On the surface, the summit is a forcing mechanism to push the final mile to a compromise bill, but politically it’s a ˜put up or shut up’ to Republicans. Come forward with reasonable counter-proposals, the president is saying, or you’ll be shown up as stubborn toddlers, arms crossed and heads shaking, in defence of the status quo.
It’s a clever strategy because the GOP won’t like either option. In recent healthcare debates they’ve consistently demanded that Obama ˜start over with a blank sheet of paper’. If they hold that stance before the summit cameras, they risk deterring voters fed up with partisan politics. That sense is already growing. In the latest Gallup poll, 62% say that Obama is trying to work with Congressional Republicans; the same percentage think Republicans aren’t trying to work with him.
Alternatively, Republicans could cooperate. In the House, they have complained for weeks that Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi is ignoring their reasonable proposals on healthcare reform. The summit is their chance to give that argument some credence. The risk, of course, is that Obama calls their bluff, picking up on any ideas they propose. It would be difficult for Republicans to vote down a bill written in that way, without taking a bigger share of the blame for the deadlock in DC.
If you’re into US politics, this is Washington theatre at its best – full of bluff, double-bluff and triple-bluff. But there are broader and more serious reasons to watch the drama play out, and there are lessons for Labour here too. That’s because the healthcare summit, last week’s Q&A, and the State of the Union have all been part of the Dems’ broader strategy for governing under conditions of extreme anti-incumbent sentiment. The summit is just the latest attempt to share out the anger being directed at Washington, and to end the free ride Republicans have enjoyed in opposition.
The new strategy has two main strands. First, the White House is pushing the greater use of presidential power – recess appointments, executive orders, and the veto – to undermine Republicans’ ability to block progress in Washington. Second, and more relevant to the UK context, Democrats are forcing the GOP to take more responsibility for their lack of cooperation. If Republicans want to paralyse progress on healthcare, or block political appointments, they can do so in the full glare of the cameras – and they, not the president, can take the heat from a frustrated public.
That’s worth thinking about in the context of last week’s Tory attack poster, decrying (and misrepresenting) Labour’s nascent plans for social care. That campaign adopts precisely the Republicans’ strategy on healthcare. It undercuts a cross-party process on a nationally important issue, inflaming base human fears for political gain. It’s the kind of shameless opportunism to make Karl Rove proud. Sadly, on an emotive issue like social care, it’s also likely to work. The Tories have enough billboards, and little enough decency, to prevent a grown-up conversation about social care – and enough distance from government to cash in on the resulting frustration.
So, just as Democrats are doing here, Labour could do more to call the Tories out. If they want to harp on about ˜death taxes’, the public have a right to hear the Tories’ alternative funding proposals. Andy Burnham has already moved in this direction by calling for a non-partisan conference this week. The discussions could be televised, and could be followed later in the year by a televised summit of party leaders, chaired by the PM and attended by age charities and civil society groups. The Tories could be asked to submit alternative funding proposals in advance. They would have to put up or shut up. The result? Either we get some movement on a major progressive policy challenge, or they remind us just how ill-prepared they are for government.