“Obamacare Swallowed Conservatism Whole”: What Happens To Conservatism When The Obamacare War Is Over?
When we look back decades from now, one of the keys to understanding this period in our political history will be the story of how a set of market-based health insurance reforms that started as a proposal from the Heritage Foundation and then were successfully implemented by a Republican governor who later became the GOP presidential nominee, ended up being viewed by virtually all conservatives as not just an abomination but the very essence of statist oppression. Liberals have often expressed wonder or exasperation about the way conservatives changed their opinions about this particular brand of reform. But now that it’s driving a government shutdown (and soon a potential default on the debt), we have to acknowledge that it’s more than just a policy conservatives hate. The Affordable Care Act is far, far bigger than that. It has become the most important definer of conservatism in America circa 2013. It isn’t that conservatives don’t still want to cut taxes for the wealthy, or slash the social safety net, or liberate corporations from pesky regulations on worker safety and the environment, or make it impossible for women to get abortions, because they still want all those things. But Obamacare has swallowed conservatism whole.
Since the health-care exchanges opened yesterday, some have suggested that the increased attention brought to the fact of their opening by the shutdown has done the administration a favor, informing more people that open enrollment has begun than the Department of Health and Human Services could possibly have managed on its own. That’s probably true. This controversy has also served to remind conservatives that there is nothing more important than fighting Obamacare. Every Republican politician has to prove that their hatred of the law is as great as that of the angriest Tea Partier. Every conservative everywhere is being told that this is what it means to be a conservative, this is so important to their beliefs and the future prospects of their party and their ideological movement that it is worth laying waste to the government and even the economy itself. If you’re a conservative and you aren’t willing to risk everything on even the smallest chance to toss your spear into this foul beast’s heart, then you’re not really a conservative at all.
Let’s fast-forward a couple of years from now, after this crisis ends without the ACA being defunded or delayed. The law is all rolled out, and while it’s far from perfect, things are going pretty well. We don’t have universal coverage, but the vast majority of Americans now have insurance, including millions who didn’t have it before. It’s not dirt cheap, but the trends that are evident today—a slowdown in the overall health-care spending growth rate, mirrored by a slowdown in premium increases—are continuing. More states have put aside their ideological objections and accepted the expansion of Medicaid to cover all their poor citizens, even if there are a few straggler states left. What with “pre-existing conditions” and “job lock” things of the past, even the most doctrinaire Tea Partier admits that there’s no more question about whether Obamacare can be repealed. Its tendrils have reached too many people who now benefit from it and would react angrily if you tried to take it away.
Ted Cruz admitted to Sean Hannity back in July that “If we don’t [defund Obamacare] now, in all likelihood, Obamacare will never, ever be repealed. Why is that? Because on January 1, the exchanges kick in, the subsidies kick in,” and they’ll be unable to take away something people are benefiting from. And he’s surely not the only Republican who gets this, which is part of the explanation for the ferocity with which they’re fighting now. But in our future scenario, the fight over the law will be basically over. There might be some debates about adjusting parts of the law, as Democrats will want to do, but that won’t concern Republicans too much. Once there’s no possibility left that it can be killed, they’ll likely lose interest.
I think that’s the most plausible picture of what things will be like in, say, 2015. The question is, if eventually they have no choice but to accept that the argument over the ACA is settled, what on earth will Republicans do with themselves? Because over the last four years, opposition to Obamacare has taken on such an extraordinary power within the movement that all other issues have paled before it.
Sure, they could revert to the old standbys—Cut taxes! Cut regulations! Strong defense! But those are just positions you can take. Obamacare was a war to be fought. And nothing galvanizes, energizes, and defines us like our wars. That’s particularly true of the zealots who are driving the Republican party and form such a key part of its base. And if they aren’t fighting Obamacare, who will they be?
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, October 2, 2013
“Conservatism Can Never Fail”: Why Tea Partiers Think They Will Win
Way back in the days when bloggers carved their missives out on stone tablets (by which I mean 2005), Digby noted, in response to the nascent trend of conservatives deciding that George W. Bush wasn’t a conservative after all, wrote, “Get used to hearing about how the Republicans failed because they weren’t true conservatives. Conservatism can never fail. It can only be failed by weak-minded souls who refuse to properly follow its tenets.” We’ve seen that a lot in the years since—the interpretation of every election Republicans lose is that they weren’t conservative enough, and if they had just nominated a true believer or run farther to right, victory would have been theirs.
There’s already a tactical division within the Republican Party about the wisdom of shutting down the government in an attempt to kill the Affordable Care Act. The members who have been around a while understand that no matter what happens, Barack Obama is not going to bend on this one. He won’t dismantle his greatest domestic policy accomplishment, and he won’t delay it for a year. He just won’t. The members who are newer, particularly Tea Partiers who got elected in 2010 and 2012, think that if they just hold fast, eventually Obama will buckle.
