TAKING THE BAIT

A while back, we mentioned that health care might be “just what the doctor ordered” for Dems to smoke out the Republicans. Now, against all odds (and much political advise) President Bush has vetoed the bipartisan SCHIP bill that would have extended health care for 3.8 million children. In doing so he has given the Dems a major issue to run on in ’08 AND played to the stereotype of the heartless, money grubbing Republican. Even a committed conservative like the Washington Times’ Editorial Page Editor Tony Blanky called Bush’s move “political malpractice.”  Bush may or may not be a skilled statesman, but he clearly is a highly gifted street-smart politician, (don’t believe us, just ask Bill Clinton) so what made Bush do it?

We blame the power of story to hold a moment in memory. As we say in Elements of Persuasion, it is the emotions released in the struggle between hero and antagonist that locks a story in memory. When Hillary was just First Lady, the Republican Congress rallied and drove back her first attempt at universal health care branding it “socialized medicine.” It was widely credited with allowing the 1994 Repub take over of Congress. Now, “Hillary Care” resurfaces, and sensing an easy victory W draws a line in the sand. But times have changed and the story polarity has reversed (as often happens). Trying to repeat a heroic role from the past, Bush ends up playing the villain instead. Now you know why Hillary was laughing.

Comments

[Cam Beck]

Even a committed conservative like the Washington Times’ Editorial Page Editor Tony Blanky called Bush’s move “political malpractice.”

With respect, calling someone who defends expanding special welfare to the tune that the bill would have done a "committed conservative" is editorial malpractice.

This is a larger discussion about what the proper role of government is, but admittedly, it isn't a very compelling story to those who have long abandoned the Constitution's role in governing our republic. That includes those who object to the bill solely on account of its excessive cost.

If, in principle, you can countenance the federal government having the power to take from one group of people for another's benefit without having been granted the explicit authority to do so, it seems miserly and hard-hearted to object to the cost.

Why not just give each kid a million dollars, while we're at it? On what Constitutional grounds would anyone who supports this bill object?

[tasha]

test

[Max]

Hi Cam –

I thought Tony Blankley’s conservative credentials relatively secure given his work for Newt Gingrich during the Republican Congressional Revolution of the 90’s, the numerous positions he has taken as Editorial Editor for the Washington Times, and his work with the Heritage Foundation – then I realized that I had mistyped Mr. Blankley’s name. Ouch. My Bad. Sorry.

Not to put words in Tony Blankley’s mouth I would point out he was not supporting the SCHIP bill. He called President Bush’s actions “political malpractice” – not constitutional, fiscal or philosophic malpractice. The point I think he was making was that taking the short end of the stick on an issue where 73% of the voters are against you at the start of an election cycle (as current polls indicate) is handing your opponents an issue to run on. It is worse if you also seem to be attacking cute little kids. Had President Bush defended his actions on constitutional grounds as you did he would have been on firmer footing, but he didn’t. He specifically said it cost too much, and so played to a penny-pinching stereotype.

Again, on this blog we are mostly looking at how politicians tell their side of the story, not on who is right or wrong ultimately. It is a bit of a cop out but it all we really feel competent to do.

As for giving every child a million bucks, I don’t know of anyone that has suggested it. Hillary seems to have come closest offering every newborn babe Five Grand on arrival. Is she just being cheap or what?

I’m glad you commented. Hope you will again. Checked out your blog and like it a lot. More on that in a later post.

Max

[Cam Beck]

Max - Thank you for responding. It comes down to a matter of semantics. We do our best to label people "conservative" or "liberal" because that helps compartmentalize and give context to or stories, but we run into problems when we have one group of people calling Rudy Guliani a "conservative" because he supports the war in Iraq, who also call Alan Keyes a "conservative" because he is pro-life and for a constitutional amendment that keeps judges from redefining marriage.

If one term (be it "conservative," "Republican," or "human being") can encompass both those men, it really doesn't tell us anything useful about either of them. I tend to see someone like Alan Keyes as a "conservative," and G.W. Bush and Guliani as a statist moderates -- particularly for the reason you stated. They do not object to socialism in principle, only in amplitude.

"As for giving every child a million bucks, I don’t know of anyone that has suggested it. Hillary seems to have come closest offering every newborn babe Five Grand on arrival. Is she just being cheap or what?"

It's easy to say she's cheap until you realize she's spending other people's money. In that context, she becomes something entirely different.

Her story to her opponents is that she's a statist and a socialist. She makes a good political antagonist, which is why pragmatic Republicans want her as the nominee. There's not a dime's worth of difference between her and her opponents in the primary, but she has the benefit in (in the primaries) and against (in the general election) her favor of being very well known. This makes it easy for her opponents to paint her in a corner, especially when she comes out with programs promising $5,000 per child and $1,000 for everyone (to put in a 401k).

However, defining the antagonist as "it's just too much to spend," is not a memorable -- or convincing -- story. As you said in your book, if you define your antagonist wrong, you can wind up with exactly what you hoped to avoid.