapture some of that ground, electoral victories are going to become more and more rare.
EscapeVelocity // Sep 9, 2009 at 12:37 am
Ive come to the conclusion that this site is not about GOP coalition building, but about moving the party Leftward…and attacking Christianity.
Its a joke.
Wont be back.
greg_barton // Sep 9, 2009 at 1:05 am
d00d, just when it was getting good!
steelyblades // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:40 am
Adios escape. If you find Otto, tell him we miss him, too.
EscapeVelocity // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:42 am
Here is my parting gift to the New Majorityites and their Leftwing hangers on.
Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny
An intellectual book about conservatism, of course all your handwringing around here isnt about intellectualism or conservatism at all. Its about ditching social cons and bad mouthing Christians. Looks like the cultural marxists have been rather successful.
Unmentionable: Best-Selling Conservative Books and the Networks that Ignore Them
Research reveals a glaring imbalance in network coverage of liberal best-sellers and comparable conservative titles.
By Matt Philbin and Zoe Ortiz
Culture and Media Institute
September 8, 2009
But there was another book that hit No.1. In fact, it held the No.1 spot for 12 of 18 weeks, and has yet to fall under the No. 4 spot. (Also, at this writing, it ranked No. 24 on Amazon.com, and has enjoyed 186 days in Amazon’s Top 100.)
That book, “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” by conservative political commentator and nationally syndicated radio-host Mark Levin, was by far the most successful book on the list – nothing even came close.
What makes the success of Levin’s book more impressive is its subject. It’s a work of political philosophy, a serious, scholarly exploration of conservative first principles. As CNSNews.com recently reported, “‘Liberty and Tyranny’ draws on thinking, and points to the influence, of the 17th century English philosopher John Locke, the 18th century Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith, and the 18th century Irish-English statesman and writer Edmund Burke.”
And as Levin himself wrote on the first page of “Liberty and Tyranny,” “… what follows are my own opinions and conclusions of fundamental truths, based on decades of observation, exploration, and experience, about conservatism and, conversely, non-conservatism – that is, liberty and tyranny in modern America.”
So “Liberty and Tyranny” is an improbable best-seller. And that makes it all the more newsworthy.
Yet Levin’s book received zero coverage from any of the networks since its release on March 29. Nor did his name appear on any of the news programs since the release.
Contrast that with Edwards’ and Friedman’s nine instances of coverage for books that spent one and two weeks respectively at the top of the list. Equivalent coverage for Levin would require 36 mentions on the networks.
And the media blackout of “Liberty and Tyranny” extended beyond the networks and has been nearly complete.
Levin confirmed to CMI that “we have not heard from any of the major networks, and the only major newspaper that has interviewed me is Philadelphia Enquirer, and that’s because I’m from Philadelphia.”
The lack of mainstream media attention made “Liberty and Tyranny’s” success the more stunning. “The book is selling by word of mouth,” Levin said. “I’ve done very little media, and its chugging along.”
And the author, whose radio show just celebrated its sixth anniversary, said he wasn’t “stressed about” being ignored. “I don’t need Matt Lauer’s imprimatur to believe what I believe and to speak to my audience,” Levin told CMI.
But he did have thoughts about why Lauer and the networks withheld coverage.
“Maybe the book’s too darned complicated for these people,” Levin said. “It’s not your typical book – not even your typical conservative book, with a laundry list of what’s wrong. It’s a deeper look at the roots of conservatism, of our God-given liberties, of society and civil order and at why conservatism is humane. It’s also a look at the roots of statism and why it’s a threat.”
The morning shows, which Levin said have their talking points and hosts with a clear political bias may have other conservatives on. But they do so if they believe they can marginalize those guests. “But in my case, I think they fear I would marginalize them. They fear me, they fear the message of the book.”
http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2009/20090908115345.aspx
Indeed Mark, indeed.
steelyblades // Sep 9, 2009 at 2:56 am
Hey, weren’t you leaving and not coming back?
WRT Levin, so what? Harlequin romances sell pretty well, better than Toni Morrison or Cormac McCarthy anyway. And US Weekly is pretty popular–moreso than New Republic and The Atlantic combined, I would suspect. Are we supposed to kiss Mark Levin’s ass because he can sell some books? No thanks. It doesn’t change the fact that he’s an infantile, slobbering, ranting moron who only makes an impression on people who already have an axe to grind (or think they do).
Mark Levin needs to go play with his rattle in AM Radio Land. If there’s going to be a chance of building a new GOP coalition, it doesn’t need to accommodate intolerant dumbasses like him. In fact, it’s counterproductive to do so.
EscapeVelocity // Sep 9, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Levin writes an intellectual book that is a smashing success, and you rant on an internet blog like an infantile, slobbering moron who only makes and impression on people that already have an axe to grind (or think they do) with Conservatism.
LOL!
What a hoot!