And there’s another difference between the two groups. That first group of older members were around for the shutdowns during the Clinton years, and remember how badly things turned out for them. Here’s an excerpt from an NPR story aired this morning:
“It was a calculated gamble on the part of the speaker, Newt Gingrich,” says Steve Bell, who was a Republican congressional aide. The new Republican majority in Congress decided to push their spending fight with President Clinton to the limit, even if it meant shutting down the government.
“And at first, about half of us thought it was a bad idea and half of us thought it was a good idea,” says Bell. “But in the perfect example of groupthink, we talked ourselves into believing that, oh, the president will get blamed and we will be able to get our way.”
Bell, who’s now with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, says the Gingrich gamble didn’t pay off, except for President Clinton.
“The president wasn’t blamed,” says Bell. And “the amount of money we saved over that government shutdown literally is almost a rounding error. So we went through all of this for almost no savings, net-net, and we successfully re-elected someone that we thought we were supposed to defeat.”
All the reporting I’ve seen says that is the perspective shared by John Boehner and others in the GOP leadership. The problem is that Tea Partiers in the House don’t see it that way. They believe the shutdown will be blamed on President Obama, and the only possible way for Republicans to lose is if they give in too soon.
That’s because the idea that conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed, extends beyond ideology to its tactical extension, eternal and maximal opposition to Barack Obama and everything he wants to do. Fighting Obama is a strategy that can never fail. If failure happens, it can only be because we didn’t fight him hard enough.
Once this is all over, they’ll be telling everyone the same old story. If only the party had been stronger, if only Boehner had stood firm, if only we had kept the government closed for another week or another month, everyone would have seen we were right, Obama would have been crippled for the remainder of his term, we would have won a smashing victory in the 2014 mid-term elections, and the blow that led to Obamacare’s inevitable death would have been struck. But we were betrayed by Boehner and the other cowards and quislings.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if come 2015, where you stood on the shutdown becomes a key litmus test Tea Party activists apply to GOP presidential contenders.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, September 30, 2013
“Making The Law Look Better”: How Not To Argue Against Obamacare
One of the more talked about pieces in conservative media yesterday came by way of Forbes, and it caused quite a stir. If you missed it, the article, based on American Enterprise Institute research, said the typical American family of four should expect $7,450 in additional health care costs, all because of the Affordable Care Act.
If true, that certainly sounds problematic. With a weak economy and stagnant wages, an average household would struggle to afford those increased costs.
The problem, as Igor Volsky explained, is that the Forbes piece is entirely wrong.
To translate that number to a “typical American family,” [the AEI’s Chris Conover] took “the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person,” multiplied that result by four and voila: Obamacare will add $7,450 to average health spending for a family of four between 2014 and 2022!
One economist interviewed by ThinkProgress, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Paul Van de Water, described this calculation as one of the stupidest things he’s read in a long time and likened it to arguing that college costs will increase for a “typical” family if the federal government adopts policies that help lower-income Americans afford college educations. Yes, the nation will spend more on education if more students enroll in colleges and universities, but the “typical” student already attending college won’t; she or he will continuing paying tuition at more or less the same rate, while the newly-enrolled student will presumably benefit from some sort of subsidized tuition rate.
The same is true here. The so-called “typical” family that Conover describes already receives health care insurance through their employer. The existence of 30 million newly-insured people — many of whom will receive tax credits if they purchase insurance in the law’s exchanges — won’t do much to move their premiums in one way or another.
MIT’s Jonathan Gruber went on to Volsky, “This is a typically misleading use of data by opponents of Obamacare.”
I no longer find myself surprised by developments like these. Conservative opponents of the Affordable Care Act have been pushing easily discredited attacks for quite a while, in some cases because conservative wonks just aren’t very good, and in other cases because the right feels justified in making claims they know to be untrue.
But I’m always left with the same question: if “Obamacare” were really so awful, shouldn’t conservative criticism be a lot easier?
Much to the chagrin of the right (and to Politico), most of the news surrounding the Affordable Care Act has been pretty encouraging of late. That said, if the law’s critics want to focus on areas of concern, there are legitimate criticisms they can point to.
We’re already seeing, for example, some glitches in the Obamacare exchanges. As Jonathan Cohn explained, they’re not worth freaking out over, but if you’re a Republican desperate to shine a light on implementation problems, you can seize on something like this to advance a partisan cause.
There are also legitimate concerns about the law pushing private insurers to restrict provider options for those who get coverage through exchanges. If conservatives wanted to jump up and down about this, too, they’d at least be dealing with reality. Does it mean the law is a fiasco, doomed to failure? No. Is it a real problem worthy of attention? Sure.
But our discourse has become so stunted and unproductive that we’re instead stuck with nonsense such as the Forbes piece, which had been thoroughly debunked before close of business. (Of course, if recent history is any guide, the fact that the claims have been discredited won’t stop Republican members of Congress from repeating them on national television every day for the foreseeable future.)
Note to Obamacare’s detractors: when you cling to evidence that’s wrong, you make the law look better, not worse. If the law was as bad as you claim, you’d have real defects to point to, not made-up stuff.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, September 24, 2013
“Just Another Conservative Con Game”: This Is About Political Cash, Not Political Principle
Brian Walsh, a former spokesperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, recently offered his take on why far-right groups like Heritage Action and the Senate Conservatives Fund keep Republican activists so riled up about the Affordable Care Act: “[T]his is about political cash, not political principle…. You see, money begets TV ads which begets even more money for these groups’ personal coffers.”
According to Walsh, who knows the internal workings of GOP politics quite well, conservative activist organizations are effectively waging a political war because political wars make for a convenient fundraising tool.
National Review‘s Robert Costa reports today on the same phenomenon.
As the deadline to fund the federal government nears, Republican leaders are struggling mightily to come up with legislation that can pass the House. Over the weekend, leadership staffers fired off anxious e-mails and uneasy veteran House members exchanged calls. Both camps fear that a shutdown is increasingly likely — and they blame the conservative movement’s cottage industry of pressure groups.
But these organizations, ensconced in Northern Virginia office parks and elsewhere, aren’t worried about the establishment’s ire. In fact, they welcome it. Business has boomed since the push to defund Obamacare caught on. Conservative activists are lighting up social media, donations are pouring in, and e-mail lists are growing.
This would help explain a few things.
Why would Republican groups invest so much energy and resources into attacking conservative Republicans? Why would these far-right organizations push a strategy that would undermine their allies’ political standing and put the House GOP majority at risk? Why would the groups pretend to be hair-on-fire apoplectic about a moderate health care reform law based on bipartisan provisions?
Because it puts money in their pockets, that’s why.
It’s not just the far-right activist groups, either. Remember this one from early August?
Sen. Mike Lee is using his effort to defund Obamacare as a mechanism to fund his campaign coffers.
The Utah Republican sent out a fundraising pitch on Thursday morning, asking for a contribution to help him “keep pressuring my fellow legislators to defund Obamacare before it’s too late.” Lee is up for reelection in 2016.
As we talked about at the time, Lee won’t actually defund the Affordable Care Act, a fact that won’t be affected one way or the other by his supporters’ willingness to open their wallets.
But the Utah Republican nevertheless believes his efforts — and the notoriety of his crusade — will rile up the base and help fill his campaign bank accounts, so he pushes the message anyway, just like Heritage and related groups.
Chris Hayes made a point recently that continues to resonate: “Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base are the marks.”
Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting the anti-Obamacare hysterics are entirely a fundraising scam — congressional Republicans are dominated by truly radical ideologues, many of whom are entirely sincere in their inexplicable beliefs. For these extremists, financial motivations matter, but undermining President Obama and preventing struggling Americans from receiving publicly subsidized health care coverage matters more.
But to overlook the dollar signs in conservative leaders’ eyes is to miss the whole picture.
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, September 17, 2013
“Behold, The Obamacare Ombudsman Project”: Could Conservatives Help Obamacare Implementation Work?
Supporters of the Affordable Care Act, up to and including President Obama, have been at pains to point out to anyone who’d listen that as with any large and complex piece of legislation, implementation is going to be imperfect. There are going to be hiccups. Hurdles. Stumbles. Stops and starts, ups and downs, potholes and roadblocks and detours. They’ve been saying it because it’s true, because they want to prepare the media and the public, and because they know that conservatives will be squawking loudly every time it becomes apparent that some feature of the law needs to be adjusted, trying to convince everyone that even the most minor of difficulties is proof the law should never have been enacted in the first place.
But let me make a counter-intuitive suggestion: Perhaps all the inevitable overblown carping from the right will prove to be a good thing, making the law work better in the long run. Not because the conservatives’ motives aren’t bad (they are), and separate from the contemptible efforts to actively sabotage the law’s implementation. What I’m talking about is the effort by Republican members of Congress and conservative media figures to locate and publicize everything about Obamacare that isn’t going right. They could become a tireless team of Obamacare ombudsmen, forcing improvements to the law to happen faster than they otherwise would have by locating and publicizing what needs to be addressed. If there’s a pilot program that isn’t working out or a feature of the exchanges that isn’t operating properly, the likes of Darrell Issa and Sean Hannity are going to be on the case.
They could have a positive impact even on things they never notice. I’m sure the people who work in the Department of Health and Human Services, both career bureaucrats and political appointees alike, are keenly aware that their work on ACA implementation will be released into a charged political atmosphere, and if they screw up or do their jobs in a half-assed way, there’s a chance the whole world will find out about it. Nobody is going to want to have their department featured on Fox News, which could prove an incentive to work hard and make sure every T is crossed and I is dotted.
Okay, so the Conservative Obamacare Ombudsman Project does depend on them drawing attention to not just what’s most embarrassing or easily demagogued but the difficulties that are meaningful and can be fixed. And some fixes may require legislation, which would depend on some Republicans making the mental leap required to vote for a bill that would solve an actual problem, which is something many of them (in the House, anyway) have no experience with and might not be quite able to wrap their heads around. But stranger things have happened.
By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, September 17, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 