Simplicity = Possibility = Strength

In a nice piece I missed when it was first published in The New Republic after the 2004 election ("Decision Makers"), Christopher Hayes had interesting things to say about his experience in 2004 going door-to-door for Kerry and talking especially to undecideds or “swing voters.” Hayes is one of the best of the progressive political writers and bloggers; recently an editor at In These Times and now Washington DC Editor at The Nation. Among his admittedly anecdotal (but valuable) findings was this:

Liberal commentators, and even many conservative ones, assumed, not unreasonably, that the awful situation in Iraq would prove to be the president's undoing. But I found that the very severity and intractability of the Iraq disaster helped Bush because it induced a kind of fatalism about the possibility of progress. Time after time, undecided voters would agree vociferously with every single critique I offered of Bush's Iraq policy, but conclude that it really didn't matter who was elected, since neither candidate would have any chance of making things better. . . . [U]ndecided voters extended the same logic to other seemingly intractable problems, like the deficit or health care. On these issues, too, undecideds recognized the severity of the situation--but precisely because they understood the severity, they were inclined to be skeptical of Kerry's ability to fix things. Undecided voters, as everyone knows, have a deep skepticism about the ability of politicians to keep their promises and solve problems. So the staggering incompetence and irresponsibility of the Bush administration and the demonstrably poor state of world affairs seemed to serve not as indictments of Bush in particular, but rather of politicians in general. Kerry, by mere dint of being on the ballot, was somehow tainted by Bush's failures as badly as Bush was.

This has always been a weakness of the Democrats’ instinctive proclivity for coming up with a program for every problem. Now, they seem to be doing the same with their relatively complex health insurance programs. The voters remember what happened to Hillary’s plan in the 90s. It’s good for her to talk about her battle scars from that experience, and politicians always project a can-do attitude, which is great, but what is to make skeptical voters think this time will be any different?

I’ve argued for the central importance of demonstrating why this time it will be different: that simplicity, ease of comprehension, even a workable bumper-sticker explanation, is essential to convincing voters that this time it will be different: that this time, the critical mass of intense voter support can be built up; that a critical mass of support from healthcare providers who can cut back on their collection agencies if they know the biggest part of their bills are going to be paid can be marshaled; that American employers facing ever-escalating benefits costs and international competitors who don't face these costs can be brought on board the juggernaut; and that even the insurance companies can be left enough in the way of plums to keep their offices open – all with the objective of creating a steamroller that can be opposed only at someone’s extreme political peril. (Also see "National Healthcare: Problem, Solution.)

I’ve argued, therefore, for a very simple concept that is very similar (but not identical) to Medicare: Federal catastrophic insurance that will prevent complete financial disaster for unlucky people (and complete uncollectability of a providers most expensive bills). This would allow for insurance company competition underneath the catastrophic layer subject to rules against denying coverage or price discrimination for pre-existing conditions, and with help for those who need it to buy the first-layer insurance. A simple idea, easy to understand, easy to fight for.

Whatever the plan is, in any case, it’s going to take a lot of work to fight through that well-grounded skepticism. It goes beyond health insurance, too, towards creating a general feeling that we can start turning this Titanic away from the icebergs that Bush and Cheney have been taking us into. What Democrats are dealing with is even deeper than skepticism, it’s cynicism, and if it is not addressed head-on, it results in making Democrats with big programs but no clear sense of how to get there look silly and weak. Here’s hoping the candidates are getting ready for the transition, and planning for the messaging during the general election – something a lot more directed than “I have a plan on my web site” -- that will turn a majority of Americans into believers that this time, we really mean it.