One of the interesting things that emerges when you look at the competing poll-tested talking points of the two parties concerning health care is that the Democrats are leaving the bazooka in the cabinet under lock and key. The biggest rhetorical bomb the Democrats have is the tremendous unpopularity of insurance corporations. Look at AIG. Look at all the horror stories people have about trying to get their health insurers to pay up or authorize needed procedures. But the Democrats are swearing off that kind of rhetoric and are more interested in reassuring people that private health care corporations won’t be driven out of business by a public alternative. That’s odd.
When FDR explained the banking holiday, he didn’t mince words.
We had a bad banking situation. Some of our bankers had shown themselves either incompetent or dishonest in their handling of the people’s funds. They had used the money entrusted to them in speculations and unwise loans. This was of course not true in the vast majority of our banks but it was true in enough of them to shock the people for a time into a sense of insecurity and to put them into a frame of mind where they did not differentiate, but seemed to assume that the acts of a comparative few had tainted them all. It was the Government’s job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible — and the job is being performed.
By 1936, FDR was so confident that he told the Democratic National Convention:
Above all I thank the millions of Americans who have borne disaster bravely and have dared to smile through the storm.
America will not forget these recent years, will not forget that the rescue was not a mere party task. It was the concern of all of us. In our strength we rose together, rallied our energies together, applied the old rules of common sense, and together survived.
In those days we feared fear. That was why we fought fear. And today, my friends, we have won against the most dangerous of our foes. We have conquered fear.
As confident as he was, he made certain to call out the people who were responsible for the disaster and who were opposing the rescue. He called them ‘Economic Royalists’. I quote this extensively because it is required to get the flavor.
In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy – from the eighteenth-century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man’s property and the average man’s life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people.
And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.
Since that struggle, however, man’s inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution – all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.
For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital – all undreamed of by the Fathers – the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.
The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age – other people’s money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.
Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.
Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
An old English judge once said: “Necessitous men are not free men.” Liberty requires opportunity to make a living – a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people’s mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
The Democrats need not resort to quite this level of populism to be effective. But, if they want a public option for the health care bill, they damn well ought to stop reassuring everyone that they aren’t going to harm a hair on the head of the private insurance corporations. Can’t your fancy pollsters tell you that, or are they bought off, too?
“The biggest rhetorical bomb the Democrats have is the tremendous unpopularity of insurance corporations.”
Unfortunately, many (most?) democrats are in the pocket of the insurance industry.
“Look at AIG.”
believe me, i am, I am!
“But, if they want a public option for the health care bill, they damn well ought to stop reassuring everyone that they aren’t going to harm a hair on the head of the private insurance corporations. Can’t your fancy pollsters tell you that, or they bought off, too?”
I think you;ve answered your own question.
the democrats won’t bring out the bazooka, because most of them don’t believe in the public option.
Funny conversation with specter’s office and baucus’s office yesterday, asking why they get health care on the public’s dime, but the rest of don’t.
it was funny, because no one wanted to answer the question, so all they could do was confirm over and over again that taxpayers pay for max’s and areln’s health care.
and so on. good times!
How about this for an answer?
ANSWER: “Electing me by definition, means that you think I am better at representing you than you are. That means I am qualitatively better than you and so deserve more.”
I imagine that, were he alive today, Roosevelt would rise out of his wheelchair, grab Ben Nelson by his toupee, and slam his bulbous nose into his knee. Rhetorically speaking, of course.
Good post.
Another result of the Democrats failure to make the populist argument is that it leaves a huge void that the right-wing will happily fill.
This void allows nutjobs like Sam the Plumber and Glenn Beck to pretend they are sticking up for the little guy. They are the ones using revolutionary rhetoric and attempting to sound like FDR does in the speech you quote (Minute Men and revolutionaries against the royalists). But they are imposing our modern understanding of economics on the situation, an economic language polluted by 30 years of propaganda. According to Beck and a substantial number of Americans (mostly so-called centrists and conservatives), Obama is the socialist (or marxist, or communist, etc.) and the “people” need to rise up and fight the socialists trying to redistribute the wealth of the rich. They have totally twisted economic populism (as practiced by FDR and even Teddy Roosevelt). There’s a reason FDR seems ‘radical’ to our ears today–there is almost no one in the public sphere making the economic populist argument (and the one’s that do are portrayed as kooks).
And it’s not just a rhetorical deficiency. It’s actually more of a policy deficiency. The Democrats can’t just pretend to get tough with insurance companies and Wall Street ( e.g. Obama’s executive compensation measures or the bank stress tests). They actually need to make laws or take action that protects us from these oligarchs before any rhetoric rings true.
