It Takes Two

David Brooks has an interesting column about David Cameron and his successful repositioning of the Tory Party in the UK. He concludes:

Cameron describes a new global movement, with rising center-right parties in Sweden, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, California and New York (he admires Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg). American conservatives won’t simply import this model. But there’s a lot to learn from it. The only question is whether Republicans will learn those lessons sooner, or whether they will learn them later, after a decade or so in the wilderness.

Ultimately, my hope would be to see the GOP reposition sooner rather than later. The way American political institutions work, it's very difficult to govern on a pure party line basis. I would prefer European-style institutions, but we don't have them. Consequently, a hard-right GOP -- even a hard-right GOP minority -- can make progressive change extremely difficult, whereas a more moderate GOP would make it easier to do things, even if that more moderate GOP were more electorally successful. Many conservatives will, I assume, agree with me about this and therefore want to resist the sort of changes Brooks favors.

Comments

Given that the American left is mostly about freeing people from the oppressive constraints of family, church, and other mediating institutions, a GOP that had an effective program focused on strengthening those institutions would be a disaster for liberals, no?

Posted by y81 | May 9, 2008 4:41 PM

Ah y81, isn't there some glue you should be sniffing somewhere?

Re: Brooks.

He is wrong on Cameron and the future of conservativsm, and I saw this as a Canadian conservative. People vote Conservative when they want to be indulge their inner greediness; that will never change.

The next conservative revolution will come when they start embracing international instituitions rather than shunning them.

Posted by JFD | May 9, 2008 4:45 PM

Ah y81, isn't there some glue you should be sniffing somewhere?

Re: Brooks.

He is wrong on Cameron and the future of conservativsm, and I saw this as a Canadian conservative. People vote Conservative when they want to be indulge their inner greediness; that will never change.

The next conservative revolution will come when they start embracing international instituitions rather than shunning them.

Posted by JFD | May 9, 2008 4:46 PM

This is supposed to contain interesting insight?

The "far" parts of any party think the moderates sell out. Look at all the screaming "true" progressives have done about the centrist DLC types. But that centrism allowed change to occur. A hard-left Dem minority could make change as difficult as a hard-right GOP minority-- it all depends on what status quo the minority is protecting.

So of course the GOP wanted D's move move to the center, as D's now want the GOP to move to the center. It's all about leverage, and it all goes in cycles.

Posted by Beer Here | May 9, 2008 4:51 PM

Doesn't the US already have a centre-right party? I'm not joking -- your Democratic party is significantly to the right of the Canadian Conservative party.

If you want to change the discourse, the move left must start with Democrats, no?

Posted by Ian | May 9, 2008 4:51 PM

Given that Cameron's success is due to:
1) Pledge to abolish inheritance tax
2) Economy falling into slump
3) Brown completely messing up wrt 10p tax rate

i think Brooks is just having a little Pundit Fallacy self-gratification, in saying that it's the culture stupid.

Posted by Chris | May 9, 2008 4:52 PM

I'd like to see the GOP reposition, too, but I doubt they will, unless their current incarnation loses most of their seats on the Federal and State level.

Right now, the Bradleys, Olins, Scaifes, Coors, and their ilk realize an excellent RIO from the GOP they wrested from previous "noblesse oblige" Republican kingmakers. Until they decide to change direction, or get out maneuvered by other country club members, they aren't going to mess with a winning formula.

Posted by cmholm | May 9, 2008 4:52 PM

RIO ==> ROI... I've been in aerospace too long.

Posted by cmholm | May 9, 2008 4:56 PM

Our GOP in CA is anything but center-right, which is why our democrats are so successful.. and corrupt.

Posted by SAO | May 9, 2008 4:56 PM

Given that the American left is mostly about freeing people from the oppressive constraints of family, church, and other mediating institutions, a GOP that had an effective program focused on strengthening those institutions would be a disaster for liberals, no?

Given that the American right has spent the last eight years pursuing policies that did nothing to strengthen any "mediating institutions" beside the Federal government and big business, a GOP that had an effective program focused on strengthening family and church would be a GOP so different from the actual GOP as to be (as JFD implies) a completely hallucinatory construct.

