Power or Personality?
Nate Silver is surprised that the public option isn’t dead. He didn’t anticipate this:
The first surprise is that Reid is showing some backbone…
The third surprise is the way that Democrats regrouped after the turmoil of August…
The fourth surprise, less important than the first three, is that the usually very footsure insurance lobby undermined its credibility by putting out the wrong study at the wrong time, giving a gift to Democrats by making it easier for centrist Senators to distance themselves from them.
Jon Bernstein is not surprised:
The best explanation is all of this has nothing to do with backbone; it has to do with numbers. In 2002, Democrats were in the minority, and didn’t have the votes to win on Iraq. In 2007, Democrats had majorities in Congress…but not the White House, and so they had only limited ability to affect policy. In early 2009, Democrats picked up the White House and reached 58 seats in the Senate, leaving them in pretty good shape but still vulnerable to unified Republican filibusters.
And now the Democrats have reached 60 votes in the Senate, and it has consequences. That’s not about will, determination, or spine; it’s about numbers. To the extent that Democrats have 60 votes but not 60 liberal votes, the ability to do what liberals want will be compromised, but again it’s the numbers (both in terms of party and in terms of preferences of Senators) that really matters. Those sorts of explanations aren’t, perhaps, as dramatic, but they do have the virtue of being more accurate.
I am with Jon. Too many commentators seem to think that political outcomes depend mostly on the traits of political leaders. Is Harry Reid tough enough, etc. But policy outcomes depends a lot more on power, and that comes from having the right number of votes, not having the right attitude.
Comments
I agree that numbers trump spine, art of the possible and all that. Yet leadership matters, since the numbers are so indeterminate. For example, in the House every Democrat is for health care reform in the abstract. However, many Progressives said they wouldn’t vote for a reform bill without the public option, while many Blue Dogs would prefer to not have to vote on a public option at all. In that context, if everyone follows their stated preference, health care reform fails since Blue Dogs vote against a bill with the public option and Progressives vote against a bill without it and Republicans just vote against it. On the other hand, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that Progressives would really kill health care reform just because there is no public option, and semi-suicidal for Blue Dogs to really kill Obama’s top legislative priority just because it had a public option. Midterms are referendums on the President, and if Obama is unpopular Blue Dogs, not Progressives, are the ones whose seats are at risk. A game of chicken, and the numbers do NOT determine the outcome. The logic of collective action makes them all hope health care reform passes without requiring them to make a counter-interest vote, but most of them willing to do so if necessary to get a bill. Leadership, or personality as you call it, is essential to minimize defectors. The Senate is similar but more complicated. IMHO, Dorgan, Landrieu, Pryor or even Nelson will not cast the vote that kills reform. Lieberman is a different problem, since he demonstrates the limits of rational choice theory. On the other hand, perhaps he makes leadership even more important (what do Liebermans want?!)
Posted by: mmanphd | October 28, 2009 08:48 PM
Oh, I agree that leadership skill matters, and I agree with that analysis of the House.
Where I was objecting to Nate (and others with similar points of view) is the idea that spine and determination are important factors. That part is almost totally bunk. Skill, yes; fortitude, no.
Posted by: Jonathan Bernstein | October 29, 2009 11:39 AM
OK, Jon, but what if a person was surprised because they thought Reid was showing some skill?
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | October 29, 2009 04:51 PM
Matt —
Sure, nothing wrong with that. As long as that person can show that Reid’s previous failures were really failures of skill, and not just a result of the numbers/context.
Posted by: Jonathan Bernstein | October 30, 2009 12:43 AM