"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.
Déjà vu? Like the laughable “Democrats are just too darn nice” talking point? (Or it’s cousin, Democrat positions are just too nuanced to gain popular support.) If it didn’t catch on BEFORE the eight years of liberal BUSH HITLER! mania, why does the Left think people will buy it now? Especially after the Right said the same thing about John McCain as he went down to defeat. Remember “Medi-scare” Dick? Remember when Newt Gingrich was going to let seniors “wither and die” Dick? Hello? Dick? Come on. Ya think that the fact that 90 percent of American voters have health insurance and 70 percent are happy with it MAY have something to do with the incredulous reaction Americans have to what they are witnessing? It’s silly, but understandable, when Democrat operatives trot out this excuse. When a journalist tires it, it’s pretty stunning.— Chris J.- xi, I say the congress and their family's should have to go into whatever system they come up with:) Oh, wait, they would probably bankrupt us faster if that was the case:) This spendthrift congress also added several extra jets worth $300 Mil extra into the defense budget (i guess Nancy doesn't like her current plane) that the DOD din't want, just to have them stationed at Andrews waiting to be used! That is the way Wash, DC works when you leave members of any party there to long! They feel entitled to our money. Give them less power, not more! Term limits for them all would make me feel a little better at least:)— NEPhilly
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
Once again the best way to fix healthcare is this , pass federal laws telling health insurance companies what they can charge , what co pay to set , order that nobody can be dropped and nobody can ever be refused . Pass laws no health company can tell a doctor what treatment they can use . Then pass laws every American and legal migrant must have health cover , and pass laws no illegal can have health care here they can go home instead . Also pass a federal law capping liability claims and pass another law any lawyer bringing more than three frivoulous claims in a twelve month period be banned from practise , that will reduce costs for a start . As congress is full of lawyers you this will never happen but it would work if they had the countries best interests at heart .— PAEnglish- Comment removed.
- Obama just said, at his townhall in New Hampshire, that HIS health care plan will give people access to the type of care just like Congress has, with an exchange where all types of plans and carriers compete ALONG WITH a government plan (whose premiums are estimated to be 25% less than private insurance, according to CBO estimates). Now, which plan has the exchange where we can get the same plan as members of Congress? Is that the House or Senate version? As for Polman, I guess he believes $500 Billion in medicare cuts will have no impact on services. I recall in the 1990's when Republicans tried to cut the growth of Medicare and Democrats ran their 'Mediscare" commercials. I guess Polman was on board with the Republicans and believed no cuts in service would take place at that time too. I would just love to see how utilization will increase and costs will be cut without rationing care.— tom - wilmington, de
- master....I agree, everyone in this country should have access to affordable health care. And, in keeping with the freedoms on which this country was founded, I believe it should be up to each person on an individual basis to decide if they want to pay for that healthcare or go without. However, what we have is the government dictating that a person MUST purchase health insurance or else be fined. Now, how is that in keeping with the ideal on which this country was founded....individual freedom without dictates from the government. True, we HAVE to buy auto insurance IF we buy a car. Don't want to buy auto insurance...don't buy a car. And auto insurance is more for the other guy/lender than for the purchaser. However, forcing a person to buy health insurance IMHO is unconstitutional.— tom - wilmington, de
- "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." Noble intentions? Putting as many people on the dole as possible in order to lock up an electorate is hardly noble. I go back to the Sotomayor hearings, when you posted ad nauseum about the possibility of a GOP filibuster, which of course never happened, knowing that the cowardly, nasty filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is the domain of the Democrats. What was the attack line on Thomas from the left? "We're going to Bork him!" Here is an idea for healthcare reform: (1) tort reform to bring down the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance (won't happen with Democrats in office, as they are in bed with the "noble" trial lawyers), (2) eliminate interstate boundaries, and (3) eliminate/reduce minimum coverage mandates that make it prohibitively expensive for many people to purchase individual plans.— Vandy
- NEPhilly: because you've decided that all of the $210B is due to fear of lawsuits.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Obama just said he is going to pay for healthcare by limiting the itemized deductions on those making more than $250K per year. Is that part of the House bill? Is it in the Senate version? Where is that in one of the bills? I guess then there will be no payroll tax penalty or income surtax (on adjusted gross income) as currently contained in the House version of the bill. Does he even know what he is talking about or what is in the House bill?— tom - wilmington, de
- Xi: what forces the employers to offer coverage right now? NOTHING ! It's a benefit (like salary, 401k, etc.) used to entice employees to work there. Now if the free market reigns supreme, and if the gov't plan s*cks like you say it will, why would anyone choose it? And if employers don't need to offer better health coverage to keep employees, why are they doing it now? This is the most illogical (and that's saying something) argument people keep putting out in this whole debate.— still_independent
- Comment removed.
- Obama just lied...saying he has never been in favor of a single payer system...forgetting I guess what he said before. Unbelievable...— tom - wilmington, de
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