Posted by James Gary | May 9, 2008 4:58 PM

WTF, a rising center-right party in Australia? Unless he's calling the Australian Labor Party center-right, I don't know what he's smoking. They crushed the conservatives in the last national election.

Posted by Chris O. | May 9, 2008 4:58 PM

I think Brooks is woefully ignorant of where the true base of the GOP now lies. It's his economic conservatives that are a dying breed, and the hard-right social conservatives that could maintain a sizeable minority party for the forseeable future, especially if they embrace anti-corporate anti-trade populist rhetoric.

The Cameron/Tory party of the UK is too similar, on most issues, to the Democratic party in the US for the GOP to model itself after. Brooks' reasoning conveniently ignores the fact that Labor is well to the left of the Democrats, which is what allows Cameron to position his party where he has.

Posted by Jesse | May 9, 2008 5:04 PM

I'm not sure these center-right parties in Europe signify an electoral shift, as Sarkozy and Merkel both baaaaaaarely won victories. Sarkozy is already getting hammered and Germans are getting a bit tired of Merkel, too. Cameron is doing a good job filling the talent and vision vaccum in UK Labour, which results more from the sagging of a party being in power for so long than inherent Conservative strength. Hardly a sign of a sea change in European politics overall.

Blair also did a number on his party by joining in on Iraq which obviously is a GOP boondoggle, which Cameron's party is able to tweak them on, so that's twisted up vis-a-vis the US. One of Cameron's key insights is to take up environmental conservation as a party principle, something that will never, never, never ever happen in the United States GOP.

Brooks has nothing here. The problem fundamentals in the GOP are not easily repaired, both in vision as in structure, and certainly will not be repaired by looking at Europe.

Dog don't hunt.

Posted by Eric | May 9, 2008 5:05 PM

Ultimately, my hope would be to see the GOP reposition sooner rather than later.

Chances are that following their catastrophic recent performance while in power, the Republican Party may reposition themselves in the manner that their progenitors -- the Whig Party -- did.

One of the oldest rules in politics is that you cannot unshit the bed (no matter how much spin is applied).

Divisions over the issue of slavery did in the Whigs.

Cluelessness about national security will be the GOP's Waterloo.

And they think they are strong on that very issue.

LMAO !

Posted by Clive A. | May 9, 2008 5:05 PM

It's funny that he should cite California as an example. The GOP here is as hardline as it is anywhere, which is why it has no power. My sense is that Schwarzenegger is better liked among Democrats than among Republicans.

Posted by blah | May 9, 2008 5:07 PM

Ian, thank you for pointing that out. I was starting to think no one else had noticed this.

Posted by Kyle | May 9, 2008 5:08 PM

I think people have blocked this out because of the war, but the GOP repositioning that Brooks is talking about IS George W. Bush Republicanism. Does nobody remember "Compassionate Conservatism"? The Faith-Based initiatives? No Child Left Behind? Higher government spending on social programs?

It failed in the United States already, and my bet is that it will fail in Europe too. It isn't a difference in type from the European-left (and Obama) socialism, it's just a "lite" version of it. And conservatives will eventually reject it, even if (as with George W. Bush) it is occasionally electorally successful.

Posted by Al | May 9, 2008 5:09 PM

"I would prefer European-style institutions, but we don't have them."

I don't get that preference. When people praise Euro-style governments, they seem to assume that means governments that work as well as Britain's or Germany's. That fact that those same kind of institutions can give you governments like Italy's or Greece's never seems to occur to them.

I'm not sure the evidence supports the idea that a parliamentary system is well suited to big, sprawling, diverse countries like the U.S.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 9, 2008 5:09 PM

I used to say that the problem with the Republicans is that they are not gentlemen. I no longer say this because I have become convinced that they cannot even grasp what this means.

However, here are two basic pointers. Two of the essential ingredients to being a gentleman include:

• Concern for the weak.
  
• Contempt for money.

Lest there be any doubt as to my meaning. The folks at the country club are not gentlemen. They are simply oafs in jackets, ties, and loafers.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | May 9, 2008 5:18 PM

Why would anyone believe that Brooks has the slightest amount of credibility, about anything?

