Do the Democrats Want to Govern, or Just to Win?

So now Democrat Kathy Hochul beat Republican Jane Corwin late Tuesday in the special election for New York's 26th congressional district. Rep.-to-be Hochul gave the three reasons for her victory as, and I quote, “Medicare, Medicare, Medicare.” The two questions I want to poke at, using her explanation as a platform, are: 1) what does she mean by that answer and 2) what does that imply for the organization of the 2012 election?

Jane Corwin did not back away from Paul Ryan’s budget plan fast enough if, indeed, she backed away at all and Kathy Hochul beat her senseless with it. There are a lot of good reasons for people, seniors especially, to be wary of Ryan’s plan, but there are a lot of silly reasons, too, and I’d really like to know how those two moods played out in the New York 26th Congressional District. If Hochul means that Corwin offered too deep a cut in Medicare or flawed set of targets for the reduction, all is well. A less draconian cut or a fairer sharing of the fiscal pain will be the next topic of conversation.

On the other hand, if Hochul’s victory is only the prelude to a season of incessant demonization of anyone who is trying to rein in our exploding medical expenses, then the prospects for anything I would call “government” are bleak indeed.

Let me take a brief etymological excursion to justify that last statement. We get the English “government” from the Greek kubernatos, meaning “helmsman” or “pilot.” The helmsman—that’s the government—is supposed to steer the “ship of state.” I think that’s an excellent idea. It makes it possible for the polity to decide upon a corrective action, put in place a helmsman who will implement that action, and as a result, we avoid piling up on the rocks. There is another approach, though, which holds that having a helmsman of any sort is a bad idea. This wasn’t really Reagan’s idea but, as in so many areas, he formulated a way of characterizing it that has stayed with us. “Gummint,” said the President, “is not the solution to our problems. Gummint IS the problem.”

We are perilously close to a shipboard management scheme that could be characterized as a biennial mutiny. And I choose “biennial,” knowing that the President’s term is four years. Someone is chosen as “head of staff,” let’s say, and this sets off boisterous opposition. This opposition is successful either in lashing the helmsman to the mast—well out of reach of the helm—or in substituting another helmsman for the current one. Since the substitution sets off a boisterous rebellion among the partisans of the former helmsman, a new mutiny begins immediately. In the meantime, it is worth asking who is steering the ship of state, when no one can keep the helm long enough to maintain a course. End of excursion.

In the light of the Hochul victory, the Democratic Party needs to decide immediately whether it wants to win or to govern. The ugly fact is that demonization of your opponents works if winning elections is all you care about. The Republican Party hit a new low in the last round by their opposition to “Death Panels.” It was low, but it was successful. The Democrats could retaliate, if they wanted to, by saying that the Republicans are trying to “destroy Medicare as we know it” to adapt one of President Clinton’s best-known phrases.[1] This would probably work. Droves of Rs would lose; droves of Ds would win. Then they would be faced with trying to do something about Medicare costs, knowing that whatever they tried, the Rs would give them what they had just received, seven times hotter. When it comes to virulent invective, it truly IS more blessed to give than to receive.

On the other hand, if the Democrats really want to govern, they will not demonize the Republicans. They will use Rep. Ryan’s overshooting the mark as a way to move quite a way toward cutting Medicare expenses. The fact is that “Medicare as we know it” is bankrupting us. Everyone knows that. We are going to have to find a way to cut back on what it costs. Everyone knows that. But the Democrats can afford to take a substantial risk in drafting behind Ryan if they really want to govern.

“Our plan,” they can say, “is much more reasonable than Rep. Ryan’s plan, which has been endorsed by the Republican leadership. Our plan goes a long way toward solving the Medicare crisis, but it does so in a responsible way and without dumping the government’s responsibility to care for seniors.” [2] By positioning themselves to the left—but not too much to the left—of the Republican plan, the Democrats can get a lot of spending reduction accomplished AND retain office. They will lose more seats by what I am calling “the governing plan” than they would by following “the politics plan,” but there would be compensations.

The first compensation is that they can claim to be taking the fiscal crisis seriously. They claim that now, but no one believes them. To be believed, you have to establish your credentials in conflict. If 2012 turns on The D Plan v. The R Plan and the Ds win, they will have their credentials and enough votes to implement a substantial part of the plan.

The second compensation is that eventually, there will be political gold in being able to stand before the public and be recognized as “the party that made the hard choices and that rescued Medicare.” Eventually. Maybe not in 2012, but possibly before 2016, when they will really need it.

It’s worth a try.

[1] It is worth noting, however, that when President Bartlet was offered that same phrase, it set off a major conflict among the West Wing staff, the result of which was that Toby Zeigler talked the President out of using it at all. And Toby did that with the full support of Josh Lyman, who had been his principal opposition on this question and who ended the scuffle by saying, “I make it a practice never to disagree with Toby when he’s right, Mr. President.” Fiction is SO much more satisfying than reality.
[2] President Obama’s plan to cut the cost of Medicare by refusing to pay for procedures that the experts can demonstrate to have no beneficial effect, is not going to do it. It isn’t public enough, for one thing. And it looks suspiciously like “government by experts,” which, in this era of populist anger, isn’t going to do it either.