And one added benefit of not only talking like a economic populist by acting like one is that it’s really the only way to “fix” our economy. 🙂
Yesterday (I think) there was discussion here about the effectiveness of the congressional Dems and their leadership. Several posters made the case that they can only do what is politically acceptable.
The health-care case seems to demolish that argument (which is one I wanted to believe). Where is the constituency anywhere that demands preserving the insurancecos’ privileged money machine? I don’t think such a thing exists anywhere except in DC — not in Montana, not in Louisiana, not in Missouri, nowhere in the United States. I’ve never met anyone who loved their health insurer and didn’t want something better.
So how do we explain this example of Dem crawling to placate the special interests? There’s no question of offending voters in any state or district. The problem seems to be the spectre that voters might actually get on board for a radical culling of the middlemen.
Which leaves only two possible reasons I can think of:]
1. The Dems are simply grossly pandering to their insuranceco contributors and don’t have the stomach to fight for the welfare of their constituents.
or
2. The voices of the Dem Party continue to be absolutely incompetent at politics to the point that they couldn’t sell theocracy to Fred Phelps.
Which brings the mind back to the pathetic attempt to sell health care reform by the Clinton administration, which apparently either couldn’t imagine that the middlemen would push back, or didn’t care enough to do some pushing back on their own. If the Dems blow this one by their miserable failure to rally Americans to something they already want, they’ll watch their current winning streak turn into a mournful spectacle of loss as the opportunity of a century is wasted for the sake of groveling to the real special interests.
there is no doubt that a significant number of Democrats are in the pocket of large insurance contributors, but there is something else going on that is hard to put a finger on. I think SFHawkguy touches on it.
If you look at the Dem Caucus regionally, you see some obvious things like reps from Delaware, South Dakota, and Nebraska are overly defensive of the interests of insurance corps. But then you see in both the House and Senate that Southern Democrats are absurdly pro-corporate in their disposition. This runs counter to logic, as southern Dems have always been more economically populist and culturally conservative.
It appears that over the last thirty years, Southern Dems have been frightened into losing their resolve to fight any Republican talking point.
A simpler explanation is that a very large portion of Dem legislators just don’t stand for anything except what they’re told is good for their careers.
But that’s the congressional side of the party. It doesn’t explain why the whole party feels the need to cower before the might of one of the most hated groups in America. It’s beginning to look like we’ll see crowds with pitchforks dragging insuranceco leeches off to the gallows before the Dem Party sees fit to murmer the slightest dissent to the divine right of middlemen.
well, I see a regional trend.
The current crop of Southern Dems are who? Webb, Warner, Hagan, Lincoln, Pryor, Bill Nelson, Landrieu in the Senate. Every one of these (except Hagan) swam upstream in a Republican tide in order to get elected. Being business-friendly is how they got the chamber of commerce folks to split against the cultural conservatives. In the House this is not quite as true. John Spratt, Brad Miller, and Larry Kissell are cut from the populist mold but Spratt and Kissell have on occasion voted for corporate interests (Kissell against mortgage relief, for example). Etheridge and McIntyre are more like the Senate folks. Price generally is economically populist, with some glaring and galling exceptions. Black politicians general vote with the Congressional Black Caucus.
Until there are more Democrats winning elections in the rural and small-town South (and in the whiter suburbs of New South cities like Richmond, Charlotte and Atlanta), you are going to continue to see caution.
But as the Obama administration moves forward, a lot of the wedge issues that Republicans used to hold white Southern voters are going to be dissolved, making economic populist arguments more palatable. Right now, economic populism is greeted with counter-arguments of socialism. And like Reconstruction, the Textile Strikes of the 1930s that resulted in the deaths of strikers hangs like a cloud over any movement toward economic populism.
The two reasons you cite for the Democrats’ inability to make a populist argument seem like the two most likely reasons. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive and it probably is a combination of those two reasons with maybe a third reason:
The mass confusion about economics and finance. We no longer possess a useful language to discuss these matters and many people don’t know what to do or believe and feel safer following the herd.
But back to your two points. I do think that the result is already baked in–the Democrats will not be able to become the economic populists some of us think is necessary (or at least it will be too little too late). It’s not a conspiracy necessarily–but the Democrats simply have too much of a financial interest in protecting the FIRE industries and they do not yet realize they are stuck in an impossible position–that they either become an enemy of their top contributors or they become the peoples’ enemy. The Democrats feel safer following the status quo; basically the Democrats have become mini-free marketers–Rockefeller Republicans and they have 30 years of collective political wisdom that they interpret as being the “safe” course for Democrats.
An interesting point is what the markets think will happen re health care. I don’t know how well this chart will reproduce on the link below, but check out two health insurance firms vs. the broader market over the last year (Wellpoint and United vs. the S&P) and one can see the market certainly doesn’t think any new regulation will hurt the insurance companies. In fact, this was my calculus last Fall when I thought these health insurance companies were one of the few stocks that might be a good speculative buy–because the right’s rhetoric of socialism was overblown and my political prognostication led me to believe the Democrats’ reform would be very beneficial to the insurance industry.