Bucky Beaver paired up with Kristol in 1996 to trumpet the wonders of neoconservative strategy for the NYT; Bucky was a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion and for numberless Republican talking points. Now, we're supposed to accept his off-the-cuff analysis on the rise of European conservatism?

He's been as accurate and perceptive in his observations on things foreign and domestic as Shakes The Clown was about his sobriety.

But, the Very Neutral and Objective News Hour on PBS loves Davy. So it's all okay.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | May 9, 2008 5:19 PM

Brooks' reasoning conveniently ignores the fact that Labor is well to the left of the Democrats

No it isn't. There are members of the Labour Party who are significantly to the left of the Democratic Party, but the party's governance (when you account for cultural differences such as the extreme prudishness and deference to big business in the States) is modelled on Clintonesque centrism.

I agree with the general premise of course. The party already modelled on Europe's centre-right is the Democratic Party. The GOP is unlikely to shuffle in that direction unless it suffers some sort of actual power collapse in the future, such as having a Democratic Congress which wasn't completely submissive to it.

- Chris

Posted by Chris Cunningham | May 9, 2008 5:21 PM

Matt-
Regarding your hopes for GOP moderation making progressive governance easier, I actually think you're being too pessimistic here. I think the template for real policy shift isn't a gradual recentering of existing parties, but the outright electoral death of one party, followed by the swift creation of another; or the cleaving of an existing party into two parties, one of which soon dies. Or both.

I can certainly see a possibility of the GOP going the way of the Federalists, Whigs, Know-nothings, etc., if they just keep up the course they're on. The tipping point may very well come if they lose two or three consecutive Presidential elections, and aren't able to muster more than 40% of the seats in the House or Senate. That could cause the corporate and wealthy donors to abandon them out of self-interest (Dems take checks too), and up-and-coming conservatives to start seeking office as Independants or even Dems, because then they might have a future.

What would happen next is hard to say, but I suspect that the Democratic supermajority would eventually crack under its own weight, leading to the creation of two left-of-center parties, each of which might embrace a couple of the old GOP positions as part of their new coalition (can't you imagine a matchup of a Sebelius/Huckabee-mold Democratic Party vs. the Dodd/Bloomberg-mold "Progressive" Party?)

Posted by Jesse | May 9, 2008 5:22 PM

"Unless he's calling the Australian Labor Party center-right, I don't know what he's smoking."

The Aussie Labor Party seems to be a lot more pro-growth than American Democrats.

Here's an idea I don't know why Matt or other pundits haven't presented: If you drew a Venn diagram of mainstream Dem and GOP policy priorities, there would be some overlap on major issues that are important to solve for the future of this country. Why not try to compromise on some of these? I think you could find bipartisan support for addressing the need to improve America's infrastructure, for example, or to deal with the runaway cost of current entitlement programs. The pattern of one party obstructing the other on these issues and then hoping the public gets pissed off and votes for the other party is dysfunctional. Granted that dysfunction is what powers partisan politics, but there are plenty of issues outside the overlap of the Venn diagram that the parties can use for that nonsense. In the meantime, it would be good if the adults got together and kept the bridges from falling down and kept rising entitlement costs from threatening the AAA-rating of our sovereign debt.

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2008 5:30 PM

"The way American political institutions work, it's very difficult to govern on a pure party line basis. "

Except for those rare moments when it is possible on a pure party line basis.

We had one of those moments in 1965, and we took advantage of it.

We had one of those moments in 1977, and we didn't take advantage of it.

We're going to have one of those moments in 2009, and we're "presumptively" not going to take advantage of it - and that's a situation Matthew has aided and abetted.

"Ultimately, my hope would be to see the GOP reposition sooner rather than later."

Then Matthew can vote for Republicans like Mitt Romney as he'd like to.

Posted by Petey | May 9, 2008 5:31 PM

Shut the fuck up, you union-busting war-loving welfare-hating Limbaugh-listening Walmart-suckling right-wing trust-fund scumbag. How dare you lecture people about liberalism, you slimy scummy Mark Penn acolyte.

