The Myth of Partisanship Being a Bad Thing

June 27, 2009

Craig Berger Uncategorized Barack Obama, common good, Congress, Democratic Party, healthcare, Politics, Republican Party, Wordpress Political Blogs 9 Comments

“But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health care plan? That is the choice.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Charleston Gazette, 6/25/2009

Sen. Rockefeller’s framing of the choice should be instructive for his fellow Democratic senators (whether they listen is surely up in the air).

In a way, the problem Rockefeller speaks of here is the opposite of something we often see among our lawmakers. Usually, lawmakers refuse to cooperate, often turning the process into an ideological battle that holds good policy hostage, resulting in little progress. Unfortunately, since we’ve gotten control of the Congress in 2006, Democrats are obsessed with making sure the GOP is happy with any legislative victories we might achieve. Yet, Republicans couldn’t care less about what Democrats feel. So we face a different outcome, though still frustrating — policy IS passed, but it’s nothing but mush, or Republican-lite.

Here we are, debating health care, faced with yet another opportunity to pass critical and historic legislation, this time with a Democratic president in the White House, and too many Democrats are afraid of hurting the Republicans’ feelings.

Repeat after me: PARTISANSHIP IS NOT A BAD THING. Yes, the arguing and ideological tactics can produce a toxic political process. But just as well, empty legislation can produce toxic policy, still leaving millions of Americans without health insurance, while handing the GOP a bone. The fact remains that Democrats have nearly 60 percent of the seats in both chambers, having won the majority of congressional races in 2008 despite the Republicans’ frequent attempts at linking the party and its presidential candidate with socialism. The presidential candidate ran on “change” and won. People want to see something different.

What’s more, the American people in poll after poll trust the Democrats to handle nearly all issues, with health care being one of the issues the public trusts Democrats with the most. A large Washington Post poll released this week produces similar results, though the poll pits Obama against the Congressional Republicans instead of both parties. Obama won big. Borrowing from Greg Sargent’s post on the Post’s poll at The Plum Line:

On health care, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 26% trust GOPers in Congress.
On the economy, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 31% trust the GOP.
On the budget deficit, 52% of indys trust Obama, and 30% trust the GOP.

Even though Barack Obama is on record as supporting a public option as a part of health reform, the majority of independent voters still support him — twice as many than the number supporting Republicans.

Youth are relying on the Democratic Party to produce some results after supporting them by a 2-1 ratio in 2008. We’re waiting for good policy (read – health reform WITH a public option) that’s passed and signed into law because we WANT and NEED it to be passed, not because we want to make sure the Republicans aren’t mad and don’t hold a grudge.

If the GOP wants to work with Democrats in good faith, fine. If not, Democrats have marching orders from Americans. And they don’t include kissing the feet of the GOP.

9 Comments (+add yours?)

dcbarton
Jun 27, 2009 @ 19:54:19

“this time with a Democratic president in the White House, and too many Democrats are afraid of hurting the Republicans’ feelings.”
No, actually what Democrats are afraid of is hurting the feelings of the voters, the vast majority of which don’t want this government health care plan. Your polls are cherry-picked, the truth is that Gallup and Pew Research polls show the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Reply
- Craig Berger
  Jun 27, 2009 @ 22:07:46
  
  Try this one on for size.
  
  Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.
  
  The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.
  
  Republicans in Congress have fiercely criticized the proposal as an unneeded expansion of government that might evolve into a system of nationalized health coverage and lead to the rationing of care.
  
  But in the poll, the proposal received broad bipartisan backing, with half of those who call themselves Republicans saying they would support a public plan, along with nearly three-fourths of independents and almost nine in 10 Democrats.
  
  Reply
dcbarton
Jun 28, 2009 @ 15:51:34

In the end, the polls will be irrelevant, not unlike phone calls made to Capitol Hill prior to the passing of the Stimulus Bill, the Bailouts, and most recently, the energy bill with its Cap and Trade. People went to Congress and told them not to pass these bills, Congress did it regardless of public opinion.
Regarding the polls you mention,where exactly did they come from? What was the demographic polled? New York Times/CBS? Any guesses who they polled? Even their “Republicans” will be Liberals, not many if any Conservatives.
“The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.”
That little quote should be a good idea of who was polled. They definately didn’t ask me. I would have said my taxes are already too high from supporting lazy welfare bums and illegal aliens.
Another interesting aspect of the poll is this quote,
“It is not clear how fully the public understands the complexities of the government plan proposal, and the poll results indicate that those who said they were following the debate were somewhat less supportive.”
If people don’t understand the issue, how can their support of the issue be taken seriously?
“But they clearly indicate growing confidence in the government’s ability to manage health care. Half of those questioned said they thought government would be better at providing medical coverage than private insurers, up from 30 percent in polls conducted in 2007. Nearly 60 percent said Washington would have more success in holding down costs, up from 47 percent.”
Did those 60% happen to catch Obama’s info-mmercial on CBS this week? Did they happen to be listening when he mentioned that terminally ill or elderly people would have to just take a pain pill?
Did they happen to hear about the lady in Oregon with lung cancer and state run insurance? The same lady that Oregon said, “we can’t pay to extend your life, but we will be happy to help pay for physician assisted suicide.”
The poll got support for government health care by people like this,
“In a follow-up interview, Matt Flurkey, 56, a public plan supporter from Plymouth, Minn., said he could accept that the quality of his care might diminish if coverage was universal. “Even though it might not be quite as good as what we get now,” he said, “I think the government should run health care. Far too many people are being denied now, and costs would be lower.” ”
Does Mr Flurkey really understand what he is asking for? Has he ever talked to a Canadian about their government run health care? Or a Brit? Or A Frenchman? Obviously not, if he had he would know that they are not happy with their government run health care and are very concerned about where they will go for care if we go to a government run plan.
How many people in this country understand that the Congressional Budget Office says that government run health care will destroy the private

Reply
dcbarton
Jun 28, 2009 @ 15:53:15

health care industry for those of us that are responsible enough to pay for our own health care?
Government run health care is just the first step into an unreversible boondoggle that will entrap and endanger this entire nation.

Reply
- Craig Berger
  Jun 29, 2009 @ 08:32:30
  
  You’re a bit misinformed.
  
  Most polling indicates that Obama enjoys majority support among voters, thrashing the GOP Congress on each issue. As I noted in this post, independents trust Obama more than the GOP Congress by nearly twenty points on each major issue.
  
  Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting your quip about British and French health care, other than the lazy Republican talking points. The French health care system was ranked #1 in the world in a ranking done in 2000. From a 2007 article in Business Week:
  
  In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France’s experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. “The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage…[without] reorganizing the entire system,” says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.
  
  France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia.
  
  …But France isn’t likely to make major changes to a system most citizens say they like. Why would they? Says Shanny Peer, policy director at the independent French-American Foundation: “France gets better results for less money and everyone is covered.”
  
  This is from a CBS special (I’m not going to quote any Faux News pieces, sorry) on health care in Britain. This seems to suggest that they like what they have there, and it’s $4,000 a person cheaper.
  
  The NHS was set up 60 years ago to guarantee that everyone in the United Kingdom would have health care, but over the years complaints have grown over long waits and poor service.
  
  Under fierce pressure to improve – the NHS annual budget was tripled over the past decade. Now, Britain spends just over $2,700 per person on health care, compared to an average $6,700 in the U.S. And a recent survey shows 90 percent of British patients rated their NHS care as good to excellent.
  
  […]
  
  “If I could chose one system today, I would chose the British system over the American, if I was an average American,” Sikora said.”
  
  Conservatives like yourself like to pretend that there’s this monstrous mutiny brewing somewhere in America (see the underwhelming tea parties held in April, spurred by Fox News). But it’s just not the case.
  
