I know that’s the simplistic refrain of every10-year-old, but I’m 33 and I mean it: I just don’t get it.
Specifically, I don’t get why Maine Sen. OlympiaSnowe (R)or any Republican senator, for that matteris attracting so muchattention.
In the last few months, Democratic senatorseliminated the public option and substantially weakened their health careproposals in order to buy insurance industry acquiescence and, thus, Snowe’svote. Now, based on the deafening media noise, all of American politics isfocused on this unaccomplished backbencher and whether or not she will endorsethe final bill. It is as if Republicans control Congressas if Snowe, notBarack 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 votethis week for an embarrassingly flaccid health care initiative wasn't necessaryto pass the billDemocrats had enough votes to move the legislation out of theSenate Finance Committee without her approval. That's a mathematical fact, asis the fact that Democrats control the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster withor without Snowe; as is the fact that Democrats have the 51 votes to enacthealth care reform through a parliamentary procedure calledreconciliationagain, with or without Snowe.
So the notion that Snowe’s voteor any GOP voteisinherently pivotal to health care reform is a fantasy created by the Beltwaymedia and the Democratic congressional leadership. The former is desperatelytrying to manufacture headline-grabbing drama; the latter is looking for aRepublican excuse to water down the bill and protect corporate interestsall whileabsolving Democrats of legislative responsibility.
Second, the idea that Snowe’s support will result inthe final legislation being called "bipartisan"and that such billingwill politically protect Democratsis absurd. How do we know this? Because Democratsthemselves taught us that via the Iraq War.
Recall that with solid Democratic and Republicanbacking, the 2002 Iraq resolution was far more "bipartisan" than anyhealth care bill will ever be. Yet, Democrats turned right around and used theIraq War to criticize Republicansand because the conflict was so wildlyunpopular, Americans in 2006 and 2008 were willing to overlook thecontradiction and vote for the only major party echoing any semblance of anantiwar message.
On health care, it will be the same in reverse: TheGOP will invariably attempt to turn any bill into an electoral cudgel againstDemocratsregardless of how many Republicans end up voting for it.
The lesson, then, is simple: If Democrats’hypocritical Iraq criticism only worked because the war was such a disaster,then the GOP’s inevitable health care attackshowever hypocriticalcan only bethwarted by making health care reform the opposite of Iraq (i.e., a majorsuccess). For Democrats, in other words, good health care policy is greatpolitics, and bad policy is the worst politics.
Whether passed by one congressional vote or 50, realreform that improves the system (i.e., a bill with a public option, toughinsurance regulation and universal coverage) will transform the Democratic Partyinto an election-winning force forever known as "the generous protector ofmiddle-class interests," as GOP strategist William Kristol admits.Conversely, even if passed unanimously, bad legislation that makes the systemworse (i.e., a bill empowering insurance companies, preventing a public optionand leaving millions uncovered) will make GOP criticism of Democrats extremelyeffective.
That's a truism, no matter if Snowe or any otherRepublicans add their support to a health care bill that doesn’t actually needit in the first place.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
