Patterico's Pontifications

5/16/2010

Sen. Bennett teaches us about “polite-company conservatives”

Filed under: General — Karl @ 9:38 am



[Posted by Karl]

Frankly, I did not care much one way or the other about Sen. Robert Bennett’s loss at last weekend’s Utah GOP convention. However, the story provided valuable insight into the world of “polite-company conservatives” (PCCs). For example, take the reaction of NYT columnist David Brooks:

This is a damn outrage, to be honest. This is a guy who was a good Senator and he was a good Senator and a good conservative, but a good conservative who was trying to get things done. The Wyden-Bennett bill, which he co-sponsored — if you took the health care economists in the country, they would probably be for that bill, ideally. It was a substantive, serious bill, a bipartisan bill, with strong conservative and some liberal support. So he did something sort of brave by working with Democrats which more Senators should do and now they’ve been sent a message to him don’t do that.

Ross Douthat (a/k/a David Brooks: TNG) had already written:

Bob Bennett, the three-term Republican senator from Utah, may lose his primary because of his willingness to co-sponsor a centrist (in a good way!) health care reform bill with the Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden. If Bennett goes down to defeat, it will be fair to say that the Tea Partiers have hurt their party, and cost the country a good senator.

Rick Moran similalry championed the Wyden-Bennett bill as “a flawed, but earnest effort at comprehensive reform”:

Called “The Healthy Americans Act,” the bill incorporated some standard liberal thinking like an individual mandate, but was also innovative in the way costs would be shared and how the program would be administered at the state level. It would also have done away with Medicaid – a plus in any conservative’s book. In short, it was a good old fashioned senate compromise on a thorny issue that, in another less mindlessly partisan time, would have served as a starting point for the two parties to work out their differences.

Unsurprisingly, David Frum had preemptively blamed the loss on greedy competition for donations between the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks (For a PCC, Frum has a flair for imputing bad faith to those with whom he disagrees). But Frum also touted Wyden-Bennett as “the most realistic and workable proposal put forth by anyone to solve the health care problem on free-market principles.”

The notable thing about the complaints of the PCCs is how detached they are from political reality.

Brooks claims Bennett’s bill had strong conservative support. Lefty blogger Ezra Klein called it “fake support”, and was correct. Bennett’s bill went from having nine GOP co-sponsors in 2007 to three in 2009. One of those was the Maverick-lite Lindsey Graham. Another was Mike Crapo of Idaho, who probably signed on to have some fallback position as a member of the Senate Finance Committee. The remaining GOP co-sponsor was Lamar(!) Alexander, the 7th most liberal Senate Republican. Former co-sponsor Judd Gregg signed on to an op-ed supporting the bill; he’s the 8th most liberal Senate Republican.

Outside the Senate, Heritage waved the caution flag on Wyden-Bennett for its “sweeping and heavy-handed federal control over the insurance markets,” its tax inequities and other unpleasant policy surprises. At Cato, Michael F. Cannon called the bill a “wholesale takeover of America’s healthcare sector.” National Review — not exactly the radical fringe of conservatism — slammed the bill both before and after the Bennett loss. Douthat may want to keep arguing the merits of Bennett’s bill, but no one can make the case that it had strong conservative support.

But what about the bipartisanship? The fallback position of the PCCs is that whatever the flaws of Wyden-Bennett, there is an intrinsic value to “serious” bipartisanship (as opposed to opportunistic trimming). Nolstalgia for the good ol’ days, where Giants of the Senate hammered out a consensus on the Important Issues of Our Time is usually invoked (no matter the results).

The flaw is in this position is the Democrats’ almost total lack of interest in bipartisanship, particularly when it came to healthcare reform. Tunku Varadarajan does an adequate rebuttal of the PCC position in general — the partisan gap was too large, the Dems were focused on holding their own party, and so on. But we can be more specific.

