Being 'party of no' is a no-win for GOP

From

John Havelock
comment

Published: December 18th, 2009 08:15 PM
Last Modified: December 18th, 2009 08:15 PM

For reasons that seem less than compelling, national Republicans have zeroed in on opposition to universal health care as the make-or-break issue for the elections of 2010 and as preface to the 2012 effort to make Obama a one-term president. Sen. Murkowski and Congressman Young have both cheerfully lined up "on message," with virtually all Republican incumbents under orchestration by the party Poo Bahs.

The Republican party began to lose its way when, concerned over democratic hegemony in the Johnson years, it started recruiting to its flag a spectrum of the public not normally engaged in politics, those who are "agin the government" on principle. People whose life circumstances have dealt them hardship and bad luck are vulnerable to demagoguery and the politics of hate. This anger has coalesced around the "talk radio" hosts of the Far Right. No Republican dares criticize them. They have a lien, if they have not fully captured the party.

From the perspective of those who hold signs reading "Don't let them take away our freedom," support of a government- sponsored health program is anathema -- as is any federal program. Though only 15 percent to 20 percent of the general public is so minded, within the Republican party that doubles, a force that can bring down any party leader failing to toe the line. Their fervor has shifted uneasy constituencies, normally Republican, like high-tech business and finance, to the Democrats.

Being "the party of no" on health care is ultimately a no-win strategy for Republicans. Let's suppose the "worst-case" scenario for the Democrats. The Republicans are able to hold 41 votes in the Senate and thus kill the health bill. Is that the worst case for the Democrats or the Republicans?

Why is this so? What justification for this passion? Why in Alaska, where most already enjoy the protection of a government managed or guaranteed program?

The rest of the Western world sponsors universal health care as a basic human right. The current effort is no radical departure. It is playing catch-up on a situation of national embarrassment.

There is grumbling about cost, but costs seem unreasonably high largely because we already pay for those without coverage anyway, through the emergency room, and because the industry treats health care as a profitable commodity. You pay for those TV drug ads. The overhead is killing us financially, as lack of care is killing thousands whose only access to health care is the ER.

Republicans are in such a stew because their party is coming apart just as the Democrats revisit this century-old issue whose time has come. Parties collapse rarely, but collapse and creative realignment are not unknown in American history.

Republican officeholders are less concerned about defeat by a Democrat in a general election than they are about the possibility of a primary challenge or that hard-core constituents will stay home, giving the seat to a Democrat.

As a consequence, tens of millions of Americans will still lack fundamental health care, with the numbers growing by hundreds of thousands a month. Congressional Republicans, protest this point as they might, never offered a coherent alternative. The core constituency would have eviscerated anyone who offered an alternative since their basic position is "we don't want the government ('them') involved."

A win for universal health care gives Republicans some breathing room in 2010 because, in such complex legislation, there are always things that need fixing, justifying an "I-told-you-so" attitude. But if you are coming up for election in 2012, you are just one of those who opposed a basic national need, by then fulfilled. How do you wiggle around that?

As the Republican Party is marginalized and regionalized, the Democrats will eventually find their tent too big. Expect a huge struggle as Obama's second term ends and the possibility of a split between left and right emerges.