Maynard contemplates Republican strategy
The query about your degree of carnal satisfaction is one of the great advertising come-ons. Is there anyone that is completely sexually satisfied, or completely satisfied in any way at all? It’s fundamental to human nature to feel things could improve.
Thus every challenger to every political incumbent tells the citizens the world should be better, and the reason things are a mess (whether they’re a mess or not) is entirely because of the jackass that currently occupies the office.
Sometimes the public buys it, and sometimes they don’t. But it’s always a good ploy. The challenger has the advantage of contrasting his image of utopian perfection against a flawed reality. A lot of people won’t notice that his wondrous ideas don’t really work.
In the coming election cycles, the “things could be better” appeal will be especially strong. Obama was swept to office with such unrealistic expectations (which were of his own creation) that he was doomed to fall far short. Not only did he fail to deliver, but we lost count of how many campaign promises he broke while he fumbled. His supporters will say he promised health care reform and he delivered, and we answer that his package stank (which is why everyone hated it), and he also promised and reneged on pursuing consensus rather than 50%+1, and fiscal responsibility (a government that lives within its means), and transparency, and the rejection of earmarks, and the shunning of lobbyists and special interests, etc. etc. Not to mention the little detail that health care and climate change have pulled Washington’s focus away from where it should be: The threats to national/global security (Obama’s heralded “reset button” and overtures to Iran have gone nowhere), and the economy (which Obama promptly ignored after passing a stimulus package that paid off all the power players but otherwise merely wasted money).
So trashing Obama will be the easy part, because he’s already done the job for us. Our accusations ring true because they are true.
So much for the negative. But can we be positive? Can the Republicans formulate, and then sell us on, a plan to build a better world?
An obvious wedge is health care. Obama showed us how bad things can be; now tell us how you’ll do it right. I’d say the Republicans should try to develop a coherent and realistic vision of what health care reform the nation truly needs.
Remember the “Contract With America”? The appeal of the Contract was that it was concrete. It was a list of ten (if memory serves) specific points the Republicans would deliver on. And they did indeed pretty much deliver, or at least they gave it their best try. It was a pretty good showing in the political arena. Some articles got tossed, of course. The line item veto was thrown out by the Supreme Court. The balanced budget amendment failed in the Senate by 2 votes (and as a result, the country may collapse).
In contrast to the Republican Contract, people realize Obama offered nothing but slogans and glib dreams. “Hope” and “change”, which were once uttered with such reverence, have become national jokes. America is sick of degraded slogans; we want some depth.
So let’s say the Republicans come up with specific promises. Where do we go from there? How do we move from vision to implementation?
Obviously such a thing couldn’t come to fruition immediately, or even after the 2010 elections. Even a huge Republican victory would leave Obama vetoing the Republican laws.
Ah, but if the Republicans get enough muscle to push a popular law through either the Senate or the House, then the tables will be turned. Obama and the remaining Democrats will have moved into the role of foot-draggers and “Dr. No”s, protecting the unpopular status quo against true reform. Then the Republican line becomes: “As soon as Obama the Obstructionist is gone, then here’s exactly what you’re going to get. Unlike those lying Democrats who sold you a Cadillac and gave you a Yugo, we’re putting our plans on the table. No backroom deals. No secret meetings. Here it is. We’ve moved it as far as we can, and with your help we’ll get it to the goal post. Because you wanted it.”
(Do I need to mention that the Republican legislation would include the complete repeal of the existing monstrosity? But they needn’t dwell on the negativity of the repeal; they must focus on the positive.)
Of course, the Republicans should avoid making the mistake Obama made of raising expectations to the moon. Be honest: We’ve dug ourselves into a hole. We all bear some responsibility, and we might as well admit it. Obama’s done nothing but dig us deeper, much deeper. Now we’re going to have to struggle. There’s no easy way. No free lunch. All we can tell you is, we’re all in this together. We’re not asking half of you to sacrifice so we can pay off the other half. America is going to work together on this one.
If the Republicans can pull together on this path for the campaign, and if they can follow up and deliver what they’ve promised, they’ll get their opportunity and America may start to move in the right direction.
This is the opportunity for Republicans to do something equally big. They always talk about a flat tax, downsizing govt, eliminating govt. agencies and corruption. If this admin. can push through such an ugly, unwanted reformation of a fundamental segment of society, then surely Republicans finally have the nerve to answer with what everyone wants: smaller govt., flat tax, severe penalties for corruption, border security, no amnesty, etc. And reform healthcare inadequacies too. And instead of talking about it, just do it.
What alternative would the Republicans offer? When challenged for an alternative, the Republicans need only say, “It is crucial to slay this monster first. Republicans will never pass a plan the American public doesn’t want.” Will the American voter say, “Gee, the Republicans don’t have an immediate replacement maybe we should re-elect Democrats and keep the plan we hate.”?
It’s a good sign the public largely rejects Obamacare, but do we really understand why? Was it too much too fast? Is it fear of a government take-over? Concern about increasing the debt? Will any massive government plan be rejected? Or, is the public a sick man seeking a diagnosis he likes, willing to listen to any quack who finds the right words? The truth is hard to hear—health care costs a lot, get used to it. We have to pay for it and we will probably get less of it no matter what.
