The Healthcare Policy Debate: Part 1--Why Canceling The Vote Mattered

After the cancellation of the vote on the American Healthcare Act, it seemed that almost all of the reactions in the political sphere were overblown. I even tweeted about how absurd I thought they were.

I was wrong. Only some of them were absurd.

Atop the Still Absurd List sit the Democrat Party's elite, whose virtue-signaling responses were (generously speaking) poor form and vacant. According to TheHill.com, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) opined that Republicans were "so eager ... to be mean-spirited" on the anniversary of ObamaCare's passage. This, of course, implies: We would have done the kind and virtuous thing by celebrating it. Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat simultaneously announced that 24 million people were saved from being "thrown off" of their insurance policies (an oft used, albeit grossly exaggerated DNC talking point). Again, the implication is: We would have done the kind and virtuous thing, in the first place, by leaving it intact.

Then, as if seeking to ensure their spots on the Still Absurd List, a seemingly endless parade was started by hyperbolic, giddy, left-leaning politicians and pundits who declared this to be both a victory and the beginning of the end of the Trump era.

Republican reactions ranged from the Freedom Caucus' condescending condemnation of Trump to the Tuesday Groups' apprehensive analysis of his political position. In time, many thought provoking arguments rose through the din to the surface, prompting me to rethink the issue (and turn this into the Used To Be Absurd List).

So why was the pre-vote bill pull truly a big deal? There are three answers. The first is because of the forfeiture itself. The second is because of the way in which it happened. The third is because of its political consequences; and they are yuge, if you will.

Before each of these are treated in more, albeit overlapping, detail, here are the facts. The GOP currently controls the executive and the entire legislative branch. However the Party enjoys only a thin margin in the Senate. What seems like a 6 vote margin (52-46) is 

actually a 4 vote margin (52-48). This is because the Senate's 2 Independents usually caucus with the Democrats. In the House, the GOP has 237 seats versus the Democrats' 193. (There are also 5 vacancies. Most recently, these seats were held by 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat).

The current drama-surprisingly-played out in the House, where conventional wisdom was that a 44 vote margin would virtually ensure that the GOP would reach the 216 needed for wins across the legislative agenda. However, as has been shown so many times in the nascent life of the Trump Political Era, conventional wisdom is no longer in force.

Unpredicted was the opposition of both 31 of the 32 members of the Conservative Caucus, as well as a dozen or so moderate Republican ship jumpers like House Appropriations Committee Chair Rodney Frelinghuysenso of New Jersey. In other words, there existed NO certainty that the GOP would reach 216 votes. As this 

became clear, a cranky POTUS demanded that the issue be put to rest one way or another. So, the only reasonable option available to House Speaker Paul Ryan was to cancel the vote.

For any other president, the cancellation would be news for a day, and fodder for the pundit class until the Sunday talking heads had their say. Then it would be forgotten. But we're talking about President Donald J. Trump.

The first reason why the vote cancellation was a big deal for Mr. Trump is because it was a forfeiture. In other words, he failed at his first legislative effort. This flies squarely and, frankly, overwhelmingly in the face of the political brand that he methodically built over the past few years. The most notable, and painful, examples of this were found on the stump, where candidate Trump took every conceivable opportunity to show himself to be successful. 

As for being successful as President Trump? Not so much. 

The second reason why taking the vote off of the schedule was an important moment for POTUS is because of how it happened. By most counts, there were 44 Republicans who declared either their opposition to the bill, or that they were very likely to oppose it. Despite the public nature of this challenge to Mr. Trump, which was  politically  suicidal  in  the  GOP   primary,   he    was   proven

beatable. The standing narrative of Trump as always winning was obliterated at that moment. 

The third reason that pulling the bill was important is because of its political consequences. As I mentioned above, conventional wisdom was that a 44 vote cushion would guarantee GOP legislative victories. The new reality is that Trump failed and is beatable, making this path anything but certain. So, the strategies that were developed based on the old narratives have to be discarded. Leaders on both sides of the isle must now draw up new plans. 

A more visible political consequence of the forfeiture is an endless source of anti-GOP rhetoric being given to the Democrats. Just consider what they can now say has been proven.

• Trump's characterization of himself as always a winner is untrue
• Trump's characterization of himself as always successful is untrue
• Trump has shown himself to be absent the requisite skill for the job of President
• There are serious fractures in the GOP
• And, so on...

There hasn't been much of this sort of talk from the DNC... as of yet. I'm listening for it, and dying to find out what will trigger it!

Post Modern Political Honesty: Part V--The Rest of the Hacking Denial Story

In my last post, I detailed one of the central reasons why Donald Trump is denying that the Russians hacked the DNC's network during the election. Specifically, he appears to have adopted a neo-post World War II foreign relations approach. However, as is usually the case in seeking to understand the Donald, the explanation is multi-factorial. The other factors are that the President is:

• Apathetic about the potential implications of such a declaration, and 
• Subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin

Mr. Trump appears to both believe that no Russian hack of the DNC occurred, and not care about the possible consequences of saying so. Of course he should care, considering what those consequences could be. For instance, in Part IV of this series, I argued that the combination of Putin reading this sort of conciliatory gesture by POTUS-and there have been several-as a green light to expansionism, and Trump's disengagement from NATO, is a recipe for a third world war. But, even taking off the table the calamity of an unbridled Russia starting a global conflagration, we are left with unacceptable sequelae like the spread of communism, the restoration of the Soviet Union, and a bilateral nuclear war. 

The final piece of the explanation of Trump's denial that the DNC hacking was done by the Russians is that he is subject to dramatically narcissistic perceptions about the 2016 election and Vladimir Putin. [For a more general discussion of his public narcissism, see my post on 02/20/16: To be, or not to be (surprised by Trump): Part II--On the Couch.] 

Vis a' vis the elections, were the President to admit that his campaign was helped by the dissemination of the information that came from the hack, he would also be implicitly admitting that his win was not gained by his effort alone. The Donald is just not capable of this; examples are ubiquitous. To him, success is an imperative as well as a zero-sum achievement. He can not share the spotlight with anyone but a subordinate; and even Trump doesn't see Putin as a subordinate. 

Mr. Putin is, however, serving another vital function for POTUS. That is, the Russian President is flattering him. Given that there is nothing more important to Mr. Trump than being successful and admired (see Nine Consistent Things About Donald Trump for more), positive commentary from one of the world's most important heads of state surely carries great weight in this regard. Otherwise put, President Putin's flattery is providing the perpetual adulation that the Donald's requires in order to maintain consistency in his ever-fragmenting self concept. As such, it would be inconceivable to him that Putin's praise was disingenuous. 


It'll be a cold day in hell before Trump ponies up this one.