The New REPUBLIC

"

Democrats, Health Care Reform, And The Center

• Jonathan Chait | March 22, 2010 | 11:00 am

Last week, my former editor Peter Beinart had an article in the Daily Beast arguing that the passage of health care reform would forever change the Democratic Party. Peter argued that the party has long been run by centrist strategists who believe that, in the fact of a presumably skeptical public, Democrats must hew close to the center and make it their highest priority to avoid provoking public ire. Their opponents, first organizing around Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy, countered that Democrats had more to risk by appearing wishy-washy, and could attract voters by displaying principle.

I think Peter oversimplifies the debate here in a lot of ways. Still, there's something to it. I think it's worth thinking through what we've learned from the health care triumph. I think it has altered Democratic thinking about political strategy, but hasn't completely overturned it.

The Clintonite political strategy was a hyper-vigilant application of what political scientists call "median voter theory." In a nutshell, the theory holds that the most powerful force in politics at any given moment is the voter in the center of the political spectrum. The party that hews closest to the center wins the allegiance of that median voter and wins the election. The Clintonite approach was to ruthlessly purge the party of any positions that alienated the center. Democrats would embrace capital punishment, welfare reform, middle-class tax cuts, and anything else they needed to do in order to avoid being stuck holding an unpopular position. (Emphasis added)

I would analogize this theory to the most simplistic, neoclassical economic theories, which envision an efficient economic system in which every individual maximizes his own utility. In the broad sense, the theory works pretty well. But there's enough friction, lack of information, and other problems that the system rarely works perfectly. And there are some rare occasions where it completely breaks down. (Emphasis added)

Mitch McConnell has frankly explained one of the ways his own strategy has exploited some of the weaknesses of the median voter strategy. Voters don't follow the details of legislation closely. They base their opinions on broad heuristics, the most important being the presence or lack thereof of bipartisan support. McConnell explained this to the New York Times:

Continues @ TNR.com

"

------------------------------------

End of Clintonites? Are you dreaming??  No way!  That is very myopic view of what Clintons are about!  Yes, lack of information can TEMPORARILY sway the pendulum.. but most Americans in the center are smart and not really stuck in their position - when the information does come out, we know where we line up.. and for the most part, most Americans are accepting of fellow Americans, and want all people to prosper, and do not really want poverty and ill health to dog the country to its knees. 

Clintonite approach works in the long-run.


As for the Health care bill, it was never intended to be centrist anyway. It was always meant to cover those who do not have the insurance - no one pretended that it was otherwise; not even John McCain during the campaign.  The idea is to find (subsidized) ways for people to take responsibility for their own health care insurance coverage.  In that regard, it is far more towards the center (individual responsibility) and far less socialism (government giving full coverage) than most far left proponents would like.  I for one, from the center, would have liked to see SOME public option for the downtrodden hard-on-luck people I see holding "HUNGRY NEED FOOD" banners on the roadside lately (a new thing in our town at exits off the highway!).

As to people saying "oh healthcare is going to cost me more than my rent" well, what did you expect? Yes, it is supposed to  - health care is a more core need than roof over head in the Maslow hierarchy!!

If the HCR bill indeed manages to contain cost of health insurance to 9% to 10% of a person's income, yes, it can be a very good outcome.



-- Edited by Sanders on Tuesday 23rd of March 2010 01:20:52 PM