With the public option all but dead and an extremely watered down plan the likely result it is time to focus on the post-mortem and develop a lessons learned for the future. It is no doubt that the left has failed to win this debate. Although the debate is still not yet fully over, based on the dynamics at hand, it looks like meaningful reform is not going to pass.
The bottom line is that, even though they have known that they have a problem for years, liberals and progressives still don't know how to communicate their message and use the media effectively. In an era where message is everything, with future policy battles yet to come, it is important that the left learn these lessons.
More beneath the fold.
First of all the left needs to realize that policy debates are like selling a product. In this case the product was the public option and healthcare reform. And given the way that the debate is going it doesn't seem like the public is buying. The left needs to realize that it's not about principles or ideas, but rather selling a product to the public. For the next big policy debate--be it energy, the environment, or the economy--it is imperative that everyone view arguing the progressive position as being tantamount to selling a product or running a media ad campaign. It's not about principle. It's about convincing the most people. Having established these principles I now shift to writing down the key points that I want share with the board.
(Some of you may not like the fact that I'm comparing advocating for liberal and progressive positions to marketing or selling a product. However, the right has long since realized that the best marketing wins the debate. It's not about being "right". It's about reaching the most people and the side that sells its ideas more effectively. To be blunt I focus on the way that the world is not, the way that "it should be". I'm more pragmatic because I just don't have to time to lament about a world that just doesn't exist in the present tense).
1. The facts don't matter. I'll repeat it again. The facts don't matter. It doesn't matter if you're right. It's how the public perceives the facts that matters. It's how each side presents the facts that matters. I've often heard others here claim that "the facts are on our side; the public will realize that", but that just isn't how most people perceive these issues. They'll support the side that can market its viewpoints most effectively.
- Most people don't follow politics or care about the issues. In most post called Regular Americans I wrote about how most people don't follow politics and how they have neither the time nor the interest to research complex policy issues. Here it is a Friday night and I have to say that I am definitely in a very small minority. Very few people are out on line on a Friday night during Labor Day Weekend writing about political issues. Here you may lament and state that "it shouldn't be that way", but that is the electorate that we have. The bottom line is that these voters are most concerned about how policies will affect them and their family. They don't care about anything else, which leads to my next point.
- People are very busy and don't have the time to listen to long winded messages and to read long policy papers. The right knows this fact. That's why they tailor their messages in that fashion. They know that the most information that most people will get about any issue is from the major networks' evening news broadcasts and the 30 to 60 second commercials that they will see on TV. That's why their ads contain quick, concise, crisp, brief and to the point soundbites that leave them with slogans that they can remember. That's why phrases like "government-run healthcare, Canadian-style healthcare, death panel, socialism," and other buzz words have been devastatingly effective. But having catch ads and concise, short messages isn't enough. That leads to the next point.
- The side that sets the frame of the debate wins. The earlier that one starts advocating and organizing, the better. Perhaps the key moment where the pro-reform side lost was in the very beginning. As early as January I remember seeing ads from industry front groups like Conseratives for Patients Rights and Patients United Now advancing the anti-reform position. For months on end their ads and the lies that they aired went unchallenged. The first pro-reform ads didn't appear until late July. (I remember being aghast reading that progressive groups were going to begin airing their ads in July. They needed to do that in April1) Furthermore, on news programs, when debates on healthcare would occur, the liberal panelist would often let the right wing spokesperson lie without debunking the false claims. (For an example of what I am talking about I describe a CNN encounter that occurred back in July in this post.) That was a fatal mistake because, at that point, without an effective response from the pro-reform side, the public started believe that the pro-industry position was the right one. By allowing the right to set the terms of debate the pro-reform side was on the defensive. At that point it became very hard, if not difficult, to win the debate.
- The loudest side that can make the strongest media impression will swing elected officials. A lot of people here online have derided the protesters who have come to townhall meetings. Yes their positions are extreme; but, for their small investment, they got plenty of media coverage. Furthermore these protests, even though pro-industry forces organized them, made it look like that those opposed to reform were regular folks--and not the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Going back to what I mentioned in point #4 groups like Conservatives for Patients Rights and Patients United Now used effective marketing techniques to make it look like they weren't industry front groups, but rather organizations that ordinary people have funded through small donations.
The last three points are more reserved for Obama and elected Democrats but I include them here anyway.
- Bipartisanship is impossible. Despite the David Broder wet dream fantasies of "bipartisan cooperation" it is all but impossible. This current generation of GOP leaders is simply repeating what they did during the first two years of the Clinton administration. They had no intention of being bipartisan or working with the Democrats. Even as I type the Obama administration is trying in vain to get Olympia Snowe (R-ME) on board. Snowe has no incentive to support the pro-reform bill because 1) she is very popular in ME and 2) if she supports any Democratic bill, she runs the risk of losing in the 2012 GOP primary to a challenger that the Club for Growth. So she has no incentive to work with the Democrats. For whatever reason Obama still has yet to realize this.
- Delegating the entire bill to Congress was a bad idea. While I understand why Obama wanted to avoid a repeat of the Clinton healthcare plan disaster, although he ironically is headed to the same outcome, he needed to tell Congress what he wanted in one sentence. He needed to give Congress a clear goal. Something like this: "A healthcare reform plan that will provide Americans with the choice of a public option". By delegating it all to Congress without a clear objective it became much too easier for different forces to have competing bills.
- Talk privately with Democrats who are likely to object privately. Obama should have met with Baucus et al ahead of time and tried to get them on board. That way he could have avoided some of the grief that has been occurring.
But those are my postmortems. This is why I think the left has most likely lost the healthcare debate.