Strategy And Tactics In The SCHIP Debate
I have to say that Democrats are acting awfully un-Democrat-like in their political handling of the SCHIP debate. I say this, because they're winning. Big time.
I have to split today's observations into two groups, though: strategic and tactical. Strategy (for those unfamiliar with precise military terms) is all about the Big Picture -- the main goals you want to achieve. Tactics are smaller -- how you're going to go about achieving your objectives on a very small scale. Politically (for instance), your strategy might be to end the Iraq war. Your tactics are which bills you support in Congress, and how you present your case to the American people -- what is the best possible way to achieve your strategic goal, in other words.
So let's examine a few things about the SCHIP debate, on both the strategic and tactical levels.
Strategy
Democrats, led by New Jersey's governor, are leading a tactical attack on a key Republican strategy in the debate by suing the federal government over their rule-changing. President Bush has been publicly leaning heavily on the fact that a few states use their SCHIP money to pay for kids making up to 400% of the poverty level (which translates to over $80,000 in income for a family of four). This is somewhat of a straw man in two respects: the vast majority of the kids covered by the program actually come from families making much, much less than 80 grand a year; and secondly, Bush already approved this in the past. States have sought over a dozen waivers to the main rule of the law (which covers 200% of poverty level), and not once did Bush refuse such a request. It's only now, when he needs a political issue, that he is outraged over such excess. Hence, the New Jersey lawsuit (New Jersey is often held up as a poster child for bad behavior by Republicans, so it's fitting they filed the suit first). Soon to be followed by lawsuits from Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington.
But there's a larger strategic argument to be made here, and the Democrats seem to be missing the opportunity to make this argument. Which is a shame, because it neatly paints Republicans into a corner.
The larger and more philosophical argument to be made is that of federalism versus states' rights. In this case, the argument should be about block grants.
The phrase "states' rights" has its own baggage, due to Republican efforts to court Southern white voters with coded racist appeals over the last four decades. Brushing that baggage aside for the moment, the core argument itself dates back to the very founding of our government and the opinions put forth in the Federalist Papers. This argument got very heated after George Washington stepped down as President after his two terms, and it still continues today.
The Republican side of the argument goes: the federal government should be very limited in what it can do, especially when it comes to telling states what they can and cannot do. They usually base their argument in the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Seems pretty clear-cut. The way it's supposed to work is that the states are supposed to be smaller "laboratories of democracy," where certain political ideas are born and tried out. When one state does something hugely beneficial and blindingly obvious, then other states start to copy their law. Eventually, a consensus is reached on a national level, and a federal law can be passed to smooth out minor differences among the state laws. If a law is seen as stupid or counter-productive, then other states don't copy the idea, and it essentially dies on a national level.
This is in keeping with the conservative Republican ideal of "smaller government," especially on the federal level -- meaning it is ideologically sound as far as Republicans are concerned.
Democrats, in general, don't trust the states' governments quite so much (they remember Jim Crow, for instance). They feel that on certain issues, the federal government needs to force state governments to comply with broad societal goals and that the only way to do that is by the use of federal law.
Now, it's obvious that both sides are not ideologically as pure on this issue as they would like to believe themselves to be. Republicans (for instance) do not approve of states legalizing medical marijuana, or doctor-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. But Democrats are just as inconsistent, since they are (for instance) on the states' rights side of the SCHIP debate. The difference is that Republicans have made "small government" a bedrock defining issue for their party. Democrats have not done so for the obverse stance (they prefer to take each case as they see it), leaving themselves less open to such philosophical attacks.
Republicans, after all, used to love the concept of "block grants." Now, apparently, they don't. A block grant is when the federal government hands each state a chunk of money and tells them: "We'd like to see you achieve this particular goal with this money, but we leave it up to you to decide how to do so." It wasn't so long ago that a Republican-dominated Congress was passing block grants out like candy, for education, road funds, and anything else they could think of.
Well, guess what -- the SCHIP program is a block grant program. The states are supposed to experiment with the money. That's the whole point. If a few states are experimenting in different ways, and still achieving the overall goal of the program, why is that a bad thing?