Posted by Barbar | May 9, 2008 5:38 PM

"We're going to have one of those moments in 2009, and we're "presumptively" not going to take advantage of it - and that's a situation Matthew has aided and abetted."

Yeah, cause a massively polarizing candidate who has been deeply hated for 20 years by a large minority of the country and has spent her 1st 6 years in elected office desperately hewing to the moderate and centrist line is EXACTLY the sort of leader to take advantage of a political realignment.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 9, 2008 5:41 PM

I can't take people seriously when they say they are going to vote for either McCain or Nader and then they proclaim that Obama will lose the general. By refusing to vote for Obama it is they who hinder the Democrats from taking over both branches not Obama supporters. So spare me the BS!!!

Posted by Micheline | May 9, 2008 5:49 PM

Let's not start tolling the death knell of the Republican Party just yet. By my calculation the last time a major American political party died was in the 1850s. At this point the two parties are institutions deeply entrenched in all levels of society and government. Neither of them is likely to go away. The fact is, both parties are VASTLY different from the parties that existed in the 1960s. Such huge changes would probably have meant the birth of a new party in an earlier era. Is the Republican Party of today really less different from the 1960s era party than the party of Lincoln was from the Whigs? It's possible, but I doubt it.

Fred said:

If you drew a Venn diagram of mainstream Dem and GOP policy priorities, there would be some overlap on major issues that are important to solve for the future of this country. Why not try to compromise on some of these? I think you could find bipartisan support for addressing the need to improve America's infrastructure, for example, or to deal with the runaway cost of current entitlement programs.

In fact, this is largely how our political system works today. To the extent that anything "gets done", it is along the lines of what Fred describes.

However, as Fred points to a specific example, he illustrates just why this "can't we come together to solve America's problems" argument really doesn't take us very far. The runaway cost of entitlement programs is an issue that is deeply under dispute. Republicans like to say the problem is Social Security. Democrats occasionally point out that the real problem is Medicare, and that Medicare's fundamental problem is rising health care costs in the economy as a whole. Thus, the solution to runaway entitlement programs is a national health care system that controls costs. Republicans are unlikely to agree, thus illustrating the point.

Between conservatives and liberals there is a fundamental disagreement about what are the most important problems facing the country. To the extent that there is agreement on what the problems are, a vast gulf separates the two in the kinds of solutions they think will work. It may be dysfunctional, but that is the nature of politics, especially in a country where one of the two parties has been hijacked by radical right wing ideologues.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 9, 2008 5:55 PM

Petey left off 1993. The Democrats failure to take advantage of that situation is what ushered in the 1994 "Republican Revolution". Had the 1993 Congress passed Clinton's (flawed but workable) health care plan, the Republicans wouldn't not have come close to taking over.

I don't know why Barbar responds so forcefully to Petey here. He's making a good point. Sure his snide remark about Matthew voting for Romney is a little over the top, but he's amply demonstrated just how wrong MY is in this post.

Posted by Rob Mac | May 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Someone should point out to Brooks that, as SAO noted above, the California Republican party is anything but moderate. In fact, in many ways it is even further from the center than the national party. Which is why this particular Republican and conservative keeps finding himself voting for Democrats in November.

Arnold only got in as Governor of California because he had the luxury of running in a re-call election which did not require getting thru a GOP primary first. Otherwise he would have had no chance at all at all. And, based on the track record here, I wouldn't expect the Republican Party to figure out that they have to move to the center in a mere decade, or even two.

Posted by wj | May 9, 2008 6:10 PM

Count me in with the 'later rather than sooner': I'm of the opinion that the wingnuts need to have their noses rubbed in their own shit for a long time, because that's the only way to stop them crapping over the country in the near future.

Cameron follows Howard, who followed Duncan Smith, who followed Hague, who followed Major. If those names mean nothing to American readers, there's a reason.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 9, 2008 6:19 PM

"Let's not start tolling the death knell of the Republican Party just yet. By my calculation the last time a major American political party died was in the 1850s. At this point the two parties are institutions deeply entrenched in all levels of society and government. Neither of them is likely to go away."

