Take Care
A lot of prominent Democrats are having fits over the Obamacare case. I'm not sure if they're writing editorials to convince the Supreme Court to come around, are preparing the way for the new spin if they lose, or are just blowing off steam. Regardless, some of the stuff is pretty funny.
Funniest of all are people like Bob Schrum and E. J. Dionne complaining the Court is acting like a super-legislature. Most of their favorite cases involve the Court steamrolling the public--and I'm not just referring to classics from the Warren and Burger eras, but also recent opinions that shut down how President Bush (generally following laws passed by Congress, and generally taking actions that polled well) tried to prosecute the war on terror.
It's made even funnier by their knowledge that the Democrats were not elected to nationalize health care, and could only do so by ignoring the expressed will of the public, who threw them out of office immediately after.
Then come the warnings. Not only will the Court regret overturning Obamacare (and there's nothing that convinces the Court to change its mind better than sneering at them--just ask Laurence Tribe and all the other condescending academics who wrote the first wave of such editorials), the Republican party will rue the day.
Why? Well, first, Republicans will apparently own the health care issue--or at least all the negatives attached--if Obamacare is tossed out. Not sure why this is so, but I'd guess the Republicans are willing to take that chance. And second, if Obamacare is thrown out, it'll be replaced by even greater government intrusion. Not sure why this is so, but I'd guess the Republicans are willing to take that chance.
When you think about it, it's amazing how kind Schrum and Dionne are. You'd think if a Supreme Court decision against Obamacare helps the Democrats, that they'd sit quietly by and watch the Court and the Republicans self-destruct. Instead, they nobly give the conservative Justices a chance to change their minds before they damage themselves.
I have no idea how the Court will decide, or how it'll play politically. But I can't imagine editorials like these impress anyone.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:06 AM
10 Comments:
A narrow shifting majority is "the express will of the people" (I guess unless its not.
Welcome to the pundit class
At all time in all polls no matter how much the Dems and their allies in the press tried, Obamacare has been unpopular--why do you think they had so much trouble passing it even with a huge Dem majority in Congress? If there was any question as how the people felt, we had the almost unprecedented sweep by Republicans in the 2010 elections a couple years after the party had been written off as dead, and which pollsters showed was driven by reaction against Obamacare.
Medicare, social security, civil rights laws, etc--all these massive gamechangers were passed with popular and bipartisan support. Obamacare was rammed down the throats of an uwilling public that made it clear over and over, in polls and in elections (including elections before the bill was passed), that they didn't want it. To not recognize this is to stick your head in the sand.
I don't deny if Obamacare lasts long enough, it will become impossible to take away, as the public will get used to the free (yet so costly) stuff in it. That's why it has to be gotten rid of now if it's to be done at all.
In an earlier post you brought up the question of which party would be more helped by the law being overturned.
I think the reason that's so hard to predict is that there are four separate effects of it being overturned from a political standpoint:
(1) Democrats who support Obama and Obamacare will be energized a certain amount because of their anger.
(2) Republicans and independent tea-party types will be energized because (rightly or wrongly) they will feel the wind at their backs, as they did in 2010.
(3) Obama's image will be further tarnished. He only has three signature achievements that he can brag about: Obamacare, the auto bailout, and killing Osama. The first of these will be taken away; even if liberals think that the court decision was evil and political, you can't brag about a game you would have won if it weren't for the evil referees. (Unless you're a Raiders fan.)
(4) Romney will lose a major campaign issue, assuming the Court overturns the whole law.
I think all of these are true, but I have no idea how to compare the magnitude of these effects.
What there will not be is a general public revulsion at the SCOTUS. As you pointed out, this has always been an unpopular law, and recent polls show that many (most?) Americans believe that it is unconstitutional. When Americans dislike a law and believe it's unconstitutional, then they will not be in shock if the court agrees with them.
While it's not the job of SCOTUS to care if the public agrees with them or not, if they read the polls, that might make it easier to decide against Obamacare. Not only have the numbers consistently shown a public in favor of repeal, but a recent Gallup poll revealed more than two-thirds think the invidual mandate is unconstitutional.
Of your four choices, I think #4 is the most important; in fact, even if the Court only overturns the individual mandate I think it'll make the issue less powerful and make it easier for those in the middle to vote for Obamna. However, most of my conservative friends seem to believe #3 is the one that matters, though I wonder if this isn't wishful thinking on their part. I don't think Obama was planning on doing much bragging about the law anyway, and I don't think the voters will hold it against him if the Court tosses out the law.
I agree with you that factor # 3 is not as important as many conservatives hope.
In November 1980, Carter conceded the election before polls closed on the West Coast. When the news became public, a significant number of would-be Carter voters decided not to vote, but would-be Reagan voters stayed in line. This phenomenon has repeated many times since then (e.g., November 2000 when the major networks called Florida for Gore before the polls closed in the Panhandle).
Logically this makes no sense to me. If you think the purpose of a vote is to influence the result, then when Carter conceded, both Democrats and Republicans should have been equally willing to leave the voting line. If you think the purpose is to express yourself, then you should stay in line regardless of whether the election has been called.
I think this is due to a certain quirk in human psychology. Sometimes if I am in an argument and I decide I am wrong, and I concede, my opponent gets even more vehement. I think it's a mammalian instinct to redouble the attack when when your prey is about to collapse.
This makes me wonder whether factor # 2 -- although irrational -- might turn out to be the biggest factor?
Interesting point, though I'd like to know more about research on vote depression.
I expect the Florida Panhandle vote was depressed when Gore was called the winner, but do we know that Republicans were more likely to give up than Democrats? What we do know is that the Panhandle voted heavily for Bush, so presumably if the vote depression was evenly spread out, Bush would have lost net votes.
Romney will lose a campaign issue? You are kidding, right? The genius Republicans pick the one guy who can't make that argument without instilling giggles in even the stupidest voter.
States can do stuff the federal government can't do, or haven't you heard. But forget that. It's simple: Romney promises to kill Obamacare, Obama won't.
Well, forgive me. I feel stupid. He promised? I will have to strt reading the news more closely.
I want to see Obamacare repealed. Who should I vote for? The guy who promises the first thing he'll do is repeal it, or the guy who will place his whole political career on the line to see it survives? I can't see any difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home