Insurance is something nearly every American is familiar with. Auto, home, renter, health, mail, life insurance. Nearly all of us have some form of insurance, most of us have multiple. We are constantly bombarded by advertisements urging us to buy more insurance. We have an entire industry devoted to insuring Americans from some form of detriment or another.
Yet the only time insurance is associated with our government these days, is in the form of Obamacare, the government mandate that everyone should have health insurance or pay a tax, and nobody seems happy with that contrived state of affairs.
For Republicans, this plays well into the narrative they have built up about government. Republicans far and wide rely on the same rhetoric: Democrats want big government, Republicans want small government, Democrats want to raise taxes, Republicans want to cut spending. For years now they have pushed this framing, and it has proven extremely effective.
The thing is, the way I see it, almost every form of government service provided to the average American can be regarded as a form of insurance.
Democrats have allowed the Republican narrative to go unchallenged, and this has proven disastrous. Simply by framing the government and correlated political battles in this language and mindset, Republicans have effectively guided much of what we have been able to effect in the statehouses and Congress.
What we need is a counter-balance of rhetoric to combat the Republican framing of our government. One that emphasizes the true nature of what government should be accomplishing, rather than how Republicans cause it to function. And importantly, one that can engage the American mind in much the same way that the Republican rhetoric has.
Democrats should reorganize their rhetoric to portray government as the best form of insurance that the American people have. An insurance for all, that seeks to provide the most benefit to the most constituents, without the yoke of profit that private enterprise strives for.
The first part is pointing out how our government functions in much the same way that insurance does.
Taxes are the premiums we pay. Services like regulation and social security are like the benefits offered as part of the policy. Laws are like the guidelines under which the policy remains effective. Things like crime and corruption and unsafe practices are like the risks the policy is meant to protect against.
Food, farm, and other regulators are insurance that the things we put on and in our bodies will not harm us or make us sick. Highway and transportation safety is insurance that people and commercial products will be able to get wherever they are going safely and routinely. The space program is insurance that American will continue to be seen as the technological and innovative leader of the world. Public education is insurance that children will have enough knowledge to become productive members of society. Social security is insurance that people will still have enough money to live on when they are too old to work for a living. Even the American military that many of us are so quick to bemoan. Isn't an army just an incredibly expensive, yet incredibly comprehensive, form of insurance against the extremely historically rare possibility that one of the few countries that actually pose a military threat to our country will actually carry out a military attack against us?
Sure, none of these services are exactly required by us human beings to continue living and doing what we normally do; but all these services ensure that we will be far more likely to be successful at coming back home safely at the end of the day. What other institutions provide that service, other than insurance and government?
The examples go on and on. The government is an institution meant to protect people from all sorts of threats both anticipated and unanticipated alike, but that protection comes at a price. In this regard, it is no different from any other form of insurance. But would any insurance company allow a policyholder to remain insured if they do not continue to pay the costs of holding that policy? Of course not.
The second part is reframing Republican talking points in light of this new mindset.
Democrats are not about big government. They are about increasing and improving the benefits and protections offered compared to premiums being paid. When comparing two competing insurances, the one that provides more benefits and protections usually comes with more explanations, more contingencies, and usually, a higher premium. I'm sure a lot of people don't seek to only choose the cheapest insurance, or the most expensive, but the one that offers the best in terms of benefits and protections compared to premiums and other expenses. Just because an insurance policy is big does not automatically make it better or worse than a smaller policy, and the same should go for the government services, benefits, and protections people are paying for.
Republicans are not about small government. They are about decreasing the number of benefits offered, decreasing the risks to be protected from, and decreasing the number of people in the risk pool who can benefit from the insurance. Sure, this means each person pays less in premiums, but they also get far less in protection. They have to either go without protection, or get yet another form of insurance to fill in the gaps.
Democrats are not about raising taxes. They are about improving the protections being offered. When it comes to insurance plans, there can be different tiers of benefits offered. Paying a higher premium sometimes means receiving a higher quality of care, sometimes additional benefits and protections, and sometimes paying less out-of-pocket when a situation does arise. These are all what Democrats are fighting for.
Republicans are not about cutting spending. They are about reducing the number of benefits and protections offered. Going with lower premiums often means the best quality of care is off the table. It means you have to pay more out-of-pocket when problems do arise. It means getting less because, well, you're paying for less. These are what Republicans are trying to do.
Finally, reframing the rhetoric of how we perceive government is in leveraging the benefits of preventative care over addressing problems as they come up. Again, we can use the experiences that people are familiar with to advance the analogy.
People who own cars understand that they should spend a little bit of money to perform regular maintenance on their vehicles, to prevent a far more costly repair a few years down the road if maintenance is ignored. Likewise, if you find a problem with your house, you know to get it fixed early while it is still cheap, rather than let the problem persist and then become a much more expensive repair a few years later.
The same goes for paying for our government. We pay a little bit at a time, so we don't end up with factories exploding in our backyard, foods poisoning our children, or a health epidemic that could have been prevented by investing in proper research in a vaccine or cure.
Some of you may have issues with any or all of the examples I use. Maybe you don't like the insurance analogy and can come up with a better one. My point is this: Democrats have not properly developed a politically-cogent weapon to counter Republican rhetoric. All we do is defend against the GOP's already sharpened weapon, and at best, try to turn their own weapon against them.
It is time Democrats forged a rhetorical weapon of our own.