What (or Who) Is Health Care Reform About?

CNN political analyst Bill Schneider makes an interesting assertion in National Journal.

Because Barack Obama is more popular than his policy proposals — especially, it seems, his health care reform plan — Schneider sees his campaign as more about him than it is about his policy. The strategy, Schneider says, is simple: "The more it's about him, the more he's likely to win."

I have always found Schneider to be reasonable and logical. He comprehends the underlying factors that drive voter behavior. Any political strategist who blithely dismisses Schneider's conclusions should be fired immediately.

---

"The president is more popular than his health care initiative. That explains why he is putting himself on the line to rally public support. Republicans are playing into his hands by making it all about him. Sen. Jim DeMint, R–S.C., told Politico, 'If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.' William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, urged Republicans to 'go for the kill.' "

Bill Schneider
National Journal

---

Politicians in both parties play P.R. games, but I can't help wondering if Republicans are smelling blood in the water on this one.

Schneider acknowledges that Obama's approval numbers are down. The polls are virtually unanimous on that, based on the results of surveys that were conducted in the last week and a half of July:

• Gallup — 56% approve, 38% disapprove.


• Rasmussen — 50% approve, 49% disapprove.


• TIME — 56% approve, 38% disapprove.


• CBS News/New York Times — 58% approve, 30% disapprove.


• NBC News/Wall Street Journal — 53% approve, 40% disapprove.


• Pew Research Center — 54% approve, 34% disapprove.


• NPR — 53% approve, 42% disapprove.


• FOX News — 54% approve, 38% disapprove.

As you can see, he remains popular with at least 50% of respondents in each survey. But he clearly doesn't have the eye–popping numbers he had a few months ago.

So now Obama is putting what remains of his popularity — his political capital — on the line for health care reform. Schneider reports that polls show a solid majority of Americans in favor of health care reform, but less than half believe achieving it is as urgent as Obama says it is.

"Obama's urgency is being driven by politics," Schneider writes. "A president is best positioned to get big things done, such as health care reform, during his first year in office. That is when he is most likely to enjoy the people's goodwill. They voted for change."

Then Schneider makes the kind of observation that perhaps only someone who spends his life trying to read between the lines of surveys can make. "The president's job–approval number is the Dow Jones industrial average of Washington. When it's high, he has clout. When his numbers drop, he loses power. The decline in the president's ratings is a message: He has to act now, before his numbers drop any further."

Continuing the stock market analogy, wouldn't it make sense to suggest that, if a president gambles his personal popularity on legislative proposals that are not as popular as he is yet he is victorious, he will earn dividends and, if he is not successful, he will experience a loss?

Of course, that depends on how the public perceives the victory. Suppose Obama keeps enough Congressional Democrats on his side to push through health care reform this year — but the public thinks it was done too hastily? What will that do to Obama's approval ratings?

And how will it play in next year's midterm elections? Many members of Congress who must face the voters in 2010 may feel inclined to vote one way on the legislation but ultimately vote the other way because of the perceived public sentiment in his/her district or state.

I remember what happened the last time a president tried to reform health care. It is a different time, of course, and the obstacles that the Republicans must overcome are greater than they were in 1994. But if the Republicans in Congress even come close to doing to Obama what they did to Bill Clinton, Obama will — at the very least — lose his filibuster–proof majority in the Senate.

And then, even if they remain the minority party, the Republicans can thwart Obama's ambitious agenda.

Personally, I would prefer to see Obama spending his political capital on innovative policies that will emphasize job creation. That is the only way to turn the economy around — putting millions of unemployed Americans back to work, paying taxes and infusing the economy with their wages.

I'm not an economist, but one of the lessons I have learned in life is that consumer spending lubricates the economic engine.

Those who are unemployed are trying to find ways to preserve their modest benefits. And those who are still employed are trying to preserve their money in case their luck runs out.

Health care reform is not the top priority for Americans today. Trying to make it the top priority may cost Obama more of his personal support than he is prepared to give up at this early stage of his term in office.