We have more costly health care technology today. We can diagnose and treat illnesses we couldn’t even identify in the past. The technology and trained technicians are expensive. New drugs are expensive. The public is more in line with the Democrats’ notion that health care is a right than with market pricing realities.
I don’t think the best tactic is to offer a detailed alternate plan. For one thing, the Republicans don’t have a solution either. All through last year’s debate the Democrats challenged the Republicans with, “What’s your plan.” Remember Obama’s speech in his characteristic preachy mode? “What’s your so-lu-tion?” The Democrats see a problem they can exploit by creating villains and positioning themselves as saviors. The pubic has been conditioned to be receptive to this tactic. Republicans play the game badly, stepping on their own toes and running into each other.
Republican ideas are largely about market forces. So near and yet so far. Interstate competition and tort reform won’t put much of a dent in the real problem. If you want to stay more days in the hospital after childbirth, pay for it yourself. If you want a mammogram more frequently, pay for it yourself. If you worry over every sniffle and want a physician to tell you you have a cold, pay for it yourself. These are things you can plan for. Lose weight. Exercise. Eat your vegetables. These are things you can control.
Oh, and if anyone who wants a sex change operation to get greater satisfaction–pay for it yourself, honey. Life is never going to be everything we want it to be.
Let individuals buy their own insurance. Take the employer out of it. Buy catastrophic coverage or a cadillac plan if you wish. You decide what coverage you want and you pay for it.
No one can provide you with total health care coverage. Will the Republicans say anything like that? The Democrats are shamelessly maudlin in their sales pitch. You think the Republicans would offer up anything that sounds so cold and brutal? Already they’re talking about keeping the pre-existing condition coverage mandatory because of how that polls. Surely, they understand how premiums are calculated. You can insure anything and everything. The risk is reflected in the premium.
Aside from refusing to face reality, offering a concrete alternative is a mistake. Running on a detailed alternate will create a sense of either/or. That’s always the case with elections in general in terms of party. In recent elections, the party that wins is the one the people are least angry with. We need the Democrats to be defeated. Let’s focus on the anger against them. Whip up the flames.
Shifting debate to a detailed comparison of a false choice will throw cold water on the anger. Debates contrasting two plans gives the advantage to Democrats who are great at emotional manipulation. They’ll redirect the anger to their favor. Offering an alternate will likely help the Democrats.
There is no easy or pleasant solution to the problems of high health care costs. Why should we expect the Republicans to have the answers to the real problems in the health care system? No one has them.
You may be right, Pat. Maybe it’s better to focus on the tangible evil. In offering a counterproposal, it may be politically impossible to avoid the “can you top this?” contest to see who is giving away the most goodies to the most politically active groups (while screwing whoever isn’t attached to a protected special interest (i.e., screwing mainstream America)). That’s how we get into this mess, when people expect too much from their government, and the demagogues encourage us in this.
What I hate about politics is it’s so hard to have an honest discussion in public. We can’t address issues realistically because we’re not even allowed to talk about them. You mention the example of the extent to which people contribute to their own ill health. What do we do about the five-hundred pound woman? (As a social phenomenon, I notice how much easier it is for me to hate my fellow citizens under a system of socialized medicine. When the government transforms your self-inflicted wound into a wound that injures me, then I judge you. Without socialized medicine, I figure it’s your life, and if you want to weigh 500 pounds, it’s no business of mine. Maybe I’ll assist you through a voluntary charity, or maybe I won’t. But it’s my choice. With socialized medicine, your 500 pounds is a threat to my wallet and even my life if you use up limited medical resources that I may someday need, and I resent you for it.)
Washington is a city of spending addicts, and too many people are addicted to government goodies. An addict sometimes has to hit rock bottom before he decides to take the cure. But plenty of addicts hit rock bottom and then die. That’s why I’d rather the nation see the rock bottom and change its ways before we hit it.
Ah, such a big topic. And we could go on and on. Good thing the government has taken away our choices, so we no longer have to worry our silly little heads about these big decisions.
Maynard and Pat – good posts. I think you are both a little right. Too much detail may give the advantage to Democrats, but NO detail would as well. The middle ground is to give some indiciation about what Republicans would do (or wouldn’t do), but not too much detail so as to give the Dems the advantage as Pat described.
Also, I think someone should take a poll – if they already haven’t done so in the past – with well-framed questions regarding the tough things that we face – the cutting of spending, which may include overhauls (if not downright dismantling) of SS and other big entitlements. How do Americans feel about those kinds of cuts?
I mean, after seeing what happens when the gov’t gets involved in the housing market, etc., seeing how much debt we have, etc., wouldn’t you think that more Americans would be at least able to have a conversation on getting rid of entitlement programs? I mean wouldn’t you think they would at least seriously consider it, no matter how uncomfortable it might make them feel?
I used to be a moderate liberal and the last vestiges of liberalism I clung to was the economic side and the welfare side – the safety net stuff. Until I realized that it just wasn’t the gov’ts business to do such a thing and that weaning us off these things would be the best thing for us.
I hope more Americans are thinking the same way. If we don’t take drastic measures to reign in the spending, we will fall. As the engineer in Titanic said – “It’s a mathematical certainty.”
Need you ask, Maynard? I’m married.