Home > Alex Massie

Thursday 9 February 2012

Lessons for 2012 from 2010: GOP Edition

Tuesday, 2nd February 2010

Reihan Salam has a very good column on GOP tactics and oportunities that I heartily recommend. He concludes:

The Democrats have offered a series of bloated, heavy-handed bills to tackle real problems facing the economy, and Republicans have been right to take them to task. But they're now in a position to offer more cost-effective, scalpel-like proposals of their own that can demonstrate their readiness to govern. And besides, Republicans will still be well within their rights to criticize the Democrats for their major missteps in 2009—President Obama spent most of his 2008 presidential campaign running against George W. Bush's first term. If Republicans choose not to pivot, if they instead continue to rely exclusively on scorched-earth opposition, they'll find that victories in 2010 won't translate into victories in 2012, when the electorate will be larger and more inclined to elect problem-solvers and not bomb-throwers.

Emphasis added. Andrew isn't much persuaded by this, but I think Reihan has a point. Several points, in fact.

Messaging matters in politics, but so does timing. Suppose the Republican leadership had worked with the White House this past year to craft a health care bill that, though opposed by both the purer elements of both right and left, could pass the House and Senate; suppose too that this bill actually worked. Who gets the credit for that? Not the Republican party or Republican candidates across the country, that's who. No, it would be the President's triumph and his alone. (I'm assuming, for the sake of this argument that the bill would have covered 30m Americans, controlled or lowered costs etc.) It's Obama who would have reaped the electoral rewards from this process. So what, rationally, does it profit the Republican party to help him achieve that aim?

You might argue that this is a form of political nihilism or that it's putting party before the national interest and you might well have a point. But the country is, much of the time, a secondary concern. Parties exist to win elections and then - and only then - take measures they believe are in the national interest. Helping the other mob win isn't part of their brief.

But that only works until the mid-terms. After that, as Reihan says, you gotta pivot. Scorched-earth is a temporary policy forced upon you by unfavourable circumstances and your own need to retreat and regroup. It can buy time and weaken the enemy before the counter-attack but it's not, and cannot be, the counter-attack itself. It's tactics, not strategy.

One assumes that (most of) the likely Presidential candidates appreciate this. If they don't they need to see how Republicans have won gubernatorial contests since elections to executive positions, unlike legislative contests, cannot, except in the rarest of cases, be won on a platform emphasising preventative measures alone.

The difficulty - or one potential difficulty anyway - the GOP faces is that what enthuses the base may alienate or repel other voters. Striking a balance between outreach and mainaining core enthusiasm may prove a tricky proposition. The actual convention in 2012 will be, one imagines, well-enough controlled to prevent a repeat of the 1992 disaster but it's not impossible to imagine a scenario in which the spirit of that convention finds a fresh voice in the party in 2012 and that this will be the environment in which the entire GOP campaign takes place.

If so, that risks alienating the moderate voters (especially women) that the party will need to win in 2012. Taken to its extreme, this might require the candidate to put a little distance between his platform and that of the grass-roots - a strategy that while bound to be popular with the Washington Post is also fraught with risk. Dog whistles to the base are fine, but the winning candidate most probably can't be out in front leading the marching band.

So, Reihan is right: 2010 and 2012 are very different contests decided by different voters. Success in the first does not necessarily mean success in the second must follow. They require different approaches.

Filed under: 2012 (151 more articles) , GOP (304 more articles) , Mid-terms (18 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (12)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

February 2nd, 2010 2:24am Report this comment

It's Obama who would have reaped the electoral rewards from this process.

Obama might have reaped the electoral rewards from getting healthcare through under some process but it is the American people who would gain the biggest reward.

On a day I received notice from my health insurer that my insurance payments are increasing by more than 39% next year I find it hard to sympathize with the Republican Party - nor the health-insurance industry. Or should I say health-extorsion industry?

Peter From Maidstone

February 2nd, 2010 9:43am Report this comment

ndm, I'd be interested to compare your insurance premiums with the cost of the NHS. If the NHS costs about 90 billion then that is of the order of £1500 per person, so my family would cost £9000 a year in share of cost. I don't know how that compares with your premiums, but the point is that the NHS is not free.

Snowman

February 2nd, 2010 12:24pm Report this comment

Alex, you are missing the nature of the hoi polloi revolt. It doesn’t run neatly between the two political blocks, it’s between the philosophy of the anointed pseudo-liberals and that of the common sense, raw Americanism of the past. I reckon the shift in November will be towards the latter, whatever the party affiliation of the candidates.

Snowman

February 2nd, 2010 1:04pm Report this comment

Ndm: we’ve been through it before. Why don’t the lawmakers limit the payouts for medical errors and stuff, and why don’t they allow insurers to reach outside the state borders? I reckon it would help.

Peter fM: the cost of the NHS funding stands closer to £2,000 per each man, woman, and child. Still on enough to do the job well.

One cannot run an operation for which each of us pays a fixed amount, yet each of us has the right to demand an unlimited access to the services it provides. The NHS in its current mode of operation cannot survive.

Rhoda Klapp

February 2nd, 2010 1:21pm Report this comment

ndm, is there any reason to think your bill will be reduced by the current senate bill, or any other put forward by the dems? Your bill will go up. Very likely your tax will go up too. You see, what you lose on the swings you will fail to gain on the roundabouts. Your senator will be OK. Your insurer will be OK. Your doctor will be OK. If you end up paying more for the same service, you'll have to look at that as a win.

ndm

February 2nd, 2010 7:47pm Report this comment

Peter from Maidstone writes:

-- I don't know how that compares with your premiums, but the point is that the NHS is not free.

