Obama’s victory: a lesson for Rudd?

So Obama got his modest and compromised health care bill through Congress. For those who are more interested in policy than process, there’s a pretty helpful summary of the legislation here.  However, I hold the desirabilty of the reforms to be self-evident. The only serious issue is whether the timing is right, given the US Government’s fiscal problems. But if this is the country’s only window of opportunity in the foreseeable future to join the civilised world, then the risk of more macroeconomic tremors will have to be borne. The budget will just have to be sorted out later. And if the fiscal pressure hastens the Americans’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, so much the better.

Unfortunately this is one occasion when the process is more worthy of analysis than the policy, and while I have no pretensions as a commentator on US politics, there is a lesson here for the forces of enlightenment in Australia that can’t be ignored. First let’s review the salient aspects of the health care victory.

 Joe Conason in Salon explains, for anyone who needed an explanation, that the Republicans were never really opposed to reforms of this kind, which are similar to several Republican plans of the last decade or two. Their strategy of demonising and scaremongering was solely directed at the November Congressional elections. (For the benefit of anyone who didn’t follow the link in Nicholas’s post below, Paul Krugman reviews the Republican fear campaign in all its nastiness and hypocrisy.) Most importantly, the startegy counted on the bill’s being defeated. The real reason they are upset is  that they know that voters will see it’s not so bad, and their credibility will suffer accordingly.

Meanwhile Jonathan Chait in the New Republic argues that there are times when the ‘median voter strategy’ is not going to succeed because the opposition is determined to reject all compromises. Chait’s colleague John Judis points out that on such occasions it’s possible to actually lead rather than merely follow public opinion; furthermore, a leader can energise his core supporters by putting up a fight. 

Much has been made, including by Kevin Rudd himself, of the similarity between Obama’s and Rudd’s contemporaneous battles to legislate major changes in health funding, against a hostile opposition. But the situations are very different: the decisive battle to introduce comprehensive health insurance was won long ago in Australia, and even the Opposition Leader takes pride in the difference between Australia and the US in this regard. The health funding debate in Australia has to do with Federalism and efficient decision making rather than basic social justice — the issues are disentangled admirably in Ken’s post.

The appropriate  parallel to be drawn is rather with the battle over the ETS scheme.  These are several points of similarity:

First, this is one of the moments when, as Obama put it, ‘you have a chance to vindicate all those best hopes that you had about yourself, about this country’. Legislation to abate carbon emissions is a moral imperative that, for those who understand the situation, should transcend considerations of electoral pragmatism.

Second, the opportunity for a bipartisan approach has evaporated. The voices of principle in the Coalition parties have been silenced. Their new leadership has decided to oppose for the sake of opposing, and to do so by whatever combination of swaggering populism and cynical disinformation proves effective. The fact that they are gambling on no ETS legislation passing the Senate is all the more reason for them to oppose the plan uncompromisingly.

Third, even from the point of view of the selfish voter, the legislation is actually not nearly as bad as the Opposition makes it sound. Even in the short term, when they see how insignificantly carbon pricing affects the CPI, people will wonder what all the fuss was about — just as they did when the GST came in. Within a few years, probably even before the current government faces its third election, a workable international treaty may be in place; at the same time the public will see clean-energy, and energy-saving technologies really starting to take hold.

Finally, Rudd and his ministers have nothing to lose by taking up the fight on the ETS. Since they made no attempt to educate the public — on how the scheme works, what it achieves, and how it affects consumers — up to the time of the LIberal mutiny, there remains considerable untested scope for persuasion and leadership in this area. And, at a time when Abbott’s line about Rudd being ‘all announcement, no follow through’ is starting to resonate even with Labor supporters, a bit of gumption on climate change might be just what he needs to get supporters into Kevin-10 T-shirts in November.

Unlike Obama, Rudd controls the votes of his own party members, and doesn’t face obstruction in the lower house. So all he needs to do is (1) overcome his dread of dealing openly with Greens, (2) figure out a compromise palatable to the Greens, Xenaphon and one of the two floor-crossing Liberals, and (3) channel some of Obama’s persuasive power and  talk these Senators around, as Obama did with his dissenting House Democrats. Not easy, but worth a shot.

This entry was posted in Climate Change, Economics and public policy, Health, Politics - international, Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick
Patrick
11 years ago

I think you are confusing Obama, Barack, with Pelosi, Nancy. Maybe that can be translated to the local scene…

Guy
Guy
11 years ago

I think you make a persuasive argument James – though on the ETS, I think that if the government was serious about dealing with the Greens, it would have already pursued a compromise solution.

Perhaps the double dissolution option is going to be the way matters are taken forward; particularly if the Senate continues to prove unamenable to passing the government’s more contentious bills.

Nicholas Gruen
Admin
Nicholas Gruen(@nicholas-gruen)
11 years ago

John Quiggin has been pointing to the gift horse of around 60% of the vote if the ALP could lurch leftward. It’s pretty surprising they don’t in those circumstances – although the Greens are pretty uncompromising and impossible to deal with.

However I don’t really think getting a much tougher ETS would be much of a tonic for the ALP politically. Then it would be easier to mount a scare campaign against it. Still (he admitted talking himself round to James’ original point!) if an ETS raised prices a lot, there’d be a lot of compensation to hand out – though you’d have some pretty angry and desperate firms and shareholders around.

Gummo Trotsky
11 years ago

Right now, I don’t regard the ETS as the most pressing policy issue on which Rudd needs to take up the cudgels – my personal focus is on education policy. Nonetheless, I agree with James, because Labor really needs to start taking it up to the Opposition somewhere, and an ETS is as good a place to start as any.

Gummo Trotsky
11 years ago

Adds – the stumbling block is going to be the resentment of the Greens felt by many members of the Labor left, where the standard line is that Greens supporters belong in the ALP, to maintain the centre left character of the party.

Sad really.

Edward Mariyani-Squire
Edward Mariyani-Squire
11 years ago

The heath-to-ETS analogy is certainly superior to the health-to-health. Another feature of the former analogy – really a combo of some points James makes, but to make a different point about ‘lesson-learning’ – is that:

since in both the US and Oz cases, those opposed are basically fruitcakes who will never change their minds and since the majority are basically supporters, the imperative to ‘make the case for change’ is blunted.

‘Case-making’ will merely serve as confirmation of what supporters already think – i.e. it’s necessary, even if the details are hazy – and serve as yet more evidence that the govt is a pack of lying liars.

As with, well, everything in the US, the ALP will probably go down the well-trodden path of (a) providing a bit of colour-and-movement for the public if there is political mileage to be had in painting the Coalition as delusionally incompetent (in lieu of meaningful education/explanation) and then (b) ram the ETS through the Senate by ‘ultimatum-ing’ the Greens. Doing anything more ‘democratic’ than this is (i) more risky, (ii) requires more work, and (iii) entails giving more legitimacy to the Greens.

…or maybe I’m just in a cynical mood.

Edward Mariyani-Squire
Edward Mariyani-Squire
11 years ago

whoops…

‘Case-making’ will merely serve as confirmation of what supporters already think – i.e. it’s necessary, even if the details are hazy – and for the fruitcakes serve as yet more evidence that the govt is a pack of lying liars.