When the economy is showing signs of life again, that is the time to press for something like health care reform.

The Blame Game, Winners' Edition

---

---

Shortly after the election last November, I wrote about the "blame game" that was being played in Republican circles — specifically, the finger pointing that was going on following John McCain's loss to Barack Obama.

At the time, I wrote that it was unfair to blame Sarah Palin for McCain's loss. I said — and I still believe this — that most Americans don't decide which presidential ticket to support because of the running mate. A few voters in the running mate's home state may be influenced by the selection, but that's about it. And Alaska was never in jeopardy.

Today, I've been reading an article by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider in which Schneider asks if Americans are going to start blaming Obama for bad economic news.

At this point, Schneider says, Americans have not begun blaming Obama. In fact, there's an interesting dynamic at work here. Public opinion surveys, Schneider writes, show that "[i]t's a race between optimism and despair. Right now, optimism is gaining."

Now, I think it's good that people are seeing the silver lining. But Schneider concedes that this optimism bubble is the product of "[p]robably politics as much as anything."

Nearly 30 years ago, I learned how important a president's personal popularity was when the country was trying to free itself from the grip of a severe recession.

Of course, the Reagan and Obama presidencies had different experiences in their first three months. But one key element of the American personality is its fondness for the quick–fix scenario, a fondness that was fostered by the Reagan administration. Thus far, as Schneider points out, the incessant drumbeat of bad economic news hasn't had a negative influence on the Obama presidency. But "[c]ould the process reverse and the bad economic news start to undermine Obama's political standing?" Schneider asks. "Yes, if we keep getting news, month after month, like Friday's jobless figures."

Voters crave a quick fix. They may talk about shared sacrifices and tightening belts, but it's like weight loss and smoking cessation programs. If someone tells them they can lose 20 pounds without starving themselves or doing 100 situps a day, they will go for the easy (although seemingly impossible) method. And if someone tells them they can kick the habit without having to deal with nicotine withdrawal, that person is blowing smoke but most people will still take that option.

And they want a coherent plan that appears to be logical and doesn't require very many steps. That way, they can see results — and assess the progress that is being made.

Schneider observes that, at some point, bad economic news will "take a toll" on the president's approval ratings. "And when that number goes down, the president loses political clout."

So far, he points out, that hasn't happened to Obama — yet. And he speculates that "may be why President Obama is trying to do so much so quickly."

That may prove to be the undoing of Obama's presidency.

In my lifetime, it seems that most first–term presidents struggled (and, because of the unique circumstances surrounding their tenures, I do not include Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford in this group) out of the gate. The ones who succeeded in regaining their footing and ultimately were rewarded with second terms were the ones who promoted limited agendas.

Obama likes to eschew traditional political maneuvering. He likes to project an image of being "one of the guys." That outsider stuff always seems to sell well with the voters, but once you win an election, you have to play the game with the career politicians in Washington.

And let's be honest about this — Republicans have always been better at playing that particular game than Democrats.

The most recent signs of dissension in the ranks came when the House and Senate approved the 2010 budget. As it was with the stimulus package, the votes were basically along party lines, but the Democrats lost some of their own people in this vote.

From the beginning of his administration, I have believed that Obama needed to narrow his scope and link everything to the stimulation of job creation and/or the preservation of home ownership. If it couldn't be linked to one of those two things, it should not have been included in the final version of the stimulus package.

Then, the budget needed to be presented in the same way. Each item needed to be clearly designated as long–term support for the programs that are intended to get the fundamentals of the economy on their feet.

Those are two things — jobs and homes — that Americans understand. Relatively few understand the complexities of economic theory, but, when the unemployment rate goes down, they understand that. And when foreclosures go down, they understand that, too.

If some things had to be put on the back burner temporarily, so be it.

Oh, and one more point about blame. It's fine for Obama and his staffers to remind people that they inherited the economy from the Bush administration, but history suggests that the voters will sour on that after awhile.

And it suggests they will start to turn sour before the first year of the administration is done.