THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter
Maybe it's not hardwired in all human animals, but it unquestionably is in the American species: that headlong eagerness to accept dark rumors before upbeat facts, to relish the luringly sordid over the passably virtuous, to embrace the cynical tale while discounting the positive -- all of which is why, for instance, those biennially grainy, slo-mo, B&W negative political ads work so consistently well.
It's also why, as the New York Times reports, "President Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding," as evidenced by the paper's polling of his 10-point approval-rating drop since April, as well as other statistical downers, such as the NBC/Wall Street Journal's finding that only 36 percent now ordain Obama's health-care plan "a good idea."
After all, consider which is the sexier in this double helix of unfolding events: Obama's "opponents," says the Times, "aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover" (as Obama counters that "nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care"), and "that," continues the reporting, "could limit Americans' ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment" (against which Obama then parries, "Under the reform I've proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan.")
No contest. Foreboding tales of despotic takeovers and brutal limitations will memorably capture the eye, ear, and brain, well before any defensive thrashings about. The former sticks, while the latter is greeted by, Yeah, but what about ...
Such is the enduring pitfall of any real reform; its proponents first paint a more pleasant world as a result, its opponents then hasten to denounce every conceivable downside in funereal, overwrought tones. In short, the naysayers can pick it to death -- and given today's cable-news freak shows and hysterical Internet rumormongering, the pickings are even easier.
What's odd about the current debate's contours is that the White House, according to the Washington Post, believed it had launched its call for health-care reform in its own fundamentally negative terms, which, in this negative-loving nation, was considered a positive. "President Obama has framed the health-care debate in Washington as a campaign against the big, bad insurance companies," reports today's Post, and "the message is no accident."
Joel Benenson, Obama's top pollster, last month told the Economic Club of Canada "that extensive polling revealed to the White House what many there already had guessed: People hate insurance companies"; Benenson also volunteered that "many pollsters believe voters are 'rational and logical,' while his team also focuses on their fears and emotions."
Well, Joel, about all one can guess is that your initial launch wasn't volubly, rivetingly negative enough. But if you really want to fan proper fear and emotion, try reminding folks that the people who brought them the worst economic devastation in generations and a wholly unnecessary war are the very same people who are now merchandising tepid reform and stigmatizing the real thing.
Another factor contributing to the erosion of "Obama's ability to shape the debate on health care" is that when we collectively ponder Obama's health-care proposal, we don't really know what we're pondering, since Obama himself has never had a fixed plan. Granted, this policy ellipsis was probably unavoidable, since Obama, a student of history, appreciated the lapidary, on-high catastrophes of the Clinton era; hence in this respect Obama was likely damned if he didn't, damned if he did -- that is, settle and insist on a fixed, preconceived plan.
Encouragingly, however, while in the NBC/WSJ poll only 36 percent said Obama's plan -- in whatever form they understood it -- was "a good idea," when offered knowable details of the plan the favorable percentage shot up to 56. Rather discouraging, on two other hands, are that "the description given to poll respondents didn't include a public-insurance plan," so we've no better idea of where that stands, plus NBC and the Wall Street Journal can't call 300 million Americans with informative tips before polling.
Besides, in the long run that most malevolent political axiom always comes back to haunt: When you're explaining, you're losing. In chess, play nothing but defense against a grandmaster and you'll get your ass kicked every time (against a grandmaster I would anyway, but you get the point); in politics, same strategy, same result, against reactionary grandmasters of splenetic propaganda. They'll box you in and have you thrashing about, just before you drop dead from exhaustion.
Or perhaps a military metaphor would better inspire the White House to greater heights of determined animation; let's say, the 1944 unbowdlerized words of Gen. George Patton to his troops: "I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a goddamned thing. Let the [reactionaries] do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose, like shit through a tin horn."
Yes, that's it; just about time for a nice, clean kill.
THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter |
