Opposition Party Opposes Majority Party's Signature Policy: Will Democracy Survive???
“The only way to understand the press, Prime Minister, is to remember that they pander to their readers’ prejudices.”
Jonathan Chait has a frankly bizarre piece in New York Magazine explaining to what must be a puzzled audience’s insistent question: why does the Republican Party persist in opposing Obamacare? I mean, I know they hate kittens and everything, but c’mon—healthcare!
Now, off the top of my head, one reason why the Republican Party might oppose Obamacare is that it remains deeply unpopular, and that politicians tend to be responsive to public opinion.
But I think there’s an even bigger reason, and I have seen time and again how shocking it remains to many liberals, but nonetheless it must be said. I may be French, but I have been taken to Rove Mountain and been inducted in the secret society that runs the Republican Party and the conservative movement, taught all the secret handshakes and passwords (“Fidelio”), and so I can report back on the TRUE reason to conservative opposition to Obamacare. And it’s pretty shocking.
Are you ready?
Wait for it…
Conservatives think Obamacare is terrible policy.
Conservatives actually, seriously, deeply, genuinely, truly, strongly, really think Obamacare is really bad no good policy.
And so they oppose it.
No, really.
That’s the reason.
I know, I’m one of them.
Most, if not all, conservatives, myself very much included, think that Obamacare will make American healthcare worse and more expensive and will be too expensive and unnecessarily (and perhaps dangerously and irreversibly) expand the size of government (I realize that for progressives this latest a feature and not a bug, but conservatives don’t see it that way). They think that it will lead to millions if not tens of millions of people being worse, not better off, and many more dying too soon.
Maybe they’re wrong! But that’s what they think! And so they oppose the law!
Forgive me for being flip, but there is something a bit absurd about reading all this concern about the opposition party of a country opposing the majority party’s signature policy. From where I sit in France, the main right-wing party used to have a majority, and they cut taxes, and the main left-wing party opposed it ; then the left won elections, and now it is raising taxes, and the right-wing party opposes that. As far as I can tell in Great Britain the Labour Party opposes the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition’s austerity policies.
This is how democracy works. One party has some ideas about what’s good policy, the other party has other ideas, and so when one party wins the election, the other party is not happy about the policies that get implemented.
I mean, really. This is how democracy works.
Now, Chait notes that Republican opposition to Obamacare has been particularly virulent and trench-warfare-like.
Well, again, conservatives feel really strongly about Obamacare. Why, I’m almost as angry with it as I was with the Iraq War! (Which Democrats at several points tried to defund.)
And, again, Obamacare is very unpopular, which tends to put wind at politicians’ backs. (Chait notes this, but attributes it to Republicans’ well-known Dark Magick Powers Of Voter Brainwashing—you know, the ones that got Mitt Romney to sweep all 50 states.)
But it’s true that there’s another reason why conservative opposition to Obamacare has been so virulent, and it’s right there in Chait’s lede: “The Republican party has voted unanimously against establishing the Affordable Care Act in the Senate and then in the House of Representatives[.]”
Another, equally valid way to write this would be: “The Democratic party pushed the Affordable Care Act through Congress on a party-line vote in the Senate and then in the House of Representatives, in violation of the long-standing American political tradition of passing far-reaching initiatives only with bipartisan support.”
Regardless of whether reform-by-consensus is a good idea in the abstract (and as a partisan red in tooth and claw, I support it when I’m in the minority and oppose it when I’m in the majority), one reason why in the American system reform-by-consensus is advisable is because the American system includes so many checks and balances (legislatures, and courts, and states, and governors, and oh my) that if you were to just trample the Opposition, why, it just might use those checks and balances to try to block your reform anyway. You know, like the Founders intended.
If Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act is unprecedented, then, it’s because it’s a response to unprecedented actions by the Democratic Party.
Now, when this is pointed out, liberals often respond that Republicans did nothing about healthcare when they were in power and that Something Needed To Be Done. There’s less truth to this than many liberals think but a lot more than I am happy with, but as a matter of logic this is plainly absurd: even if Alice did nothing about the roach infestation, it doesn’t mean Bob was right to burn down the house to get rid of the roaches.
Now of course, liberals don’t view Obamacare as “burning down the house.” But conservatives do!
We really do.
Of course, Democrats never threatened to shut down the government—let alone default on the national debt, which would be even more disastrous—in order to force concessions on any area of policy, including the Iraq War.
— Dan Miller · Sep 16, 01:47 PM · #
Two brief points:
Firstly, the Republican Party in congress has pretty much voted against everything proposed by the Democrats over the last 5 years so to say that it was the Democrats who started the “unprecedented” actions, is a little disingenuous. At least in the house, there is no Republican support for any of Obama’s because anyone who demonstrates any “weakness” will by primaried.