Since about last Fall (the same time health care reform was being discussed in the election) the insurance companies have done better than the broader market.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=WLP#chart2:symbol=wlp;range=1y;compare=unh+^gspc;indicator=volume
;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
So whatever the reason, the Democrats simply will not be able to reverse 30 years of collectively running to the right. They are now about as far right as they can get (economically) and there is going to have to be a more radical event to change course.
I checked out the performance of subindices of insurers ($insr) and healthcare providers ($hcx) vs the S&P on http://www.stockcharts.com and the results don’t bear out your case. They merely indicate that you are a decent stockpicker. Both insurers and healthcare stocks rallied strongly vs. the S&P from the summer of 08 until the end of the year, but the S&P has since gained back a lot of ground. None of this in my view has anything to do with healthcare reform: they rallied vs the S&P because they were viewed as safe revenue streams in an environment of collapsing earnings during the panic stage of the bear market. In the context of a rebounding S&P 500 the dull but safe sectors have now fallen back.
(stockcharts.com doesn’t seem to want people to link to their charts, so if you want to check on what I wrote, you go to the chart page and enter $INSR:$SPX and then $HCX:$SPX)
You’re right that I’m only an amateur armchair stock picker and that there needs to be more proof to my theory.
And this is funny. A story from the AP today basically repeating my theory as the reason for today’s price action in the sector:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Managed-care-stocks-rally-as-apf-15171492.html?.v=1
So obviously the type of regulation the Democrats are proposing is an important factor in the pricing of the industry. The future of health care regulation has been a big public issue so I imagine the traders at least took the politics under consideration.
And there were a lot of stock pickers jabbering about this kind of stuff last summer and early last fall, both amateurs like me and the professionals. I remember having a conversation about this very topic during the 4th of July last year . .. .
But you’re right that my theory needs more proof. And it’s interesting if one considers a longer graph, going two years back:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=WLP#chart3:symbol=wlp;range=2y;compare=unh+^gspc+aet+ci;indicator
=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
The main thing that strikes me is that I remember at the time of the first down turn and in the beginning of the bear market, say from the fall of 07 to Spring of 08, how the defensive stocks like health care did not do any better than the broader market. Other “health care” sectors were not faring much better.
But I don’t remember the big dive the managed care sector took in the Spring of 08. Was that the shock of the market expecting more regulation because the Democrats were promising such during their primary? I don’t know.
And then after this drastic fall in the sector in early 08, as my earlier chart shows, in the last year the sector has outperformed. So I don’t know what the answer is. This corresponds to the time it became obvious to people like me that the Democrats would eventually cave-in on any health care reform that substantially hurt the interests of the insurers. I think the “smart money” bet on this, in fact. The huge divergence we saw in the sector today from the broader market is also pretty compelling evidence!
But it would be an interesting thing to look at more closely.
in a down economy, people use more health care and drugs, not less. It was a logical hedge.
Right. This “logical” point was exactly my thinking when the bear market began. I fully expected traditional bear market hedges, like health care, to outperform from the beginning of the bear market, fall of 07.
But for the first 6 months or so of the bear market (fall 07 to spring 08) this traditional defensive sector (again, the “logical” trade I was making at the time) did not do as predicted and slightly underperformed the broader market (see my link of this sector going back 2 years) for the first 6 months. Other traditional bear market hedges diappointed during this period as well.
But then the sector really underperformed during the spring and summer of 08. Why would a natural and logical bear market hedge do so poorly at that point? Because the real gains in the sector occured the last 6 months (dare I say since Obama was elected???–oh noes, I fear I just added an emotional component to our facts here). Check out the chart going back two years I linked above (that one I included all the major firms in the industry–yahoo evidently doesn’t allow one to chart the entire sector and I haven’t charted the sector on stockcharts as Guthman did above–like I say this can all be studied more but I think it’s error to assume the surge the last 6 months is simply a bear market hedge . . . or put more succinctly . .
If investors were flocking to health care to avoid a down economy and to hedge why did they wait a year into a bear market, in the fall of 08, to do this?????
My guess is that people didn’t start hedging in large numbers until Bear Stearns.
And here’s a chart that compares the health care index to the S&P over the last 2 years:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^HCX#chart7:symbol=^hcx;range=2y;compare=^gspc;indicator=volume;c
harttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
something happened in July. What, I don’t know because I was absorbed in the election.
“Can’t your fancy pollsters tell you that, or are they bought off, too?”
Utilizing Atrios’ methodology, YES.
Now I’m getting depressed again. Baucus belongs in a Zombie movie.