I believe that's the source of MY's concern. Rather than the GOP disappearing, it could degenerate into a permanent (and permanently aggrieved) minority. The Republicans stand a pretty good chance of being electorally annihilated everywhere outside the South this fall. Even with good leadership, it could take them a decade to climb out of that hole. Or they could become a rump party that can't ever win nationwide but it too well established to every be supplanted by another party.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 9, 2008 6:26 PM

A couple of points:

1) Rising conservative party in Australia? The conservative Liberal/National Coalition is out of power federally and in every single state government over here. The highest elected conservative in Australia is the mayor of our third largest city. The second highest is the President of the University of Queensland Student Union.

It's at the stage where prominent conservative leaders are pleading for spending/donation caps for elections, because otherwise they'd just be outspent 5-1.

2) I'm surprised that no attention was given to the role of Crosby/Textor (an Australian conservative political consultancy firm that rose to prominence during the decade-long nightmare of the Howard government).

Since they don't have much work in Australia at the moment (the conservatives have no money, no political power and no friends), they've been branching out to the UK. Lynton Crosby ran the Conservative Party's 2005 election campaign, and also the more recent mayoral elections.

Crosby/Textor's highly divisive and highly combative model of political is anything but what Yglesias and Brooks make it out to be. Wikipedia '2001 Australian Election' for starters.

Here's a profile on him from 2005:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jan/28/uk.conservatives

Posted by gassendi | May 9, 2008 7:22 PM

MBunge is right. As long as the GOP maintains a solid regional base--one they joyously embraced beginning in 1964--they'll have a presence in US politics. The Democrats' object is to shrink it to Dixie.

Posted by Henderstock | May 9, 2008 8:38 PM

Shut the fuck up, you ... you slimy scummy Mark Penn acolyte.

Barbar

I believe this qualifies as a 'Steve Simels Smackdown'.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | May 9, 2008 8:51 PM

I really can't see the flag pin crowd (i.e., most of the GOP) taking cues, learning lessons, or otherwise paying attention to how furriners do things ... even if it would do them good.

Posted by Jeff R | May 9, 2008 9:11 PM

Rob Mac,

"However, as Fred points to a specific example, he illustrates just why this "can't we come together to solve America's problems" argument really doesn't take us very far. The runaway cost of entitlement programs is an issue that is deeply under dispute."

It really isn't. To demonstrate that point, I linked the phrase to a column written about it by the president of the Progressive Policy Institute. He may have a different idea about solving the problem than I do, but he agrees it is a problem. What he and the conservative co-signers both agree on is that entitlement spending should be taken off autopilot and Congress ought to be forced to acknowledge and address the situation.

"Republicans like to say the problem is Social Security."

I haven't heard one Republican say that the rising cost of Medicare isn't a bigger problem.

"Democrats occasionally point out that the real problem is Medicare, and that Medicare's fundamental problem is rising health care costs in the economy as a whole. Thus, the solution to runaway entitlement programs is a national health care system that controls costs."

It's true that a form of nationalized health care could reduce health care costs (by rationing care, lowering compensation for medical personnel, etc.), but I haven't heard any Democrat propose replacing Medicare with such a system. They are welcome to propose that as a solution to the rising costs of Medicare and other entitlements, and that can be their starting point for a compromise solution with the GOP.

"Between conservatives and liberals there is a fundamental disagreement about what are the most important problems facing the country."

Not on every issue. There is bipartisan agreement on the two issues I mentioned, though it is obscured somewhat by the leftward tilt of the Democratic primary. All three major Democratic candidates ran on proposals for universal health insurance -- not because they argued it would lower entitlement costs (they generally acknowledged their programs would require additional funding) -- but because they argued the programs would provide every American with affordable health insurance. Had they acknowledged the fiscal trajectory of our current entitlement programs during this primary, they would have casted doubt on the chances of them being able to add a new entitlement if elected president. They could have made the argument you suggested above, that replacing Medicare with a European- or Canadian-style national health care system could reduce our overall health care costs, but to do so would have cost them support from senior citizens, who are smart enough to realize that they'd likely be worse off under such a system.