Pres. Obama largely ignored the House GOP leadership on healthcare reform, and the PCCs cannot point to House Democrats being open to GOP proposals. Wyden-Bennett backers Lamar Alexander and Judd Gregg complained about the partisan nature of the process in the Senate. Republicans took part in the the vaunted negotiations among the “Gang of Six,” but the only concession to the GOP occurred when the Senate Finance Committee reported a bill without the so-called “public option.” Days later, Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid inserted the “public option” into the bill that went to the Senate floor, alienating liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. We would be stuck with a “public option” today, but for the opposition of Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman (and maybe Democrat Ben Nelson). Pres. Obama pretended that the GOP had no ideas until Scott Brown replaced the late Ted Kennedy in the Senate. Then, Obama held a Potemkin bipartisan summit as a prelude to the claim that the Democrats’ partisan bill contained a number of GOP ideas (which supposedly didn’t exist mere weeks earlier).

[In contrast, the Bush43 administration’s major initiatives were often bipartisan. Yet PCCs like Frum, Douthat and Bruce Bartlett all wrote books critical (often harshly so) of the Bush domestic policy shop. A cynic might conclude that PCCs only care about bipartisanship when Democrats are in power. Or that the only constant for PCCs is criticism of Republicans. But I would merely note that actual bipartsanship tends to look different than the bipartisanship PCCs imagine. Anyway, back to healthcare reform…]

Speaker Pelosi ultimately had to twist arms to the breaking point to get enough of her colleagues to back the Senate healthcare bill (with minor changes in reconciliation), because they had no other way to pass any bill. Can the PCCs honestly argue the House would have voted on anything like Wyden-Bennett? Contra the PCCs, Bennett’s effort was not brave or serious. It was a sideshow, irrelevant to the political realities that produced ObamaCare. And that largely moots the policy debate. Arguing the relative degrees of awfulness of Bennett’s bill vs. ObamaCare is rather beside the point when the Democratic leadership spent 2009 pretending Bennett’s bill did not exist.

Finally, there is the more generic question, posed this way by Moran: “How can you claim that a senator who has a lifetime score of 85 from the American Conservative Union to be ‘not conservative enough’ for any state?” To answer that question, I refer to flaming wingnut lefty blogger Nate Silver:

[I]t would arguably be quite rational for Utah Republicans to dispose of Bennett. He’s no liberal, but he ranks as only about the 27th most conservative Republican senator in a state with just about the most conservative electorate. A more conservative Republican, moreover, would be very unlikely to lose the general election — not in Utah, and not in this political environment. Our forecasting model gives a generic Utah Democrat only about a 2 percent chance against a generic Utah Republican, which probably amounts to the contingency of a huge scandal or gaffe. The delegates to the Republican convention — a hand-picked and self-selected group of conservative activists — are surely smart enough to know this, or at least to recognize that Bennett does occasionally depart from the party line.

Although some might have preferred an open primary to the convention process in Utah, by the end of 2009, two of every three Utahns wanted to see Bennett ousted:

Bennett, 75, who has served 17 years in the Senate, faces no personal scandal, but has been attacked mostly by conservatives who say he is not conservative enough. However, the poll shows that similar percentages of conservatives, moderates and liberals all would like to see Bennett dumped next year, so opposition is not just from the far-right GOP wing. (Emphasis added.)

This is apparently what led Frum to conclude that Bennett was “broadly popular within the state.” Or maybe not. One wonders why the broad, bipartisan opposition to Bennett did not impress the PCCs, who purport to value bipartisan consensus. Or maybe not.

In sum, the PCCs — who undoubtedly see themselves as the voices of reason — got everything wrong. Bennett’s bill did not have strong conservative support. The bill was not brave or important. Bipartisanship was rejected from the outset by the Democrats. Bennett was not a popular figure sunk by the right-wing fringe. Bennett’s loss helps expose the gap between the PCC’s pose as serious thinkers and the political realities of the day. That is a pretty good legacy for Sen. Bennett, though I doubt he would see it that way.

—Karl

20 Responses to “Sen. Bennett teaches us about “polite-company conservatives””

  1. Anyone who wants to know why the TEA Party is so popular has only to read the opinions of so-called PCCs. But, keep in mind they aren’t Conservatives at all. Nope, they’re the same old RINO parasites dressed in sheep’s clothing who’re responsible for betraying the Conservative Movement since the day Ronald Reagan won his second term.

    ropelight (cf13a8)

  2. ropelight, thou art too kind to those knaves!

