An inconvenient memory
Why Republicans are rejecting a health care concept originally conceived by Republicans
An inconvenient memory
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Missouri has spoken. Or, to be more precise, Missouri's most ticked off voters have spoken. Last night, in the first-in-the-nation referendum on President Obama's health care law, they signaled a resounding thumbs down. Seventy one percent of voting Missourians supported Proposition C - which decreed that the feds have no business requiring citizens to buy health insurance, and that the state of Missouri should defy the new mandate.
The referendum win will bring forth much triumphant Republican spin - which is ironic, given the much-overlooked fact that the federal mandate concept was originally birthed by the GOP.
The Missouri verdict was fully expected. It was primary night in Missouri, and state Republicans were staging the more competitive contests - which meant that the primary electorate would skew heavily Republican. (Which indeed happened. The Senate Democratic primary drew 314,000 voters; the Senate GOP primary, 574,000 voters.) Overall turnout was light, but motivated August voters are typically angry voters, and Proposition C was intentionally crafted by its authors as a way for these folks to lash out at Obama, the Democratic Congress, and Washington in general.
Even though the referendum was basically symbolic - the real action on the insurance mandate issue will play out in the federal courts - last night's results will surely be framed by Republicans as a stunning blow for liberty, as proof that "the people" want the freedom to remain uninsured and thus drive up insurance costs for everybody else.
It's smart politics. Republicans will try to leverage the Missouri results to stoke more momentum for November, when the size of the conservative turnout may well determine whether the GOP retakes Congress. Priority one is to keep the party base ticked off and motivated. It's also no accident that Republican state lawmakers elsewhere - such as Indiana, Florida, Arizona, and Oklahoma - have been readying similiar ballot measures. All told, opposition to the health care reform law could prove to be a turnout motivator in 2010, just as Karl Rove's gay marriage referenda helped stoke conservative turnout for the 2004 Bush re-election bid.
But while it's smart politics, it's also slam-dunk hypocrisy.
What's fascinating about the Republican opposition to the health insurance mandate is the fact that the whole idea of a federal health coverage mandate was hatched by Republicans and conservative scholars. They're yelling at "socialist" Obama over a concept that they thought up in the first place, a fundamental truth that hasn't penetrated the tea-bag mindset. (And won't.)
The mandate idea - whereby citizens should be required to take responsibility for their health care, to spread the insurance risks so that premiums would be cheaper across the board - was prominently floated in 1989 and again in 1993 by the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank. The Heritage proposal was even analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, which described it this way: "(E)veryone would have to obtain insurance, either through a government program or from a private insurer, on their own, or through a family member. The states would be charged with enforcing the mandate..." Sound familiar?
But the idea predates Heritage. Republicans as far back as President Nixon, in the early '70s, talked up the basic concept. Bob Dole, a former Senate GOP leader, did it. So has another former Senate GOP leader, Dr. Bill Frist; appearing recently on the Fox Business Network, he endorsed the mandate concept and said it’s "about the only way" to achieve reform, that Americans "should be responsible to paying for it," and that they should face federal penalties if they don’t.
Senators Lamar Alexander and Lindsey Graham have talked it up, too. So has Senator Charles Grassley; in 2009, he told Fox News that there wasn’t "anything wrong" with the mandate concept. Just as motorists are required to carry auto insurance, he said, "the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance." Senator John Thune, a possible '12 presidential dark horse, has also spoken favorably of the concept, saying "there are good arguments on behalf of getting everybody into the pool."
And, of course, potential '12 frontrunner Mitt Romney made the mandate concept a key feature of his health insurance overhaul in Massachusetts back when he was governor - telling NPR in 2006 that citizens should be required to buy coverage, "otherwise, you're just passing your expenses on to someone else." Moreover, he assailed those who would refuse to buy coverage and defy the mandate law: "That's not Republican, that's not Democratic, that's not libertarian. That's just wrong."