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2008 10:05 PM

As others have said, the problem with this theory is that its most successful adherent is John Howard, and he got absolutely slaughtered.

Sarkozy ain't doing too hot, either.

Posted by Demosthenes | May 10, 2008 12:57 AM

Oh, and Brooks' whole line about "social revival" sounds like a paen to what most Americans would refer to as, um, social conservatism. That stuff about "assimilation" especially; it's hard not to think that that's a very neutral term for the kind of nativism that's very much familiar to anybody who says the word "Mexican" within earshot of a SoCon these days.

Color (Colour?) me skeptical.

Posted by Demosthenes | May 10, 2008 1:02 AM

Oh, and Brooks' whole line about "social revival" sounds like a paen to what most Americans would refer to as, um, social conservatism.

And some would refer to 'teaching Those People to know their place'.

Had they acknowledged the fiscal trajectory of our current entitlement programs during this primary, they would have casted doubt on the chances of them being able to add a new entitlement if elected president.

Got to love O.F.F., because it's all about Oh Noes More Money For Those People to him. Of course, the capacity of the US to fund more dumbfuck wars of choice is never an issue: heck, to O.F.F., it means that Those People have something to keep them busy far away from his eyeline.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 10, 2008 1:15 AM

"Got to love O.F.F., because it's all about Oh Noes More Money For Those People to him. Of course, the capacity of the US to fund more dumbfuck wars of choice is never an issue: heck, to O.F.F., it means that Those People have something to keep them busy far away from his eyeline."

Pseudomonas,

When it comes to Medicare and Social Security, "those people" are every American over age 65. The two "dumbfuck wars of choice" consume about 5% of our federal budget and will presumably end at some point; Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security collectively consume about 45% of our budget, have no conceivable end, and are growing at a rate faster than our economy. Ignoring this issue won't make it go away, and the longer we wait to address it, the more unpleasant the solutions will be.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 2:42 AM

While Labour did move to the right under Blair, it should be pointed out that the general political situation in Britain on economic issues is rather to the left of the US: national healthcare, stronger unions, etc. Parties thus have to move around in such a political framework and thus are bound by it. Weak unions and a lack of UHC in the US help to define the American political framework, thus allowing the GOP to go farther to the right on union-bashing and on health care than if we had an intelligent UHC system, which could become another third rail (just like how Bush's attempts to privatize Social Security fell flat). Brooks just doesn't want to be lumped in with the crazies anymore because for a conservative BoBo who teaches at Harvard Law and writes for the New York Times (yet lectures liberals on being elitist) like him, that's just too unseemly.

Posted by Reality Man | May 10, 2008 3:50 AM

Reality Man,

In order to enact anything like Britain's National Health Service in the U.S., Dems would have to step on another third rail: Medicare. Seniors aren't stupid. Between Medicare Parts A, B, & D and their own private health insurance (or Medicaid, if they are indigent), seniors have better health care coverage now than they would under a European-style system. There's no free lunch here: to give Petey the 'free' health care he wants, you'll have to ration care to granny. Good luck selling her that.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 4:21 AM

Re: I haven't heard one Republican say that the rising cost of Medicare isn't a bigger problem.

But not a one of them has made any effort to address the problem (other than some nibbling-at-tne-edges, straining-the-ocean-with-a-sieve fee cuts). The GOP knows that fixing Medicare requires fixing healthcare, and that fixing healthcare requires universalizing it. They are terrified of going there lest they piss off the Grover Norquist Social Darwinist types and lose the golden cash cow of Big Insurance.

Re: Had they acknowledged the fiscal trajectory of our current entitlement programs during this primary, they would have casted doubt on the chances of them being able to add a new entitlement if elected president.

Universal healthcare would REPLACE our existing system and its costs, not add to them (unless done very stupidly).

Re: They could have made the argument you suggested above, that replacing Medicare with a European- or Canadian-style national health care system could reduce our overall health care costs, but to do so would have cost them support from senior citizens, who are smart enough to realize that they'd likely be worse off under such a system.