    GM Roper (6afe02)

  3. Greetings:

    But, then, on the other hand, isn’t 18 years in the Senate enough? The Senate isn’t the family business, it’s the people’s business. When I see people serving for 20, 30, 40 years, I’m thinking monarchy, not democracy. The Bronx part of my brain tells me that the longer they stay the worser some/most of them will become. Enjoy your rest, Senator.

    11B40 (a5e068)

  4. The notable thing about the complaints of the PCCs is how detached they are from political reality.

    I think the PCC’s complaints reflect their own liberal policy preferences. Brooks, Moran etc fundamentally disagree with the conservative-libertarian approach to government. This is not disagreement over how best to get to a mutually agreed upon goal. The PCCs’ would like to see Democrat-style policy but implemented by Republicans.

    Subotai (347c23)

  5. the PCC’s ignore the obvious problem with the bill they are defending: we don’t want a “compromise” health care bill, we want the government out of the health care business.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. –isn’t 18 years in the Senate enough–

    I could not agree with you more. It’s not the age of the senator, it’s the amount of years they have spent exclusively in the ossified climate of Washington D.C. I see some of the newer, younger bright intellectual lights of the R party compared up against to the Boxers, the Pelosis, the Franks, the Waxmans, Waters and Byrds on the D side (legislators who have been there forever and are still fighting the battles of their youth from the 1960’s), and I think America needs much, much more new blood in congress. Let’s vote for quality, real world experience, and intellectual heft, though, not flash or unduly narrow idealogical means tests.

    elissa (ed048d)

  7. If one adds up all of the unfunded liabilities… federal… states… counties… cities… one might come to the conclusion that there is not enough money in the universe to keep this nation viable and afloat, without printing more money in quantities that are certain to make the Weimar Republic hyperinflation seem like the good old days in retrospect. What to do when no one is there to buy government debt?

    This argumentative exercise where we try to determine who is more conservative than the other choices… I understand it and I support it, but it’s going to take much more than returning control of Congress to the lesser of two evils.

    It’s going to take a miracle.

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  8. Before the Vietmanese, the Utahns were the only people who won a war against America. Ok, ok, against the American government.

    nk (db4a41)

  9. these clowns (msm) are the same ones who called mcccain conservative. They have no credibility with me whatsoever. I’ll pick my conservatives.

    Jim (582155)

  10. The people like Frum (I’ve stopped reading his website) want Republicans to win elections but have little or no basic political philosophy. The Tea Parties are basically libertarian driven. This movement did not come out of the social conservative movement. Many of them are Democrats or real independents. They are not interested in social issues except education. Aside from foreign policy, they are almost indistinguishable from sober libertarians. I don’t think Frum understands this.

    I wrote a book review on Amazon of the Douthat book and his co-author came and looked at my blog. We exchanged a few e-mails. I don’t know if they get it about health care.

    I have very strong opinions about health care reform. I’ve been in medicine since 1961 and have an advanced degree in health economics. I still do review of workers comp claims and see patterns that are similar to those in general health care.

    People, except the very poor, should pay for their own routine care. The very poor can be cared for by a system of community clinics and county hospitals very well at modest cost. Medicaid is probably half fraud except for the 70% which is paying for nursing homes. Many people don’t realize that Medicaid is mostly chronic care. The acute care is largely OB and pediatrics since all women and children below a threshold of income are eligible.

    I’ve said all this here before at various times. The price system in health care is broken. Medicare is chiefly responsible for this with insurance companies almost equally culpable because they follow Medicare’s lead.

    I think our system should be complete;y voluntary and should be fee-for-service with HMOs and community clinics an option for those who want them or are too poor for the private sector.

    All the health economists oppose FFS because they say it gives doctors an incentive to do too much. Of course it does ! The patient has the same incentive, even for surgery, as long as they are not paying the bill. That is the big difference.

    The other effect that FFS medicine responds to is the patient is the customer if you eliminate the insurance company. People do not understand how quickly and how far the costs would come down if the insurance and Medicare were eliminated.

    OK. Maybe that would be a hardship for the average person, especially those with low income or the elderly. That’s why I like the French system. The patient goes to the doctor, decides how much he can afford to pay, pays in cash or credit card, and a month later gets a check for a fixed rate reimbursement for part of that visit. The total cost is reduced but the amount is fixed and can be set at what is affordable. The reimbursement comes from a health care plan that is funded by salary deduction.

