Conservative Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana unveiled his long-awaited health reform proposal yesterday, the results of weeks of negotiations among the Senate Finance Committee’s so-called “Gang of Six”–three Democrats from the right-wing of their party and three moderate-to-conservative Republicans. The bill (unsurprisingly) does not include a public option andcouldend up leavingmiddle-income Americans paying too much for health insurance (Think Progress, 9/15/09). At the same time, no Republican–including those in the Baucus’ Gang–has indicated that they intend to vote for this bill.
But some of the early media coverage seems to find it encouraging that the Baucus bill pleases almost no one. The Washington Post‘s Ceci Connolly presents that view today (“From Finance Chief, a Bill That May Weather the Blows“), with the lead: “On the surface, it appears that no one is happy with Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)–and that may be the best news President Obama has had in months.”
What exactly is the good news? Connolly explains that liberals unions “fumed,” but more importantly, “the fragile coalition of major industry leaders and interest groups central to refashioning the nation’s $2.5 trillion health-care system remains intact.” These “influential players” have not found “reasons to kill the effort.” Quite the opposite: “Most enticing was the prospect of 30 million new customers.” Well, that is good news–if you happen to believe that pleasing health insurance companies is the key to passing meaningful reform of that industry. Here you see the worldview of the Washington Post in action.
Meanwhile, USA Today‘s front page headline in the print edition (9/17/09) is “Bill Seen as Step in the ‘Right Direction.'” This is a strange conclusion to reach about a bill that no one seems to like. The “right direction” comment was made by Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican included in Baucus’ Gang of Six, who the paper tells us isn’t even sure she’ll support the Baucus plan anyway. On their website USA Today has changed the headline to read, “Bill Elates Few but Seen as Progress“– an improvement, but still a strange way to describe the state of the debate. Unless, of course, one seesMax Baucus, Olympia Snowe or the insurance industry as the most important voices in that debate.
This is a very logical analysis and I definitely support a Public Option. Indeed, Baucus’s bill is extremely scary for poor people. Under it, people who don’t have Health Care would be fined. If poor people can’t afford Health Care, they can’t afford the fine!
However, I think that progressive rhetoric is failing to reframe the issue from our perspective. We all have the facts, but conservatives have framed this issue successfully in terms of “keeping government out of people’s lives” and in terms of capitalism, and therefore private corporations seem good. Under this frame, Baucus’s bill is good, because it privatizes Universal Health Coverage. Obviously, I disagree, as I’ve said, but I think that’s why conservatives have been so successful.
The problem is that we progressives have failed to reframe the debate from our perspective. Here’s an article by UC Berkeley Linguist and progressive George Lakoff about this:
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/20090821120111491
According to Dr. Lakoff, the problem is that there’s more to logic behind how voters make decisions on issues. Values play a big role. Only communicating the logic fails to communicate the values. Progressives are only communicating our logic. Conservatives are communicating both their logic and their values (their logic comes from their values and, under their values, privatization is better than a government run public option). They express their values through reframing. As long as this continues, Dr. Lakoff says (and I agree), we progressives will continue to lose the debate. What we should do instead is reframe the debate ourselves so that people understand our values as well as our logic.
We progressives claim to believe in communication, so let’s walk the walk and communicate our value system to the American people! :)
I am a Republican. I want Universal Healthcare. We are getting a Universal mandate, tanamount to a welfare planf or Insurance Companies. Healthcare Reform was Drad Before Arrival and the Hearse was paid for by Insurance Companies, AMA , Big Pharma, and the Hospital Associations.
Simply put we elect our legislators not to listen to us, they listen to the Insurance lobbyists spending over a million and a half dollars a day to make sure they keep depriving us of Healthcare in the name of profits
Ivan – Thanks so much for the Lakoff link. It’s an important article. I wish everyone would read it and begin applying his prescriptions to the debate.
Right on Ivan! You speak for me. George Laykoff has got this “framing” figured out. So unfortunately has the conservative movement and are using it very effectively. The key seems to be for Progressives to learn how to always come from our values. We believe that all we have to do is lay out the facts and reasonable folks will come to a sensible conclusion. Unfortunately that’s not the way the science of learning works. People reach their understanding of and position on issues when the information is paired with an emotional reference. We need to act and communicate from a moral imperative that is about sharing, caring for each other, fairness, and justice.
We could also communicate our moral outrage at the lies, greed, insensitivity and unfairness of conservative positions so long as we do not repeat what they say. Repetition also reinforces those neural pathways! When we land on a metaphor or “frame’ that makes our case effectively with an emotional underpinning, that’s when we repeat it on every talk show, blog, and progressive site, over and over again. This is how public opinion shifts.