"We were a little surprised"
Are the Democrats too nice for a knife fight?
"We were a little surprised"
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "it's deja vu all over again."
This morning, as I scanned a New York Times story about President Obama's "new playbook" for the health care debate, I was stopped by this paragraph:
"And Democratic Party officials enlisted in the fight by the White House acknowledged in interviews that the growing intensity of the opposition to the president’s health care plans — within the last week likened on talk radio to something out of Hitler’s Germany, lampooned by protesters at Congressional town-hall-style meetings and vilified in television commercials — had caught them off guard and forced them to begin an August counteroffensive."
Then, a few paragraphs later, a top Democratic communicator weighed in: "To be fair, I think we were probably a little surprised - just a little - at the use of swastikas and the comparisons to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich that even Rush Limbaugh has fanned the flames on. And we were a little surprised at the mob mentality."
Then, farther down in the piece, an Obama administration deputy added this: "The lesson we’ve learned is you ignore these rumors at your peril, and the right answer is to take them head on in as big a way as possible."
All the italics are mine. All of which prompts me to wonder (for the umpteenth time) whether there is some fundamental flaw in the Democratic gene pool that fuels their perpetually delusional belief that noble intentions are sufficient to prevail in a knife fight.
They were "caught off guard" by the cacophonous conservative assault on health care reform. They were "probably a little surprised." They now insist that they have learned "lessons" about how it's nuts to simply let the nuts peddle their lies.
This is where Yogi's deja vu rule kicks in. Over and over, decade after decade, the Democrats have revealed their naivete.
Back in the 1988 presidential race, it was Mike Dukakis; amidst all the smears being heaped upon him by the Republicans during that long hot summer (polluter! pal of rapist! funny Greek name! crazy wife! flag-hater!), the candidate and his advisers sat back and did nothing, convinced that voters would never swallow such slop. They did, he plummeted in the polls, and he never recovered.
During the 1993-4 health care reform battle, the Clinton White House was outmaneuvered by the Republican right and their corporate allies, who swayed the electorate with all kinds of devious hyperbole. And, more recently, in the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry and his advisers sat back and did nothing for three crucial summer weeks, absolutely convinced that voters would never believe the Swift Boat attacks on his Vietnam record. That strategy worked out pretty well.
And now we have the Obama people, waking up to the idea that maybe it's not politically wise to sit mute and allow themselves to be tarred as fascists who would euthanize granny, ration health care, and slash Medicare benefits. (It's priceless to hear the Republicans portraying themselves as the defenders of Medicare, given the fact that, if they had been in charge back in 1965, they never would have enacted Medicare in the first place. But I digress.)
The Republican right understands the power of the visceral; it knows how to stoke emotions at the expense of civility. This is not exactly a fresh observation, yet it's amazing how flat-footed Democrats seem always to discover it anew. They seem forever convinced that the power of high ideals should be sufficient for victory - that, in the present case, Americans should simply be convinced, on the merits, that health care reform is preferable to the dysfunctional status quo. As Howard Paster, Clinton's health care guy in 1993, told The Times this morning, "The expectation (among the Obama people) was that things have gotten so bad in the last 16 years that there would be a consensus on the need to act this time."
But that's not how the other team plays the game. Indeed, numerous Democratic strategists and commentators have been trying to make this point for a long time. A couple years ago, for instance, radio host and ex-California Democratic chairman Bill Press offered this advise to his brethren: "In politics, if somebody slaps you on the cheek, you punch him in the nose. Then you punch him in the gut. Then you kick him in the groin. Then you crack a chair over his head. Then, just to make sure, you jump up and down on top of him with both feet...The only way to win is to fight back. Hard and tough. If they don't, they don't deserve to win."
Press was characteristically a tad over the top, but his basic point was that Democrats should stop being surprised to learn that politics ain't beanbag. This is not to suggest that Obama should retaliate by retailing lies equal in virulence to those being spewed by his opponents; if he was to conduct himself as his opponents are doing, he would be promptly attacked for failing to change the tone in Washington.
