Which Side Are You On?

David Brooks says that there are four main directions in which Democrats could move in the wake of losing the Massachusetts U. S. Senate seat:

The Democrats now have four bad options. The first is what you might call the Heedless and Arrogant Approach. A clear majority of Americans are against the Congressional health care reform plan. Democrats could say: We know this is unpopular, but we think it is good policy and we are going to ram it through and you voters can judge us by the results.

The second route is what you might call the Weak and Feckless Approach. Democrats could say: We have received and respect the message voters are sending. We are not going to shove the biggest social transformation in a generation down the throats of a country that has judged and rejected it. We are not going to concentrate immense new powers in a Washington the country detests.

Instead, we will regroup and reorganize. Perhaps we will try incremental reforms. Perhaps we will use federal money to support a series of state reform efforts — like the one in Massachusetts — which are closer to the people. (In 2007, Russ Feingold, a Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, co-sponsored the State-Based Health Care Reform Act to spark this kind of local experimentation.)

The third approach is the Dangerous and Demagogic Approach. This begins with the presumption that what Americans really want is a bunch of pseudopopulists to tell them they can have everything for free. This would mean stripping the health bills of anything that might be unpopular — like Medicare cuts and tax increases — and passing the rest regardless of the cost.

The fourth approach is the Incoherent and Internecine Approach. This would involve settling on no coherent policy but just blaming each other for cowardice and stupidity for the next month. Liberals, who make up 20 percent of the country, could complain because they didn’t get their version of reform. The Senate and the House could bash each other. The intelligentsia could bash the public.

Paul Krugman puts the full weight of his intellect and New York Times column behind “Heedless and Arrogant”:

Tuesday’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election means that Democrats can’t send a modified health care bill back to the Senate. That’s a shame because the bill that would have emerged from House-Senate negotiations would have been better than the bill the Senate has already passed. But the Senate bill is much, much better than nothing. And all that has to happen to make it law is for the House to pass the same bill, and send it to President Obama’s desk.

Right now, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, says that she doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill. But there is no good alternative.

and launches into an attack on “Dangerous and Demagogic”:

Think of health care reform as being like a three-legged stool. You would, rightly, ridicule anyone who proposed saving money by leaving off one or two of the legs. Well, those who propose doing only the popular pieces of health care reform deserve the same kind of ridicule. Reform won’t work unless all the essential pieces are in place.

I hope that Dr. Krugman isn’t arguing that the 1,000+ bill with all of its compromises, payoffs, fine print, and legerdemain is necessary. It isn’t a well-oiled machine, it’s a Rube Goldberg. And Dr. Krugman has been arguing for months that any deficiencies of whatever is passed by the Congress can be remedied later, either via regulation or new bills. In other words, he’s made essentially the same argument that Brooks is making. Note that I, on the other hand, have been consistently skeptical of the piecemeal approach on the grounds that, historically, it hasn’t been the case. We get a bite at the healthcare reform apple about once every 15 years and Congressmen find the taste so bitter they’re reluctant to tackle it again. BTW, that’s one of the better arguments for term limits IMO. Too many of the current senators and representatives are the same guys who were in office when Clinton failed in his attempt at healthcare reform.

Strategically, I think that Congressional Democrats would be better off passing a series of small, concise reforms, requiring Republicans to take stands for or against highly specific measures, some of them very popular and commonsensical, without plausible deniability. Good prospects for this would be things like community rating or guaranteed issue. As Dr. Krugman observes it won’t be good policy but it would be good politics and, if “better than nothing” is your rallying cry, it certainly fits the bill.

However, if history is any guide, “Incoherent and Internecine” will prevail. Remember that when asked whether he were a member of an organized political party Will Rogers responded “No, I’m a Democrat”. I’m not sure much has changed since then.