Fortunately for the Republicans, their grassroots voters have no idea that the health coverage mandate was, and has long been, a Republican construct. The emotions of the moment leave no room for the complications of memory, and far be it for the GOP to dredge up recent history and enlighten its base. Adherence to principle means squat when there are elections to be won.
Lord, that's my recollection, too. Seems DP is the one with the "inconvenient memory." Does he really believe that a position advanced by a politician 10 - 15 years ago can never be changed, or can only be changed by admitting hypocrisy? I wonder how his beloved Ds would fare under that standard.— pj katauskas- Mr. Polman you should know better than to use that term when describing the tea party. Also, just because the GOP had a bad idea that candidate Obama opposed on the primary campaign trail when you pass it with no GOP support, you own it and all the bad polls, etc. that go along with it.— NEPhilly
- Come on, Phil. Anyone who indiscriminately shoots eight people and then himself isn't all there, so I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he said at all -- any more than I would, say the Littleton, CO boys and their rants or that very disturbed guy who shot up VA Tech.— NigeltheMastiff
- PresidentSpock, the debate occurs after DP writes a typical left leaning piece (you're wasting your time if you come here looking for something else) and then folks like yourself argue the point from another perspective. There's conservative blogs out there.— JimR
- pj, there are several people on this blog who would never believe that Ted Kennedy or Byrd ever changed -- and they hold very old events and positions against them. Please don't lambaste me for defending Ted Kennedy. I happen to believe, along with many others, that he was let off the hook because of who he was. He should have been accountable. But Byrd was a product of his time and region. Nearly everyone in the South was racist in the 1950s - 60s. Some still are. But it takes time to evolve. I give anyone credit for that. We should all be able to change our minds or admit we were wrong about something, no matter what side we're on.— NigeltheMastiff
- I completely agree, Nigel. That was kind of my point, inartfully made,perhaps.— pj katauskas
- And by the way, I think people's inability to accept responsibility for anything and admit they are wrong is truly the American disease.— NigeltheMastiff
- I used to read these columns b/c Dick Polman seemed middle of the road (which is hard to find these days). I think it's time for him to move on to the Huffington Post. And Obama better hope that the GOP wins back the house. It's his only path to re-election (i.e. Bill Clinton in 1994).— TommyF
- Dutch, if I post a comment that simply says "good morning" then I'm belittling someone in that mental midget's (yes, I am now belittling you) eyes.— amg
What is so good about this morning amg? Is it a good morning because you are so smart?- President Obama is no where near the pragmatist that Bill Clinton was. Clinton was already close to the middle on the political spectrum when he was elected as a 'New Democrat' whereas this President is a far left leaning ideologue who I predict will not change his stripes no matter the electoral whuppin' the dems receive in Novemeber. I think he really would rather be a 1 term president who achieves some of the liberal agenda than a 2 term president who has to compromise to move the country forward. I don't know which way I admire more:)— NEPhilly
Fascist-Republicism - the ideology of hypocrisy, hate, and fear. I may not like everything about the Dems, but the republicans make me sick with their codeword racism and billionaire worshipping brainwashed base.— Pelti- Bill Clinton was actually very liberal in his first two years in office. His first agenda item was "Don't Ask Don't Tell"....which was very controversial at the time. Of course, he was able to win both elections b/c Ross Perot siphoned off moderate GOP votes. But he clearly moved to the center after the 94 midterms...b/c he had no choice. Obama would have to do the same. And that frankly would be good for the country. I don't care much for either liberals or conservatives.— TommyF
- I'd like to know how the Proposition C supporters intend to pay the medical costs of the uninsured in Missouri once the mandates take effect. Is the state going to pay for them? If not then it means that Missourians will pay higher premiums. So, will Missouri businesses. That will mean fewer jobs in Missouri. Do they really want that?— anonymous
- " republicans make me sick with their codeword racism." Someone's not paying any attention at all. It's the Ds and libs that just love to play the race card. Sherrod, who thought she was a reformed racist, equated opposition to BOCare with racism. That's just one of many such examples of D/lib race-card-playing. It's virtually all they know how to do with criticism of their beloved Messiah.— pj katauskas
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