His best option is to do what he probably should have done months ago: find an attractively repeatable health reform pitch that can fit on a bumper sticker, something that can appeal to positive emotions. (Perhaps if Obama had done that during the spring, he could have at least partially preempted the nabobs of negativity.) Indeed, there are reports today that Obama will now pitch his plan as a vehicle for ending unfair insurance practices, for protecting the millions of Americans who have pre-existing health conditions.
Maybe a positive emotional pitch can still work - unless it is too little, too late, and insufficient weaponry for an alley fight.
Comment removed.
"For all the angry talk of socialism, what seems to irk many older voters is that the Obama plan implies less socialism for them. The question for conservatives: If President Obama is willing to volunteer to put his hand into this beehive… why not let him? Don’t we also want a less expensive Medicare program? Indeed, without Medicare savings, the national tax burden must inevitably rise by at least four or five points of GDP as the baby boomers retire. History is full of ironies, and it may be that the success of the Medicare portion of Obama’s health plan is the essential precondition for the next Republican tax cut." - David Frum (rabid liberal)— the stupid does burn- Comment removed.
- still, I said this underneath "That $210 bil per year would be much, much less if a doctor's liability was capped and his/hers malpractice insurance would be less as well." People & employers will choose the govt. option because it is cheaper, not better! It will cheaper only through govt. subsidies (just like loans at Fannie were more favorable because of govt. subsidies) and companies and poor people will choose it just for that reason alone! In the end, the govt. option will squeeze out any other insurance option for the poor and middle class by its size alone and private insurance will only be for the rich! Liberals in the house, namely one Barney Frank, have already said a single payer system is the final goal! At least he is being honest about what he wants and the President looks weak in this whole debate for not saying what he wants!— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
- The flawed premise in this pitiful myopic excuse for a column is that the 'power of high ideals' is at stake. Yes, BHO and his sock puppets in the corporate media are surprised alright. Surprised that so many people from across the political spectrum have seen through the Trojan horse disguised as 'health care reform' that they're trying to ram through without any meaningful debate.— JC Denton
- Xi is right. Among Conse 'Pubs 100% are strongly opposed to all ideas but their own!— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- tal, where the heck have you been? From this conse'pub to a lib'dem, welcome back:)— NEPhilly
- Comment removed.
The Status quo are not going to give up without a fight - who hasn't been saying this for years over energy and health care. The town hall fiasco is the part of the fight that we get to see. The other part is behind the scenes the purse strings and re-election funds. The Democratic and Independent minded Republicans and independents are going to weigh self interest vs. Country First. We know what the majority of them will do. However if the new election bill is passed - back to public financing and corporate money is taken out of the game - it could be a new day. I'm sure that the majority of Americans see the rancor at the Town Halls for what it is but WE don't matter when it comes to financing. The big donors run the show. District by district the politicians weigh the polls versus the money train and then they vote - to stay in office. The politicians have to be less vulnerable to the sway of corporate financing - so they can serve their constituents in their own local. There is only one way to do that - pass the Fair Election Law - it's on the floor now. If Congress does that - it will put industry on notice and they'll have to dream up other ways to keep stealing our tax dollars and gaming the system to pad their ENORMOUS incomes. Fair and equitable societies do better across the board, wealth wise, health wise, education wise, and productivity wise. When their is too much of a divergence between the top 1% and the middle class those Countries are just horrible to live in and the quality of life for all plummets. Greed is not good and serves no ones best interest. In a lot of ways this Country is showing its age - not old and wise, but infantile and spoiled.
I second Vandy's recommendation, but I would also suggest that we create a second tier of medical treatment for the poor. Give them long wait times, 1980's era medicine and older diagnostic and treatment equipment. Let them get treated by Democrat volunteer doctors, or medical students. Essentially, they get 90% of the healthcare for 50% of the cost. Make it sufficiently crappy that employers won't bail on their existing benefits. Is such a two-tier system objectionable to anyone? Is it immoral to give the poor "good but not great" health treatment?— Mr. Smith- Ender - 12:31 - exactly - the Repubs have a word for it when they are doing it - not just "Deficit Spending" which Ronnie Regan hailed - but "Capital Investment" when they build bridges to nowhere - it's hypocrisy - the Republicans spent their brains out when they were in power and now out of power they are fiscal hawks again - it would be laughable if it wasn't such a shame and immature.
- Comment removed.
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