Democrats have a golden opportunity to hoist Republicans on their own petard with this issue. All they have to do is dig up some Republican quotes from about five years ago on what a wonderful thing block grants are because they allow states to be "free of federal red tape" and to experiment with their money.
It's an easy case to make, it strikes at the core essence of today's Republican Party... so I sincerely wonder why Democrats are not strongly making this case.
Tactics
Perhaps it's because they're doing so well on this debate in general. After all, it's hard for Republicans to frame this any other way than: "Voting against SCHIP is voting to deny sick children health insurance." I have discussed previously that the tax Democrats are passing is regressive, and I wonder why Republicans haven't hit harder on this point. Maybe they're afraid of being seen on the side of smokers, who are now a pariah group (politically) in America. Or maybe they just don't think that argument would work.
But I do have to bring up a Democratic tactic here. Democrats are using children to hammer their point home. Last Saturday's Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address was given by a twelve-year-old child who credits SCHIP for saving his life. And Democrats have also staged an event this week by having children deliver a petition to the White House -- by pulling the petition's signatures in little red wagons.
Personally, I think this is brilliant PR (as I said, not exactly what Democrats are known for). But I realize that many could see this as "exploiting children" for political purposes. So I leave the question open: Are the Democrats making a tactical mistake by using children as visual props in this debate, or is it entirely appropriate (considering the legislation being discussed) to do so?
As I said, I personally think this is great political theater, but I wonder whether others share my view.
-- Chris Weigant
I think that showcasing the children is a good tactic for the Democrats. Congress and the White House needs to be reminded that they are there to serve the people and protect future generations.
...Stan
Showcasing children is one thing..
But using children as political tools will backfire on the Democrats.
While I agree in principle with the Democrats position on SCHIP, I am uncomfortable with the Dems use of children to make the point..
It's one of those things where, if it works, it's brilliant.. If it doesn't, it's brilliantly stupid.
I am biased by the Democrat's track record (or, in this case, lack thereof) in the PR department, to be sure.
It's a tough call. The Dems so desperately need a PR win... But I have a sneaky suspicion that they GOP will be able to use that desperation against the Dems..
If *I* were the GOP, I would showcase the Dem's desperation and match that with the Dem's use of children in a political free for all...
This is a tough one to call so I am going to chicken out and say that this could go either way...
Michale.....
Your forgetting something. The children are the point.
@benskull
I have not forgotten that..
You are correct, though..
Children ARE the point.
I am only saying that they should not be the "point" of the political "spear"....
Michale......
Of course they should. Thats why the bill is in existance. For those children. The bill has a face, and they are that face, and everyone needs to see that, including the repubs against it, especially Bush who vetoed it, and the people need to see what their president is vetoing.
OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree..
You feel it's perfectly OK to use children as a political tool..
I don't...
As I said, we just disagree..
Michale.....
I don't think it us USING them. Encouraging there participation for there own benefit is important. It allows everyone to see why the bill is important. Not just listening to some legal mumbo jumbo that most people dont pay attention to. If it was a ploy to get elected or something, then it could be considered selfish, and USING.
Good spin though.
>. If it was a ploy to get elected
>or something, then it could be
>considered selfish, and USING.
It's a ploy to push a political agenda and is, therefore, using..
As a father and a grandfather, I find it disturbing..
It reminds me of that Disney Movie, "THE KID" where image consultant Bruce Willis rounded up a bunch of kids to save some scumbag's image... Same concept..
>Good spin though.
I liked the "point of a political spear" part.. I thought that was especially brilliant.. :D
Time will tell whether or not the Dems will be successful. Considering I haven't read much about it at all, I am guessing it will be as "successful" as the Dems have been in other PR "coups"...
Michale.....
It's funny..
Even when we AGREE, we disagree.. :D
There is no hope for this country.... :D
Michale.....
Political agenda, healthcare for kids. So then the repubs and Bush's political agenda is to take healthcare away from kids. So they should run commercials with dead impoverished kids who didnt get the care they needed, and then show a bunch of cash being deposited into the treasury.
Once again, you show your bias..
The argument from the right is valid.. That it will "socialize" medical needs for children and be wasteful by offering the services to those who don't need it..
