Emanuel's assumption [was] that there was absolutely no reason to accommodate
progressive objections to the health care bill because progressives (despite
their threats) would automatically fall into line and support whatever the White
House wanted, even if their demands were ignored. Is there really any doubt that
Emanuel was right about this point?
Dennis Kucinich, who yesterday came out publicly in support of the Senate bill - a striking reversal from his long-held pledge to oppose any bill without a robust public option- was the probably the proverbial "last straw". If Kucinich, one of the most outspoken Liberals (and, in my opinion one of the few ideologically consistent members) in congress, is falling into line, opposition from the Left is essentially dead. Sure enough, poll numbers of Liberals in support of the bill have ticked up.
The idea behind Moral Hazard is that as soon as people learn there’s no negative consequence for a behavior they’ll do it like it’s going out of style. Great recent example: the financial crisis.
Before we beat up on Dennis too much, let's remember why we had Liberal opposition in the first place. It's something I feel like I deal with everyday at my office: a little thing called Moral Hazzard. The idea behind Moral Hazard is that as soon as people learn there's no negative consequence for a behavior they'll do it like it's going out of style. Great recent example: the financial crisis. Banks take dangerous risks, they lose money, the government bails them out. Result: ding ding the risk taking continues unabated, even increases!
What does moral hazard have to do with Liberal opposition to a weak health care bill? Plenty, if people are thinking strategically. Liberals threaten to oppose the bill if it doesn't include a public option or medicare buy-in. Rahm Emanuel assumes they're bluffing, that they'll just fall in line and deep throat whatever he feeds them. Now that just such a bill is set to pass, Liberals must oppose it! (Or so the thinking goes.) Otherwise Emanuel and triangulating administration strategists will get the idea that Liberal threats aren't worth a damn. And hence you've created a Moral Hazard, incentivizing the continued bitch-slapping of Liberals.
There's just one thing we should remember - these strategies are a means to an end: that end being passing strong health care reform and strengthening the progressive agenda long-term. With respect to the bill itself, we've probably gotten as good a bill as we're going to get. Any positive results Liberal pressure was going to produce with the present bill, it's already produced. Opposing the bill from the Left now might make sense if, as Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi suggests, everyone will pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and promptly start again - with the lessons from this defeat in mind - to make a stronger bill. But what is the likelihood of things going down that way? Not high, if you're a student of history. Nope - if this bill doesn't pass it will be years before Democrats will have the moxie to try again, and it might well be even worse.
It's this bill or no bill.
As to the other part of the argument - that "centrists" will have greater incentive to ignore Liberals' demands in the future if this bill passes - that may be true, but remember the second goal is strengthening the progressive agenda. Does anyone really thing the progressive agenda will be strengthened in any meaningful way if health reform fails?
Hate to say it but this is the end game. Build on the passage of the bill, make it stronger, implement its major reforms sooner. Then elect some people with actual balls in the next primaries. But for now, this is what we're stuck with.
No comments:
Post a Comment