Secondly, comparing this to what happens in Europe is also not really fair. In European democracies, a party gets in, enacts its policies and if the people don’t like it, they get booted out and the new guys get to do their thing. In the US, it’s pretty much impossible to do that given that there are 3 places that have to agree in order to pass a bill, and the requirement for a supermajority in the Senate. It’s no surprise that the ordinary voter has such a low opinion of Congress – it’s almost impossible to know who to blame for any given crisis. The old model of cross-party negotiation to pass legislation died when the parties became largely regional. Neither side has anything to gain (electorally) by negotiating in good faith.
Also, “reform-by-consensus” is impossible as long as there is a party in Congress that is unwilling to compromise in any way for fear that it will look like a win for the President. It is naive in the extreme to think that such a compromise was ever possible.
— Gerry · Sep 16, 02:15 PM · #
Dan Miller: Suckerzzzzz!
Gerry: I agree that it is naive to believe in compromise with conservatives over Obamacare. The reason is that conservatives think Obamacare is terrible policy.
— PEG · Sep 16, 04:27 PM · #
“in violation of the long-standing American political tradition of passing far-reaching initiatives only with bipartisan support.”
I’ve heard this point repeated, but never backed. What long-standing political tradition are we talking about (especially in the context of a nation that has gone from rebel upstart to hegemonic superpower in less than three centuries) and does that point ignore any other equally long standing political traditions on compromise and the like? Perhaps the recent discovery by Republican political strategists that an incumbent of an opposition party, or at least their opposition party, can grind the gears of government to a halt and pay far less price than previously expected?
I think there is also an understandable, even reasonable belief that the degree of conservative opposition to Obamacare is disingenuous, based on the pedigree of the policy ideas. Which is to say they believe that conservatives are being a combination of lairs – they like or are meh about the policy, but they claim to hate it because it is politically useful – and nuts – they hate it because they hate Obama in particular and Democrats in general. Which is to say, they think that Obamacare is terrible policy because it flatters their biases and political prospects.
I subscribe to the theory stating that the policy hatred is genuine but synthetic, a natural psychological reaction in the partisan mind to be sure, but also actively prodded along because it flatters biases and political prospects.
Seperately, you did not link the Chait piece you mentioned so was this a special discussion, or just one of his various dropped in swipes at the Republicans
— K Chen · Sep 16, 05:18 PM · #
@Dan Miller: I wasn’t referring specifically to Obamacare. More to the idea that compromise of any kind is impossible on nearly any issue. Personally, I would welcome a system where a party got to enact its policies when it won an election. At least that way, there is clarity. If it works, and the people like it, they will be re-elected. If not, they will get thrown out and the opposition will come in and enact their plans. The current system is a recipe for never doing anything ever with no way of effectively apportioning blame. In Europe, the opposition reflexively votes against the government on every issue. It’s only in the last 10 years that this has become the norm in Congress. Unfortunately, this has consequences here (i.e. government shut-down and potential debt-default) because of the necessity for the opposition to occasionally agree with the President in order to pass anything.
— Gerry · Sep 16, 05:39 PM · #
Apologies PEG, I misinterpreted who had responded to the last comment.
— Gerry · Sep 16, 05:40 PM · #
In part, Chait is responding to a connection, revealed by surveys, that those who are less familiar with the provisions and processes of Obamacare are less likely to view it favorably.
Gobry merely points out that conservatives who oppose the law do so because they fear it will have bad consequences— in government spending, health outcomes, etc. . . But just because they believe the law will have bad results, does not mean they understand the law. In many cases, their fears may be significantly rooted in distrust of policies instituted by a liberal president. It’s not necessarily cynical to think so. Opposition from one party to the other party’s agenda may indeed be a trait of democracies, but since when is this opposition inherently measured and well-informed, as Gobry (being a part of the opposition in this case) would like to suggest? Often, in fact, the opposition behaves tribally and suspiciously.
Obviously, some conservatives know the law very well, and they still oppose it. That’s great.
But survey findings indicate that one who understands the details of Obamacare is less likely to fear its potential negative impact. Better information about the law is tied to lower pessimism about the law.
If Gobry disputes the surveys— if he has something other than his wonky conservative friends’ opinions to rely on— he should say so. Maybe the surveys’ methods are dubious, but he gives us no reason to think so. He just claims that generally conservative opposition to Obamacare is principled. Yet, much of this opposition could also be ignorant. He says nothing that disputes this possibility.
— Robert Young · Sep 17, 02:24 PM · #
Is this a serious post? It seems like you’re positing republicans as serious, policy-minded defenders of democracy. Is that your actual view?
— Ben · Sep 17, 05:18 PM · #