Democrats, as they reached certainty that they would have enough votes to pass health care reform, had the pragmatic wisdom to allow Democrats in contested districts to vote against the bill in order to improve their reelection prospects. Republicans, driven by ideology and a media-frenzied right wing, were not so wise. This will cost them in the future.
Republican partisans believe that rhetoric, bolstered by a skewed reading of various polls "proving" that a majority of the American people are against the health-care bill will lead them to victory in many elections in November 2010, restoring their majorities in the Senate and the House. The supposed "majority" who opposed health care reform happens to include many liberals who were against the bill because it did not include a public option or provide other reforms favored by the political left. There's little chance that those partisans will somehow turn into votes for Republican candidates, so the rhetorical majority the Republicans claim doesn't have much political currency.
Republicans further believe that they will be able to repeal the health-care reform bill, which shows the extent of their naïveté. President Obama would surely veto any bill that tried to undo something over which he worked so hard. And in the bipartisan atmosphere that the Republicans have created during the Obama administration, it is highly unlikely that enough Democrats would vote with them to gather the 67 votes in the Senate required to override a presidential veto.
If only the Republicans had been as pragmatically wise as the Democrats. Once they realized that Obama's promise to sign an executive order reaffirming that federal funding for abortion rights would continue to be limited, winning the support of pro-life Democrats and thus assuring Democrats of enough votes to pass the bill, the Republicans should have released enough members in contested districts to vote for health-care reform. This would have allowed them to claim, at the end of the day, bipartisan support for the measure. As things stand, the Republicans remain "The Party of No." I for one am happy for the folly of their wisdom.
One reason the Republicans were so vehemently opposed to health-care reform is the number of new Democratic votes that the measure delivers. Have a child with birth defects, juvenile diabetes, or other early-onset diseases? They're covered. Have a child who is a college student who can't find a job in a recovery wrecked by an economy that squandered a budget surplus for the sake of tax cuts for the rich and two unfunded wars? They're covered until they're 26 years old. Have a pre-existing condition? You can't be denied affordable healthcare. Reach a so-called lifetime maximum on benefits coverage for chronic disease? Your coverage can't be canceled by the insurance company. Lose your job in one state and have to relocate to another state in order to find new employment? Your insurance travels with you. (That was a Republican idea that the Democrats incorporated into the final health-care reform bill, but strangely enough, the Republicans refused to support it when it came down to a vote.)
In future elections, not just in November 2010, but for decades to come, Democrats will be able to claim that they and they alone delivered these social benefits to the American people. The notion that in November 2010 Republicans will be able to urge the American people to vote for them in order to repeal these benefits exemplifies the wishful thinking typical of the media celebrities, right-wing bloggers, Tea Partiers and political celebrities such as Sarah Palin who have driven moderate and reasonable republicanism out of the nation's political dialogue.
Yes, on Hysteria Lane, the Republicans own most of the nice homes and urban tract mansions, unaffected by the recession and failures of Wall Street. The problem is, nobody's home.
