The American Spectator : The High Costs of a Longshot

Text Size

The High Costs of a Longshot

By J.T. Young on 1.28.10 @ 6:07AM

And they're all being paid by the losers.

Increasingly, a single Senate race seems to have sunk health care reform. Repercussions are still reverberating from the Massachusetts Senate special election. While hardly yet definitive, none have been positive. If indeed derailed, the political costs will be staggering to reform's proponents…and they will take longer to tally than the year already devoted to health care reform thus far

Massachusetts' recent Senate special election produced one of the greatest upsets in modern American politics. Viewed from every angle, the outcome is incredible.

Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states. The election was to replace Washington's leading liberal and a member of the state and nation's most storied Democratic family. The Republicans had not held a Senate seat there in almost 40 years. Yet, the Republican, Scott Brown won, and won not only as a Republican, but as a conservative Republican.

We can quantify Brown's challenge as well. Few states rang up a higher Democratic percentage in the 2008 presidential race. Obama won Massachusetts with 62 percent of the vote (versus just 53 percent nationwide), while McCain received just 36 percent. Just over a year later, Brown won with 52 percent of the vote and almost an 110,000 vote margin

As big as the upset was, its implications are far larger. None are as big as they are for the nearly year-old health care reform debate. A health care reform bill appeared to be just days away from completion. Versions had already been passed by both bodies of Congress. At most two more votes -- and potentially as few as one vote (had the House simply passed the bill approved by the Senate just before Christmas) -- by each body could have sent a final bill to the president.

Despite many attempts, no proposal had ever gone so far through the legislative process. The Administration had staked everything on it and other issues were pushed aside to make way for it.

If the effort were now to be effectively over, the policy upset will outstrip the political one. The costs of this will take years to tally but a quick appraisal can be done now. First, there are the opportunity costs -- the foregone chances to pass other agenda items that were lost in health care's eclipse.

Second are the political costs. The largest congressional majorities in decades -- including the magic 60-vote filibuster-proof threshold in the Senate -- were devoted to the effort. Difficult votes were cast -- votes that will be opposition campaign fodder in coming elections.

Third are the public relations costs. The public's view of the proposal, and its proposers, eroded greatly in less than a year.

Fourth is interest groups' goodwill. Just as Congress heavily invested itself, so also did key allies -- in their effort, their membership, and their money.

All of these will be hard, if not impossible, to regain. And the top two costs can never be reclaimed.

The time lost will never come again for this Administration. Not only a year gone, but the year that is usually an Administration's most productive. Even if an Administration has two terms, its first year usually carries the greatest momentum.

Less tangible, but no less real, is the willingness to be led. Whether it is Congress, groups, or voters, most come to a task in anticipation of success -- not just in support of a cause. Nothing cools ardor like failure. As victory's prospects fade, so too do the motivated. Ask any politician how many will vote for a sure loser. Ask the media why they refuse to predict a winner before polls close. The prospect of defeat depresses turnout -- because it depresses the supporters themselves.

Now the prospect looms that instead of a bellwether for future success, health care will lead a larger agenda in the opposite direction. This was brought about not just by the outcome, but by the content of a single election.

If the seat had been simply filled by the appointment of a Republican, the outcome on Senate numbers would have been no different. But the implications would have been vastly so. The demonstrable content, the quantifiable electoral swing, the palpable motivation of the electorate -- all would not have surfaced.

While the health care debate is still not yet dead, it appears that a single shot from the longest of long-shots may have fatally found its mark.

topics:
Health Care, Massachusetts

About the Author

J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 1.28.10 @ 6:49AM

"Elections do have consequences" no finer of an example have I ever witnessed. This issue should be taken to it's final resting place along with anyone who voted for this monster, their supporters and finally, the American public needs to be paid back for all the salaries of these progressive malcontents. There was nothing gained from this past year other than the robbery of our grandchildren's not yet earned wealth.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.28.10 @ 8:06AM

Mr. Young,
please forgive me, for snatching a minor point out of your fine column. I promise. Later, after having digested a fine piece of work on your part, I will offer my congratulations.
First, though, I gotta' make a rude joke on some of our conversationalists here.
(first, quoting you:)
"""Ask any politician how many will vote for a sure loser."""
Well, we have a number of visitors here who do so consistently. heh
They keep throwing their votes away, year after year on loony loosers...and keep expecting different results. Hmmmmm, there is a definition of that behavior somewhere around here. heh
Best regards

Louis Jenkins| 1.28.10 @ 8:50AM

“Massachusetts' recent Senate special election produced one of the greatest upsets in modern American politics. Viewed from every angle, the outcome is incredible.”

Yes it was incredible, however, name recognition played an important role in the Kennedy dynasty. Once Teddy was removed by death there was no distinct politician to assume his position. I would not, however, jump up and down on the bed because Scott Brown won by a 52% majority, far too narrow to be termed a voter mandate. Six years from now those 110,000 voters could disappear and please realize that Massachusetts is a liberal state. Voter opinion could easily swing the other way. I refuse to believe that the blue state has had a massive change of liberal heart. We’ll await the John Kerry bid for re-election to determine that.

“Difficult votes were cast -- votes that will be opposition campaign fodder in coming elections.”

We can only hope. The loss of a few statist senate and house seats will be written off as collateral damage by the liberals. I noticed that Obama put a large emphasis on the economy and employment last night. There are two more years before the next major election cycle begins. He is changing gears in the hopes that the voters will have a short memory and forget about the health care boon doggle. Do not be misled! Statist health care is not dead. Many conservative leaders believe that some form of this creature is needed for the nation, and it is a pet project for the left. It may go to the rehab center for recovery, but it will be back.

Shamus| 1.28.10 @ 8:55AM

It's really not clear whether the health care bill is now dead or just feeling sick. The House could still approve the Senate bill. The Democrats who are on record voting for the bill are already exposed, and they seem to harbor the foolish notion that it would be worse to pass nothing than to pass something.

Anthony| 1.28.10 @ 9:32AM

The health reform issue is far from over.

Our ultra-liberal first term House member from Maine, Chellie Pingree (whose sole real world experience is running a tiny knitting company in the 70s) is one of the people now trying to force reconciliation through. After Brown, I couldn't believe it, but she and Rep. Collins from CO are now circulating a letter, which goes to Reid on Friday. Her interview re this is on (where else?) the Maine Public Broadcasting Networking web site; it was aired last night.

Naturally, there was nothing on this in the state's largest newspaper, the lefty Portland Press Herald, this morning.

Luckily, a good guy, Dean Scontras, is challenging her next Nov.

Al Adab| 1.28.10 @ 10:31AM

Strange how history repeats. Massachusetts of all places and yet, once at Concord bridge a man said, "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." All of us should follow their example.

Blackwatch | 1.29.10 @ 11:13PM

If its a fight they want let's give them a 60's style sit-in the Halls of Congress. 10K or better yet 100K citizens blockading Congress from doing their evil reconciliation dance would be a most excellent start. No violence, just a refusal to be ignored before we start the purge.

Queen Pelosi, Duchess of Bilk can be the first to go.

Franklin| 1.28.10 @ 3:30PM

Maybe a dumb question, but is the Senate working now? I mean, are they in session?

If they are, then why hasn't Scott Brown been sworn in and working with them?

Byron Keith| 1.28.10 @ 7:31PM

Sunk "health care?" Not a chance. The lefties will keep swinging until they connect - & they only have to connect once.

This will keep coming back and back until it comes to stay. UNLESS - we can foster a culture in this country saying that the government is out of line when it insists that anyone is "entitled" to health care, and is way out of line when it sets itself up as the guarantor of the "entitlement." Speaking just for myself, I need more than one election to believe that such a sea change is happening in America.

We didn't sink "health care." We just dodged a bullet. This time.