I happen to believe that the benefits of getting health care to those low income types with infant children who need it (like myself) outweighs the risk of wastefulness by offering it to those who don't need it.
That's the difference between you and I.. You castigate anyone and everyone because they don't believe exactly as you do..
Whereas I am the type who says, "I can see the validity of your argument, but consider this...."
This discussion is a perfect example. You and I agree the the SCHIP program is a GOOD thing for children..
The difference is that I acknowledge that Bush and the GOP do have valid concerns..
You simply dismiss their arguments out of hand as evil rantings of evil men..
So, tell me.. Who is being more liberal here??
Michale.....
Let me ask you a question here, Benskull..
This is the FIRST question I ask ANY potential candidate I happen to meet...
Are you an American first or a Democrat??
As a follow-up to that...
If you felt that a Republican was the best person for the job, could you vote for him or her??
Let's say that YOUR vote is the deciding vote in a Senate Race...
Further, let's postulate that the Senate Race your voting on is the deciding Race that will determine control of the Senate..
The Democratic Party candidate is a sleaze ball.. A crook who will only serve himself and will ignore the wishes of his constituents.. But he WILL play the Party game and will be a loyal Democrat..
The GOP Party candidate is a hard-working honest person. You KNOW for a fact that he is more qualified for the Senate and will do right by you and your fellow citizens...
So, what do you do??
Do you do what is right for your Party and vote Democrat, even though you know the Dem candidate is a scumbag and a crook??
Or do you do what is right for your Country and vote for the GOP candidate who you know will be the best Senator ever??
What do you do..
What DO you do...
Ya know, I can almost guarantee what you will do..
You won't answer the question...
Michale.....
Way to change the subject Michale.
On the Daily show last night they played Bush's explanation for why he vetoed the SCHIP bill:
1) Poor children first.
2) Secondly, he supports private insurance companies as providers of health insurance for poor children.
Imagine the amount of money in postage those private insurers will expend over the next month marketing health insurance to poor children ... $1 ... $3. Lucrative market for those insurance companies to be sure.
Of course, the big blue striped elephant in that room is that children don't need insurance, they need health-care. The administration is hopeful that nobody sees the distinction.
Michale -
Yeah, but... isn't there a relevant Spock quote here... something about the needs of the many...
In your example, if you knew the balance of the Senate came down to that race, but if you looked at the bigger picture of what Democrats could do for America versus what a Republican Senate would do... and you decided that the lesser evil of voting a scumbag in created a greater good?
I know it's a "means justifies the ends" argument, but you've got to at least address it in the conundrum you set up.
Personally, from what I've seen, having a one-vote majority doesn't really gain either side much in the Senate... so maybe it's not a valid criticism, I don't know...
-CW
CDub -
Point number two is a strawman. The whole "socialized medicine" thing is a STRAWMAN. These kids are not going on MediCare, they're going on private insurance. The only difference is the gummint pays for it. This is a fact that Bush has been trying (mostly successfully) to obscure. It's "government funded" health care, not "government run"...
Hmmm... maybe that should be a talking point... I gotta get today's column written...
-CW
@CDub
>Way to change the subject Michale.
Yea, CW doesn't allow me the ADMIN freedom you feel he should to make new points and new supjects, so I have to stick my other points in with existing points.. :D
@CW
You see the Season 3 episode of STARGATE ATLANTIS called THE GAME?? The very beginning reminds me of your response. :D (I can send it to you if you want to watch it..)
My point of the whole thing was a moral dilemma..
I wanted to find out if benskull is going to put country before party or party before country..
Of course, the reality is (as you point out) that a one vote "majority" doesn't mean squat.. Even the MINORITY party can further their agenda whilst the MAJORITY party wrings their hands and moans, "Woe is us that we cannot get anything done.".. Still don't know how that one works.. Hopefully someone can explain it to me..
Regardless, I still have a problem with voting for a scumbag crook.. And, since we are over-analyzing my moral dilemma ( :D ) it can also be argued that said scumbag Democrat will actually HURT the Democratic Party (Jefferson, anyone??)