Senior citizens would be the least affected by this sort of change: they already have government-paid healthcare and they are comfortable with it; presumably they would have few adjustments to make. It's the rest of the country that is suspicous of major changes in this area. They want coverage for the unsinsured (knowing they are likely to be among now and then), but do not want to alter their own arrangements, except maybe to upgrade them a bit.

Re: In order to enact anything like Britain's National Health Service in the U.S

For the umpteenth time, nobody is proposing anything remotely like the NHS (which is a badly flawed system). The far extreme of healthcare proposals is something like Canada's in which medicien remains in private hands, but payment is through a government agency.

Re: Between Medicare Parts A, B, & D and their own private health insurance (or Medicaid, if they are indigent), seniors have better health care coverage now than they would under a European-style system.

That makes no sense. A single payor system would simply extend a Medicare-like arrangement to everyone (presumably leaving a place for Medigap insurance as well). Seniors would be little affected by that.

Posted by JonF | May 10, 2008 7:33 AM

"But not a one of them has made any effort to address the problem (other than some nibbling-at-tne-edges, straining-the-ocean-with-a-sieve fee cuts)."

Maybe you were out of the country in 2004, but President Bush initially made his proposal for Medicare Part D contingent on passing wide-ranging, cost-saving reforms to the non-drug parts of Medicare. In the end, he folded in the face of Dem pressure and settled for some "nibbling-at-the-edges" health care reforms (e.g., expanded health savings accounts, etc.). In his second term, after Democrats refused to offer their own proposals for reforming Social Security*, and instead chose to demagogue the issue, he gave up any further attempts at entitlement reform.

"Universal healthcare would REPLACE our existing system and its costs, not add to them (unless done very stupidly)."

So you SAY but neither Hillary nor Obama has claimed that their health care proposals would result in a net savings, by reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid; on the contrary, they have both acknowledged that their plans would have a net additional cost. So either you and them have different definitions of "universal health care", or they aren't proposing it.

"Senior citizens would be the least affected by this sort of change: they already have government-paid healthcare and they are comfortable with it; presumably they would have few adjustments to make."

Senior citizens would have the most at risk from major changes because they have the most generous government health care assistance now.

"For the umpteenth time, nobody is proposing anything remotely like the NHS (which is a badly flawed system). The far extreme of healthcare proposals is something like Canada's in which medicien remains in private hands, but payment is through a government agency."

I mentioned Britain's NHS in response to Reality Man's comment above, which referenced it. I understand your eagerness to disassociate your idea of UHC from that unpleasant example, but the reality remains that in order to give every American government-payed health care and reduce overall costs at the same time, you'd have to move to something like a European- or Canadian-style system, with rationing, months-long waits for treatment, stifling of innovation, etc.

"That makes no sense. A single payor system would simply extend a Medicare-like arrangement to everyone (presumably leaving a place for Medigap insurance as well). Seniors would be little affected by that."

You're trying to have it both ways here. If you want to argue for extending Medicare to all Americans (and some folks have, including my local Dem Congressman), you can't plausibly claim that this will reduce the costs Medicare, which currently covers only those over age 65. Obviously, it will cost more to cover everyone. If on the other hand, you are claiming that a "Medicare-like arrangement" will cover everyone and reduce overall costs, you have to specify how this will reduce costs. You haven't done so. Will your "Medicare-like arrangement" reduce costs by being less generous than our current Medicare system? If so, than seniors would be understandably wary of it. Would your "Medicare-like arrangement" reduce costs by moving us closer to Canada's sort of health care system? If so, again, seniors would be understandably wary of it.

*Before you jump in to say why you think the private accounts part of Bush's proposal was a bad idea, a few key points:

1) I agree.

2) That doesn't excuse the Democrats' refusal to offer their own solution and use that as a starting point for a compromise (instead they demagogued the issue, as usual).

3) Especially because the other part of Bush's Social Security reform proposal -- progressive indexing of benefits -- made a world of sense, and happened to be the brainchild of a respected Democrat, Robert Pozen.

Posted by Fred | May 10, 2008 7:21 PM