Why Voters Hate Washington Incumbents

September 23, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

Jonah Goldberg and Will Cain have a nice dialogue up on the National Review Online, diagnosing the causes of the damage that congressional Democrats are going to sustain in November.

Cain asks how middle-of-the-road independents—anyone, actually—could have been surprised that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress delivered on things like healthcare reform. This is what they promised to do, after all.

There are two answers.

First is that middle-of-the-road independents are, politically speaking, idiots. They may be smart. They may be good at their jobs. They may have nice families. But they don’t know squat about government or civics.

The second answer, as Jonah explains, is this: “People realize that they like the idea of giving people healthcare when it doesn’t hurt them. But when it actually comes out of their pocket, and they realize how costly and bureaucratic it is ... they don’t want it.”

This is exactly right. The only problem is, its essential truth applies equally to conservative priorities, like reining in spending.

In another context, Jonah could easily have said—and probably, at some point, actually did say—“People like the idea of cutting spending when it doesn’t hurt them. But when they realize it actually comes out of their pocket, they don’t want to.”

Until both parties realize this and come up with some bargain that will minimize the political damage that surely awaits any attempt at serious entitlement reform, we are, not to put too fine a point on it, screwed.

Tags:
2010 Congressional elections,
Congress,
deficit and national debt,
healthcare,
healthcare reform

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

More than 50 million people lack any health insurance at all. Another 100 million have either Medicare, Medicaid or the VA. Without government fewer than half of the population would have health care access. The government pays for pensions (social security), water utilities, roads, free public education and health care for the old, poor, disabled and our nation's veterans. There is no reason the system can't be expanded to include everyone, especially when more and more people are losing their access to employer provided health care with the rise in unemployment. Of course, the financial and insurance industry would miss the billions in profits they currently make off high premiums. They are also the biggest lobbiests in Washington DC.

steve of IL 11:55PM September 25, 2010

I don't think so. Most Americans have health insurance, and realize that their insurance will now cost more and provide less, with Obamacare siphoning off dollars for previously uninsured people. On top of the personal loss of money, the bureaucracy, corruption and fraud will drain the economy dry. There is a reason that Obama does not want the program to start in his first term--it's because doing so will ensure there will be no second term.

Health care insurers are concerned about profits, that's true. So some of the money that goes into health care does go into corporate profits. To reduce profits, the gov't should be encouraging private sector competition, not bringing in the federal gov't as "competition". The profit motive does encourage insurers to eliminate fraud, whereas a gov't insurer will almost mandate huge amounts of fraud. The gov't worker has no real reason to go after fraud--his work pays the same whether he does a good job or not. The nation was built on free market competition, not gov't takeovers. The sooner Obama understands that, the sooner he will become a functioning president.

chem E of FL 11:33PM September 25, 2010

for the second argument... no kidding! how does this come as a surprise to anyone that people don't want to pay for other people's issues, or to subsidize the gov.'s doomed or failed attempts on healthcare reform that around 70% of U.S. citizens don't want anyway? I wouldn't want to pay for that either!

And another thing, with the first arguement... interesting concept, saying (in effect, as it occurs to me), that they are helping with America's problems and people are just too stupid to realize it, or to make good votes... really? basically they didn't believe (and many still don't) that this whole reform thing didn't work because they're too stupid? that's a wonderful concept; good luck getting people to take that seriously.

lester of CA 9:51AM September 25, 2010

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement