Creative Obstruction

The political fallout from Scott Brown’s insurgent win has me thinking about the nature of our democracy. The way the republic is set up, if a large enough group of legislators—say, hypothetically, the Senate Republican caucus—simply chooses not to negotiate in good faith with the other side, offering only ideological proposals that have no basis in reality—say, hypothetically, deficit reduction and no cuts to Medicare—they can completely obstruct the agenda of even a huge majority like that the Democrats currently have (and will continue to have, don’t let’s forget, even in the wake of the Brown-out).

There is a certain brash creativity to this.

The Republicans stated, quite loudly, as soon as President Obama announced his intention to pursue health care reform in early 2009, that they would kill it. Straight up said it. A moderate few pretended to negotiate, but according to Harry Reid “it was a waste of time dealing with [Republican Senator Olympia Snowe] because she had no intention of ever working anything out.” The GOP can claim to have offered alternative legislation, but look at Jim DeMint’s proposals and try to tell me with a straight face that they would solve any problems. You can’t.

The Republicans’ capacity to obstruct has much to do with Senate rules and procedures. Use of the filibuster has jumped to historical highs in the past few years. There are many people, myself included, who believe that America might be better off if the Senate were simply abolished. If wishes were horses…

The broader point is that American democracy is imperfect, and always will be. A small minority can, with audacity and consistency, stop the government in its tracks. That old dinosaur The Village Voice captured it best today with their headline: “Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate.”

All eyes now turn to Obama. His reaction will determine how the Democrats will govern with only a 19-seat majority in the Senate. I leave you, for a dash of hope, with Jonathan Chait:

Here is what I think will happen. The shock and panic will play itself out over a few days. Then the Democrats will assess the situation and realize that letting health care die represents their worst possible option. And then they will make a deal to pass the Senate bill through the House. I am not positive this will happen, but it’s my bet, because elected officials at the national level, dim though they can be, are usually shrewd enough to recognize their political self-interest.

In the meantime, the display of hysteria is actually disgusting.

Is HCR Dead Without Coakley?

Not necessarily. And now for some backtracking.

In my last post, I bemoaned the likely election of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special Senate election today as the death knell to passage of health care reform, since the obstructionism of Senate Republicans has made it impossible, pretty much since Obama’s inauguration, to pass anything without a supermajority.

That was probably a little hasty, and a little misleading. Here’s why:

1. Even if Brown wins tonight, that doesn’t mean health care is immediately dead. It would take at least 10 days, probably 15, to certify the election, possibly giving the Democrats time to push a bill through with interim Senator Paul Kirk’s vote. Of course, nobody prefers that HCR pass on a technicality or the outcome of a lawsuit over MA special elections law, but for those of us who think HCR is more important than politics, this outcome would be better than nothing.
2. It might not even matter what happens in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi is going around telling reporters that “we will have health care—one way or another” and Steny Hoyer was quoted saying the Senate bill “clearly is better than nothing.” These remarks seem to indicate that House Democratic leaders are willing to push the Senate version through, despite the abortion language that has Bart Stupak (ugh) and friends saying they’ll vote it down. Whether Pelosi has the votes remains to be seen.
3. Martha Coakley could still win. Nate Silver gives her a 25% chance of winning, and emphasizes an important fact about this:

People are acting, however, as though 25 percent is the same as zero percent. And—as disappointing as it might be to be in this position—obviously it is not. This is not some basketball game where the score suddenly became Brown 75, Coakley 25; a 25 percent chance of winning means, quite literally, 25 percent.

So let’s lay it out there: Brown is heavily favored to win, although it’s far from certain; the outcomes of special elections are notoriously difficult to predict. If Brown does win, passage of health care reform becomes significantly more difficult, although not impossible. No matter what happens, Lost returns with new episodes on February 2nd.

And one more thing: the outcome of one special election in Massachusetts is not a “referendum” on the President and his “liberal agenda.” That’s idiotic, and if you think it’s true you watch far too much Fox News and know far too little about MA politics. The tenor of this election reflects dissatisfaction with the corruption and hackishness of the good-old-boy Democratic party in Massachusetts—concealed for so many decades behind the enormous historical stature of Ted Kennedy—coupled with a populist Tea Party-style uprising over the economy and channeled into a contest between a charismatic unknown and a career pol who can’t campaign to save her life.

But you should still vote for Coakley.

Voting for Scott Brown Is Stupid

I’m serious. If you live in Massachusetts and vote for Scott Brown (or that other confusing “Kennedy” guy)  today, I will never forgive you.