  Reply
dcbarton
Jul 03, 2009 @ 19:14:19

Actually, Rasmussen just released a poll this week that shows Obama’s aprroval rating has fallen to a mere 31%, higher than Bush’s at the end of his term, but substantially lower than Bush had at this point in his first term.
CBS points out that “over the years complaints have grown over long waits and poor service” but, unfortunately, they neglected to mention that complaints still occur, or that there are many people that are denied service or needed care in Britain. In one case just in the last six months, a man was denied needed ankle surgery for being a cigarette smoker. Not unlike the woman in Oregon that was denied needed life-saving chemotherapy for lung cancer because the state thought she was too old(they did send her a nice letter explaining that they would cover the cost of physician assisted suicide). CBS also never talked to the people of Canada, France or Britain(the ones that could afford to come to the US for medical care). When I was in the Detroit area there was always Canadians that didn’t want to wait six months or more for medical care that came to Detroit to care care immediately.
Regarding the “underwhelming tea parties”, they weren’t exactly “underwhelming”, they also weren’t spurred on by Fox News, they were beginning several years ago, and grew with the stimulus bill and the bailouts. Fox News did provide more honest coverage than the other news outlets, but they always do, that is why they are so hated, they are, as they always claim, “fair and balanced.” In fact, studies by independent groups have shown irrefutable proof that during the presidential race Fox carried roughly 41% favourable stories on McCain where CBS, NBC and ABC each carried roughly 31% favourable stories on McCain, in contrast, Fox carried the same 41% favourable stories on Obama, where the other networks carried more than 50% favourable stories for Obama. I understand that, in the modern liberal world, any favourable mention of the conservatives indicates that a news network is partisan, but the truth is that Fox really is fair and balanced, a claim that the other networks can’t make.
I, personally, wouldn’t have used the term “mutiny”, it generally refers to a military unit, usually a naval vessel, taken over by the lower ranking personnel. The term “conspiracy” would have been more suitable, however, I will admit that under Obama’s leadership “mutiny” may soon become applicable.

Reply
- Craig Berger
  Jul 03, 2009 @ 19:26:26
  
  Fox News’s repeated insertion of “D” next to every Republican that messes up ends any credibility they profess to have. Sorry. That’s not simple operator air, and it’s not fair and balanced.
  
  Rasmussen is a Republican polling outlet, so if you’re going to quibble with CBS, NBC, and ABC’s coverage, a Rasmussen poll means nothing to me. (And I’d love to see where this poll is – can you please link to it?)
  
  Again, the French system was ranked #1. Having a public health option as part of a health care plan with people enjoying the care they get is possible.
  
  Reply
- Craig Berger
  Jul 03, 2009 @ 19:35:54
  
  I believe this is what you were referring to. If it is, you’ve misinterpreted the poll.
  
  Overall, 53% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove. During June, there was little change in the party affiliation of the American people and Democrats retain a 7-percentage point advantage.
  
  The Republican slant makes up for the discrepancy between this and other polling organizations, but as you can see, the majority still support President Obama’s job performance.
  
  Reply
dcbarton
Jul 04, 2009 @ 09:20:37

Actually, I was referring to this, “Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 33% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-five percent (35%) Strongly Disapprove,” I will admit the exact number was wrong, but close enough for even you to see the dropping in Obama’s approval rating. Same poll as you quoted, but in a different paragraph, you will notice that I “misinterpreted” nothing, Obama’s approval rating is falling, just as I said. YOu will also have noticed that his Presidential Approval Index now stands at -2, indicating that he is losing ground.
I have never seen Fox News place a D next to the name of any Republican that “messes up.”
These were found on Wiki, for whatever that is worth, some wiki is valid, some not, these are. “Fox was judged to actually provide a more “fair and balanced” coverage in the 2008 Presidential race than all three MSM networks, who had a decidedly pro-Obama tilt, a study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs.”
“Media critic David Zurawik said “Thank goodness at least one TV outlet, Fox, is questioning Team Obama as it pushes for the kind of massive change in American life not seen since the era of Franklin Roosevelt,” and “…ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC and the others allow their news operations to be used by the White House for partisan political reasons.”” Of course, you probably object to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, too.
If you aren’t interested in Wiki, trhere is this from the Politico’s Michael Calderone,”As MSNBC and CNN battle for second place, second-quarter Nielsen numbers show the network’s programs now rank one through 10 in total viewers on cable news.

Since Obama came into office, Fox has continued not only winning, but doing so at unprecedented levels. As the Hollywood Reporter noted last week, the network is having its”best year yet,” with the competition in the ratings shifting from not only the news networks but all of basic cable. Indeed, Fox came in 3rd this quarter, behind only USA and TNT.”
Maybe you remember 5 years ago when CBS and Dan Rather went on air with a story claiming Bush had gone AWOL while in the Air National Guard, they claimed they had documents to prove it, when the documents were tested, they had come off a newer electric typewriter, not off the old manual typewriter that the military used in the 60’s. That story finally led to CBS losing “credibility” and the firing of Dan Rather.

Reply

Politics of the Common Good