    Now, France is having problems but those are mostly about unemployment and low productivity. The 35 hour week and six weeks vacation, for example.

    I haven’t read the Bennett bill but the mandate concept suggests it is one more left wing program that requires compulsion to get people to join. There are ways to get at the cost problem but I have yet to see anyone take a serious tack on this.

    First dollar coverage and third party payment are part of the problem, not the solution.

    Mike K (82f374)

  11. What’s always left unsaid in these so – called analysis is that Bennett promised to run for only two terms, then recanted. He then neglected to defend his TARP vote (which is wholly defensible, IMHO), his stimulus vote (not defensible) and his healthcare bill debacle, which was never going to be taken seriously by either side.

    Oh, and Brooks is a unmitigated pantywaist. He’s about as conservative as Charlie Christ. When he replaced Gigot on the Lehrer hour on PBS, I soon stopped watching.

    Dmac (21311c)

  12. This is a damn outrage to be honest,” that a doofus like David Brooks can look at the crease in a pair of slacks–and on that basis decide the man wearing them is qualified to be President of the United States.

    Which brings me to my second question. Why should I give a tinker’s toot what David Brooks thinks–or to be more precise–says? I’m not sure that he thinks.

    Mike Myers (3c9845)

  13. To be sure, Mo Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert are the kind of heavy “thinkers” the NYT values and prefers.

    ’nuff said.

    GeneralMalaise (fc86d7)

  14. I do not make a habit of reading the people mentioned above, but what I have seen of David Brooks on panel discussions gives me the feel of a Democrat who respects and doesn’t demonize (at least some) Repubs.

    At times listening and reading some of the commentators gives the feel that it is all a strategy game about who can win and maintain power. The idea that the lives of people and nations are at stake, that right and wrong are in play, at times seems to be lost. Its not about holding on to power, its about governing with wisdom.

    The state of the nation at the present is begging the question, “are you part of the solution or not”? Someone who has been in the Senate for 3 terms needs to have proven by now they are fighting against the status quo. If not, time to be replaced.

    Mike K makes the good point that is often lost in the discussion, that a huge amount of medicaid is used for long term care, so thinking some “health care reform” will do much about that is simply wrongheaded (other than restricting care so people die sooner).

    The idea that FFS encourages doctors to “do too much” is only one factor among many, not necessarily a determining one. It is easy to blame the docs for “doing too much” as a factor in increased costs, but most doctors have more than enough to do, most doctors these days, and their families, don’t like the idea of 60-80 hour work weeks as a routine. In most areas when you call to get an appointment it is not going to be soon.

    MD in Philly (ea3785)

  15. The problem for many Republicans is the fact that the Tea Parties are basically libertarian – and we are not. They are a different party attempting a stealth attack on the GOP. They do not have the numbers to do anything on their own, so they must lie and cheat about their motivations to make trouble for the GOP.

    All they are going to do is doom the GOP to a minority status and destroy the country by allowing Obama’s Dems to continue in power.

    Please, explain how that is patriotic.

    SJR
    The Pink Flamingo

    SJ Reidhead (664d5a)

  16. The Tea Party people are lying and cheating about their motivations?

    Oh, BS SJR. That’s a load of horse manure. They are quite upfront.

    And the Tea Party people are certainly not basically libertarian, they are more centrist than that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. Cocktail Republicans (PCC if you will) are Neville Chamberlains. That is why they get no support.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  18. #10, when people pay for their care (even if they get reimbursed later) the costs go down b/c people question what the MDs says and make “trade-offs” between care options.

    This is why I have said “Ban Assignment” as one of the 4 pillars of health care reform.

    1) Ban assignment
    2) Any legal fees must be paid by the plaintiff unless they actually win the case. No exceptions
    3) Make policies portable (tradable) and have both an “insurance portion” of the yearly premium and a “savings for future care” portion of the premium
    4) Provide catastrophic coverage for those with “non elective” lifetime illnesses regardless of income

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  19. Apparently there’s a pinko on the prowl, don’t feed the flamingo.

    ropelight (624d4e)

  20. Karl, you might also have included Robert Bennett’s original pledge to serve no more than two terms as a reason to believe that he values his own needs over the needs of his constituents.

    Mike G in Corvallis (70f47e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0816 secs.