The Weekly Standard’s reliably pedestrian Noemie Emerie has a fabulous piece –in the sense that, say, Pinocchio, is a fable–detailing the tsunami of bad news that will ensue for Democrats because of the American people’s rejection of health care legislation as manifested in the midterm elections of 2010. I agree, in a limited sense, that Democrats were hurt in 2010 because the public thought the President spent too much time on health care reform and not enough on the economy. But that’s a secondary reason: the real problem was the economy. Period.
Indeed, it seems the public view of the health care plan is somewhat different from what Republicans imagine–hat tip and happy new year to both Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias. At first glance, it looks the way Noemie Emerie thinks it does: 43% favor the plan, 50% oppose it. But let’s look more closely at the opposition: 37% oppose it because it’s too liberal…but 13% oppose it because it’s not liberal enough. It could be argued, if one argued the way Emerie argues (that is, carelessly, from an armchair), that if the 2010 elections had been solely about the need for universal health care, the Democrats would have romped by a 56% to 37% majority.
Actually, I think the health care numbers would be significantly stronger but for the fabulous–again, in the Pinocchio sense–misinformation campaign run by the Republican Party, starting with the notion that it represents socialized medicine and continuing on with Palin’s Pinocchian “death panel” invention. As any of the 13% who oppose the bill because it’s not liberal enough can tell you, there isn’t even a smidgeon of socialism involved here. Not even a public option (a pink herring overplayed by both sides of the debate). And I suspect that, over time, as Americans learn the exact nature of the legislation, the popularity of ObamaRomneyCare will be as popular as it currently is in…Massachusetts. (Although, I hasten to add, the bill could be significantly improved by moving more people from Medicaid to health exchanges and, in states where an adequate market doesn’t exist, adding a public option.)
Oh, one other thing: Emerie cleverly calls the passage of health care a catastrophic success, a term she seems to think she has invented. Actually, no. Etymology is important here: “catastrophic success” was a term of art invented by the Bush Jr. Administration to describe the quick overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime–too quick, allegedly, for the U.S. to respond with proper security and social services on the ground. Her definition stands as a pretty good description of that earlier debacle:
That’s what happens when you do something big, and it turns out quite badly…
I’d say the jury remains out–yes, even politically–on health care reform.