But, as I said, it wasn't really a detailed scenario acknowledging all the possible permutations.. It was a "Are you an American or are you a Democrat/Republican first??" type question...
Me?? It should be obvious. I am first, foremost and always an American.. Let the political parties be damned...
As far as SCHIP goes...
I think the main argument AGAINST SCHIP (but I will be the FIRST to admit that I am not well read on the subject and MAY be wrong...) is that it will A> put the government in the insurance/health care business (even if it's funding only, do we REALLY want that?? ESPECIALLY if it's funding only..) and 2> it will cause grave economic fallout when the borderline people/families start yanking their children out of the PAID programs in favor of the FREE programs..
Now, if true, these are VERY valid arguments AGAINST SCHIP... But, as I said, those valid arguments notwithstanding (and again, I have a personal stake in this) I think the fact that many many kids who did not have any kind of health care WILL have it under SCHIP far outweighs the potential downfalls..
It's the difference between saying, "You are so fracking wrong, it's pathetic!!!" and saying, "I understand and can see where you are coming from.. I just feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"... :D
Michale.....
For the record, "Let the political parties be damned" was a take off of the George Takei line in Star Trek VOYAGER, FLASHBACK where Takei (interesting note. Takei has an asteroid named after him) told Tuvok, "Let the regulations be damned!"
Just FYI.... :D
Michale.....
Michale -
Speaking of life imitating art, and Stargate, check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp
So now we'll have a "Daniel" with the troops?
-CW
@CW
Oh that is just TOO kewl!!! :D
Michale.....
I wouldnt vote for a scumbag crook. That is why I did not vote for George W Bush :) Same reason I am having a hard time preparing for the next election. Who to vote for? I have actually heard good things about Ron Paul. Repub. I have not yet investigated. I would definately consider myself an American first nonetheless.
I agree about Ron Paul, he seems genuine. He doesn't get a lot of coverage, but he seems worth listening to when I hear him.
Greenspan called Clinton the best republican president we've had, maybe Paul is the best democrat (actually he's a libertarian).
@benskull
Good answer.. :D
Michale.....
I was thinking of writing an article about Ron Paul, looks like there's an audience for it...
I have had second thoughts on this article's "politicians using kids" theme. After seeing some other reporting out on the internets, I am of the conclusion that kids are used by ALL POLITICIANS as props. Both sides are just as guilty in doing so. So my entire argument is invalid. Republicans simply have NO LEG TO STAND ON in this argument. Of course, neither do the Democrats.
So my argument now, properly stated, is: "should ANY politician use kids as props?"
Unfortunately, the answer is, "Sure, King Canute, you can legislate the tide to stop..."
Politicians have been kissing babies for so long, it's actually a metaphor. Something that ingrained just ain't going away any time soon.
-CW
Using kids... BAD
Pointing out the benefits (or negatives) to kids... OK...
I use the "THE KID" example as I mentioned it above to show how NOT to have children in PR ads..
Another EXCELLENT example of the blatant political USE of kids would be how one particular HuffPo Commentator disgustingly used children during the Mark Foley scandal.. This commentator shall remain nameless... We'll just call him "M Lewis"... No no no.. That's too easy to guess.. We'll just call him "Martin L"....
Anyways, said HuffPo commentator thought it would be JUST PEACHY to post the pictures of all the kids who had their picture taken with Mark Foley. What was so infuriating to me was that this person saw nothing wrong with posting pics of children with Mark Foley..
I defy ANYONE to defend the posting of such pictures... It was the only time in my year + of posting on HuffPo that I ever blatantly and unabashedly cursed. Loudly and succinctly with great gusto and abandoned...
Anyways, that is a prime example of how even the Left can stoop to the depths of hell for partisan purposes..
It's a thin line between showing kids and USING kids... So thin that it's simply better to air on the side of caution and not have kids in political ads at all..
Michale.....
Iddn't it amazing...
You point out a Democrat pundit who sinks down in the gutter and is worse than any "repug" ploy and, all of the sudden, the peanut gallery is silent...
So, someone please tell me that I am wrong when I say that Democrats are just as nasty, evil and downright disgusting as the Republicans...
Michale.....