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 I--Conservatives Are Not Liberals!

This is the first piece in a series about political honesty. It sets the philosophical framework for the rest of the sequence. If a view from 40,000 feet is not your taste, you can skip to the next post without loosing much at all.

From a conceptual level (excluding the phenomenological perspective), a large enough change in quantity or extent is viewed as a change in quality or kind. A couple of examples. 

 

In space, when matter reaches a certain density, it warps space-time and creates a black hole. No one would call unwarped space and a black hole the same thing, yet their differences can be explained by how dense the matter in each is. 

Turning to political ideology for another example, consider that a traditional conservative embraces social uniformity, old-style free marketeering, and hawkishness in foreign relations. A modern liberal endorses acceptance of social difference, a tempered marketplace, and footprints by the Departments of State and Defense that are in line with the will of the United Nations. Notice that each element of conservative ideology is thematically related to an element of liberal ideology. Moreover, the elements of each thematic dyad can be viewed as the poles of a continuum:

Social Homogeneity----------------------------- Social Heterogeneity

Unbridled Capitalism--------------------------   Highly Regulated Markets

Unilateral Use of Power------------------------ Community of Nations Determined Use of Power

Otherwise said, while no one would equate conservatism and (non-classical) liberalism, they are distinguished by the degree to which social uniformity, free markets and superpower status are embraced or eschewed.

So, what does this have to do with honesty?

It is my contention that honesty in political speech has crossed a threshold. Its prima facie moral value has been replaced with its argumentation value. This is a consequence of utilizing the same narratives and tropes to spin dishonesty, with ever-greater frequency and ever-wider application, resulting in language in which truth is valued only to the extent that it serves the speaker's ends. This is a change in kind emanating from a significant change in extent. This is post-modern political honesty.

Enter, The Clintons and The Donald...