I never said it was. The United States spends north of 16% of GDP on a healthcare system not remarkably better than that provided by moste Western European nations at a much lower percentage of GDP. If there is a relevance to a comparison with a Government-run system it is that NO Government would get away with an almost 40% increase in "insurance" charges.

Snowman repeats typical REpublican Party cant:

-- Why don’t the lawmakers limit the payouts for medical errors and stuff, and why don’t they allow insurers to reach outside the state borders? I reckon it would help.

Legal payouts for medical errors have almost nothing to do with the perennial and excessive rise in charges by health insurance companies. These increases are excessive because health insurance is not an open market and insutnace companies can push through massive increases knowing that their customers have no option but swallow them because of the difficulty of finding a new insurance company. Allowing insurers to reach outside state borders means little more than that they will all incorporate in South Dakota or whichever state has the lowest standards and continue their current practice of price gouging with the additional profit source of cutting their costs but not passing these savings on to their customers.

Rhoda Klapp writes:

-- ndm, is there any reason to think your bill will be reduced by the current senate bill, or any other put forward by the dems? Your bill will go up. Very likely your tax will go up too.

The answer to the quesion is no - my current bill would not be reduced by the current Senate bill. Well, actually, these things are so complicated who knows - but I don't expect it to be. It is pretty clear however that the insurance companies have got used to providing poor service at a high price and are addicted to excessive annual increases in health insurance payments. Their primary concern is not the health of the American people it is to maximize the revenue they can generate from the American people. Consequently, health insurance companies are incented to increase their charges as much as possible without losing too many customers. They remind me of the car and financial services industry - heading steadfast onto disaster.

ndm

February 2nd, 2010 8:05pm Report this comment

This is what my health insurer told the financial press when announcing its results last week:

-- Medical costs as a percentage of revenue, or medical cost ratio, increased year over year because of the flu outbreak and business mix changes, including more members receiving coverage for the unemployed, a high-expense program. These factors, plus higher unit costs, resulted in an underlying increase in medical expenses of 8.9% for the year, WellPoint said. (my emphasis)

This is what WellPoint is telling its customers this week:

-- While we strive to keep costs as low as possible, it is necessary to adjust our rates to cover the escalating cost of health care. As of March 1, 2010, the monthly rate on your PPO Share 5000 will change from $678 to $942.

This increase of almost 39% is more than four times what WellPoint claims medical expense inflation to be.

For the benefit of those who don't understand US health insurance - even if they claim to know the fixes - this plan is as follows. PPO means that WellPoint pays out if I go to a physician or service with which they have a negotiated agreement - otherwise it doesn't pay. This is then modulated by the fact that WellPoint won't pay anything until I have covered the $5,000 deductible which applies separately to two members of my family. And then, once it starts paying WellPoint pays only 70% of the costs leaving me to pay the rest. This is more or less what is known as a high-deductible policy.

Indeed, the policy I have is the dream policy for the Republican Party. They love the individual health-insurance market because it allows insurance companies to gouge individuals who have no bargaining power. This they have done for years and this is what health reform was supposed to end.

In the ten years or so I have used this policy I have only once met the deductible and then only barely. And the first response from WellPoint to this was to send my details to a recission company who called up and asked if there were any other insurance company who might pay - I hadn't, for example, had an accident.

And just for good measure my primary care physician takes a different form of insurance payment - cash. She is among the increasing number of physicians who are so sick of dealing with insurance companies that they no longer contract with them and consequently require cash payment.

RP

February 2nd, 2010 8:57pm Report this comment

For shame. Parties don't just exist to win elections -- they win to govern and, when in opposition, to raise legitimate questions. Winning is part of the deal for parties, but not the whole thing. Based on your approach, there is no hope for America. This is one of the saddest and most cynical columns I've ever seen. If you were an idiot, I wouldn't care. You are, however, an intelligent person who should know better.

Mike in the Mtn West

February 2nd, 2010 10:20pm Report this comment

Alex,

So what happens then when/if the Republicans get control of the majority? Do you expect that they will gain a filibuster proof majority anytime in the near future? By your logic the only way anything ever gets done is one party gains a supermajority in the Senate which is highly unlikely. Historically, the Senate has not needed 60 votes to pass every bill and requiring that will only lead to an inability to tackle any of the major challenges facing the United States.

The Democratic caucus in the Senate currently represents upwards of 60% of the population. In what universe does it make sense for less than 40% of the population to be able to block the will of the majority?

Snowman

February 2nd, 2010 10:21pm Report this comment

ndm @ 8.05:

will shut up because you’re right. I know bugger all about your health delivery system. Getting treated in the Mayo Clinic in the 90s with my employer footing the bill gives me no right to lecture.

Am sticking to my earlier point about the NHS though. If the model of funding/claim on services doesn’t morph, it cannot but implode.

ndm

February 2nd, 2010 10:28pm Report this comment

Snowman writes:

-- Am sticking to my earlier point about the NHS though. If the model of funding/claim on services doesn’t morph, it cannot but implode.

This may well be true about the NHS and other healthcare systems in Europe. However, the US healthcare system has become such an burdent to the economy that it will explode first.

ndm

February 2nd, 2010 11:27pm Report this comment

I don't understand RPs objection to the post which to me seems a fairly realistic understanding of the situation.

The Republicans are going into the mid-terms with a message that just says no to everything. They will need to go into the 2012 elections with a message that says yes to something. The difficulty faced by the Republicans is coming up with a something the American people believe in. Fortunately for the Republican Party of today it requires little intellectual effert to say no. But what of tomorrow?

Post comment