Bill Clinton's Non-Support of Health Care Push

According to press reports, former President Bill Clinton used a “pep talk” on Tuesday at a closed-door luncheon to “urge” Senate Democrats to pass the health care overhaul.  If this was in fact a pep talk, it wasn’t much of one. 

Instead of giving Senators concrete reasons to support the effort, Clinton seems to have only asked for movement of some kind.  Regardless of the bill’s contents, Clinton urged the Democrats to look past legislative flaws and just pass something:

"The worst thing to do is nothing," Clinton warned the Dems.

"There are going to be things in here you don't like, but it's important to get the job done."

Imagine for a minute football coach Lou Holtz taking this approach before a game.  “Guys, the plays we have are ineffective and poorly designed.  But, hey, the fans are looking for a game, so go out there and run ‘em anyway.”  Cue high fives all around.

We’ve all witnessed Bill Clinton stir a crowd, and like him or not he’s an effective rhetorician.  Add to that, Clinton is a policy wonk who by all accounts can grasp the intricacies of legislation.  It doesn’t appear these talents were on display Tuesday, however.  Witness this hollow point:

"It's not important to be perfect here. It's important to act, to move, to start the ball rolling." "There will be amendments to this effort, whatever they pass, next year and the year after and the year after, and there should be. It's a big, complicated, organic thing. But the worst thing to do is nothing." 

Put another way, run towards our goal line or theirs.  Same difference.

Notice Clinton did not talk directly about the value of the House plan or the soon to be released Senate plan.  Instead, he talked of the political repercussions of doing nothing and the rising costs of health care.  But these arguments are old, dull, and unconvincing.  Why didn’t Clinton explain how the Democrat plan is better than doing “nothing”.  How is this legislation going to bring down costs, reduce the deficit, increase coverage, and add value?  Where was the President who once made reasoned, creative and forceful arguments?

To hear it from Senator Wyden of Oregon, inside the meeting Clinton’s arguments were forceful. "(Clinton) made a strong case for Congress getting this done this year," said Sen. Wyden.  "I think there is a general sense that the clock is ticking . . . that getting it done this year will in effect clear the tables and allow the focus to be on jobs, and infrastructure and education. He made a compelling case for that position."  According to Wyden, then, Clinton wasn’t necessarily supporting the legislation or the efforts in general.  Instead, he was advising these Senators to get this bill out of the way so the government can move on.  Not exactly Cicero.

Despite Senator Wydon’s remarks, surely critical thinking Senators realized Clinton’s arguments were at best untenable and at worst insincere.  Skeptical Senators are being asked to rush through the Senate an unpopular and highly flawed bill with a trillion plus price tag, in order to supposedly endear them further with the American people who don’t support the action in the first place—all because their leadership wants them to do something. 

Somehow I don’t think this logic is going to work.   

And it’s unclear whether Bill Clinton means it to.  For a self-centered man who was famously uninterested in the election of Barack Obama in the first place, it isn’t too unreasonable to believe he doesn’t support this health care push.  There is a passionate uproar against this bill, and Clinton has little to gain from sincerely supporting it. 

He must as a loyal Democrat go through the motions of supporting it, but a half-hearted effort may be in his best interest.  If Senate Democrats follow Nancy Pelosi off a cliff, as a dispassionate advocate, Clinton can distance himself and his wife from the fallout.  Who knows whether he is still calculating Secretary Clinton’s Presidential aspirations?  He may actually be hoping the bill passes and it’s a disaster.  It would set the stage nicely for an “I Told You So” campaign in 2012.    

I don’t want to dwell in conspiracy here.  It is possible the former president meant well by his remarks.  And maybe reports of the talk do not paint an accurate picture of his closed-door presentation.  Maybe he wants President Obama to accomplish what the Clintons could not. Maybe the answer is there aren’t logical reasons for this legislation.  Maybe all Clinton can be expected to do is echo the vacuous calls for “change”.

At the beginning of the health care debate, Thomas Sowell asked, “Is there a coherent argument for government-controlled medical care or are slogans and hysteria considered sufficient?”  Bill Clinton may be the only Democrat capable of discovering a coherent argument for this mess.  But if he has, at least as of Tuesday, he’s not willing to share it. 

Comments

[Ben]

Like the dems during the Bush years, I find myself wising for the "good ol' days" of Bubba in the White House. :-o

[Louis]

Good one Ben. At least Clinton had the counterbalance of the Republicans. Bubba spent his time fighting Newt while Obama spends his time colluding with Pelosi. A sad day.

[Tommy]

You say you don't want to live in conspiracy, but it sure seems like you are assigning far-fetched motives.