Martha Coakley is a terrible, awful, no good, nearly worthless candidate—there were far better alternatives—but if  you don’t vote for her you are effectively voting against extending health insurance coverage to some 30 million people. There’s a decent chance you’re one of them!

There’s also the fact that Scott Brown is a crazy wingnut, but at this point I’m less concerned with that and more worried about the fate of national health care reform resting in the hands of a few moderate voters who are sick of the Kennedys.

For Health Care Skeptics

A nice graphical representation of the benefits of the Senate bill from the folks at Think Progress’s Wonk Room:

Sixty

Reid got there, and it’s a staggering achievement.

Politically speaking, I think Jonathan Chait has the most interesting take on what happened. Over the summer, during the heyday of the tea parties, it looked like health care reform was doomed, or at least eviscerated. Obama’s insistence on a bipartisan bill gave Republicans free rein to negotiate in bad faith. And boy did they.

Would you look at how that turned out! As Chait writes, “The Republicans eschewed a halfway compromise and put all their chips on an all or nothing campaign to defeat health care and Obama’s presidency. It was an audacious gamble. They lost.” A gamble for which we should be forever grateful.

Of course it’s not a perfect bill. Did you expect it to be? If so, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you. (It goes To Nowhere.) But the package we got is certainly better than nothing; it’s better than what we could have gotten if the GOP hadn’t been so brazen; and it lays the groundwork for incremental improvement. Here’s what’s in it now. Marc Ambinder—one of the smartest observers in Washington—even thinks that what the President will sign, after conference, will be more progressive than the Senate bill:

The bill that Obama signs will be “better” from the standpoint of liberal activists than the bill that the Senate is going to pass. It will contain more subsidies…probably some version of a trigger for some sort of insurance competitive mechanism…a reinstatement of mandatory cost controls for hospitals…and even tighter restrictions on insurers.

It is, after all, the most wonderful time of the year. Know hope.

New Adventures in Republican Hypocrisy

This is just hilarious. But I’m glad it’s so.

Walking Straight Into the Echo Chamber, or Why Sarah Palin Gets Away With It

It’s too easy to anger the mind.

I was catching up on my growing pile of New Yorkers this weekend when I came across a book review by Elizabeth Kolbert that got me to thinking about Sarah Palin and her whole phony “death panels” meme, which she reiterated on Saturday on her Facebook page. (Screw the MSM!)

First thought: I can’t believe I just went to Sarah Palin’s Facebook page.

Second thought: Anger. People believe this?

The occasion for Palin’s screed, of course, was the House vote on the health care reform bill. “What’s in this bill?” she “wrote.” “The ‘death panel’ provision is in it.”

Needless to say, this is still not what end-of-life counseling means. It has never meant what Palin claims it means. “Death panels” is a nefarious phrase—willfully misleading, politically expedient, morally repugnant. It’s a retreat to the cowardice of empty polemic. In other words: vintage Palin.

But why do so many people believe her? Why does she continue to get away with it?

(more…)

Election Reax

I think I’ve written enough about yesterday’s elections, so here’s some of what the Internet is saying:

• Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan compiles diverse election reactions from around the web, here and here. He also has some final thoughts on the pain in Maine after last night’s disappointing result. It wasn’t all bad news for the gays, though. “Everything-but-marriage” domestic partnerships survived a referendum in Washington state, and Chapel Hill—yes, the one in North Carolina, really!—elected a gay mayor.

• Alex Pareene has characteristically sensible and witty takes on yesterday’s elections, Maine, and Michael Bloomberg at Gawker.

• At the New Republic, Jonathan Chait dissects the national spin and Michael Crowley articulates what ought to become the conventional wisdom on Mayor Mike: “I’m glad Bloomberg got some comeuppance, but I’m also glad he won.”

• Brian Beutler makes a meaningful point about the elections and health insurance reform: a bill will now be easier to pass in the House.

• Reactions at NRO’s The Corner are predictably smug and self-serving. Jonah Goldberg thinks yesterday was a “very, very bad day for Democrats.” We’ll see. Mark Steyn tries to downplay Hoffman’s loss in NY-23. (Would shoulda coulda!) Never mind, of course, that the Dems actually picked up a seat in the House overall. And finally, slimy Maggie Gallagher is “so happy” about the conservative victory in Maine. (Too bad it didn’t go her way in Washington!)

In actual news, today is the 30th anniversary of the start of the Tehran hostage crisis, and protests there continue for various reasons.

So Pass It Already!

I’ll have some more in-depth analysis on Monday, but  going into the weekend, this seems to be important to note:

According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, a majority of Americans prefer, by 51% to 37%, that Congress pass a health care plan with a public option without Republican support than a plan without a public option but with Republican votes.

So do it already.