Status Quo Bias and Extremism
On the top secret “Journolist” yesterday we were plotting world domination debating the fine points of political procedure, and some folks were making the case that progressive filibuster critics like me were being shortsighted. After all, the very same factors that make it hard to create a universal health care system would also make it difficult to disband one once it’s created. Maybe without the filibuster George W. Bush would have privatized Social Security? On the Social Security point, I think the claim is just empirically wrong. I saw no evidence that there were 50 Senate votes for Bush’s plan. It’s worth remembering that the GOP didn’t so much as get a privatization bill to clear a single committee in either chamber. The whole thing was a congressional non-starter.
And in general, I think the politics of the welfare state are asymmetrical. There are a lot of different sets of political institutions out there, some with more veto points and some with fewer. But you don’t see any instances, not even in the UK where there are very few checks on government authority, of a country dismantling a national health care scheme and deciding that sick people should be left to the tender mercies of the free market. What you do see is a ton of diversity in terms of when national health care is adopted and what it looks like, with both of those factors plausibly being shaped by political institutions.*
But the other thing is that my belief is that if the United States were the kind of country in which presidents who win elections are generally able to implement their campaign promises that Bush simply never would have promised Social Security privatization in the first place. Margaret Thatcher, after all, didn’t try and fail to dismantle the National Health Service; she simply never espoused it as a goal. Presumably not because she was unfamiliar with free market critiques of the NHS, but out of political caution.
One thing to ask about American politics is why it is that, say, Barack Obama and John McCain offered such dramatically different health care proposals during the campaign? Totally contrary to predictions based in things like the median voter theorem, both candidates proposed radical changes in the American health care system and both were proposing quite different radical changes. Even stranger, they both did that even though the overwhelming majority of voters tell pollsters that they’re perfectly happy with the health care they already have. I think that at least part of the answer is that the American political system is habituated to the idea that policy proposals aren’t actually going to be implemented. In a world of fewer veto points and stronger party discipline, you’d have to take campaign promises more seriously, and thus candidates would need to promise proposals more in line with public sentiment. Something like Social Security privatization was never a popular idea, and you just wouldn’t campaign on it.
Factors besides veto points play a role here. The nature of Canadian federalism is an important force in determining the structure of Canada’s Medicare system.
35 Responses to “Status Quo Bias and Extremism”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Bush did NOT campaign on Social Security privatization in 2004. Rather, right after he was elected, he claimed that he campaigned on it and tried to get it through Congress. Does anyone disagree with this?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
The major bias here is on the part of the media.
If Americans had truthful information, our politics would be much more progressive.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“In a world of fewer veto points and stronger party discipline, you’d have to take campaign promises more seriously, and thus candidates would need to promise proposals more in line with public sentiment.”
And how, exactly, would such a world have handled the Civil Rights movement when public sentiment was against equal rights for minorities throughout the 60s and 70s?
Mike
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
But it’s not like Republicans are even offering an alternative for health care. Where’s their plan? Their opposition has merely become a mad cult where they get to claim calling someone a name is a plan. There is really something scary going on here.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
And in general, I think the politics of the welfare state are asymmetrical.
Matt can offer this theory as a comfort to those suffering in California.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
The stickiness of popular social insurance programs is Matt’s much better point. Eliminating the filibuster wouldn’t change the fact that Presidents can’t really do much in terms of domestic policy without Congress.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I always thought your frustration with our Constitutional system is that it does not allow Presidents with a mandate to get their policy passed. Yet here you say that people are more or less satisfied with the health care status quo, and suggest that the popular vote for Obama and a Dem Congress does not in fact represent a mandate for health care reform, even health care reform of the sort he ran on as opposed to what Congress is considering.
Thus by your model a large number of veto points simply allow citizens to feel comfortable voting for a candidate even if they strongly disagree with him on a couple of issues, knowing that they can always force Congress to stop him if it turns out that those issues are real priorities for him. Since voting for a President on the basis of issues is an inefficient way of expressing our issue preferences (we have two choices and the President represents a bundle of positions) I don’t think this is a bad thing.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
You know, this is why Dick Cheney didn’t want the CIA to brief those liberals in Congress about classified progrgams.
Just sayin’.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
@bob mcmanus
Speaking about CA, David Dayen’s piece here is really informative:
http://www.calitics.com/diary/9454/25-things-about-the-new-california-budget
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I’m sorry, why is there a “more/less” tab to hide two sentences?
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I think there’s a valid argument in there somewhere about candidates for President feeling free to propose policies that they know either won’t pass at all or will be strongly modified by Congress, but the argument is undermined by the fact that Bush didn’t actually campaign on privatizing Social Security in 2004 but rather on emotional appeals that he would do a better job than that Frenchie Kerry at protecting your children from dying to nuclear missiles launched by Osama Bin Laden from Baghdad.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
To Bob Mcmanus –
The CA budget wouldn’t be the atrocity it is if it weren’t for the same sorts of anti-majoritarian issues Matt is complaining about.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
MBunge:
We know how this one plays out – in 1964, you have a presidential race between a pro-civil rights candidate and an anti-civil rights candidate. The pro-civil rights one wins by a landslide, and brings with him one the largest and most liberal Congresses in history.
That majority is then crippled in 1966. In 1968, the winning presidential candidate relies on exploiting white resentment of civil rights advances.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Even stranger, they both did that even though the overwhelming majority of voters tell pollsters that they’re perfectly happy with the health care they already have.
A majority were also happy with the financial system. However, there is nothing strange in the US government’s sudden interest in changing systems the vast majority of Americans benefited from and supported so recently. That reason is foreign creditors who do not foresee the US being able to pay its debt while sustaining corrupt, wasteful, inefficient, and speculative systems.
I understand that the obese empire explanation is not attractive to those raised to believe that their nation had the leanest, freest, most representative, most efficient system the world has ever seen, bar none, ever. But it does explain why your government is suddenly scrabbling to cut expenses just like any 3rd world government under the yoke of the IMF.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I am “happy” with the health care I have. But I am not happy with the health insurance choices I have. Or here’s an analogy: I am happy with my car, but if you offered me a better car in exchange I would consider it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“We know how this one plays out – in 1964, you have a presidential race between a pro-civil rights candidate and an anti-civil rights candidate. The pro-civil rights one wins by a landslide, and brings with him one the largest and most liberal Congresses in history.”
No, we don’t. That election took place in this world, not the parliamentary utopia that Matt likes to wank about. There were also a few other factors at play in that election, like the whole emotional aftermath of the Kennedy assassination.
Consider that in Matt’s perfect government, there probably wouldn’t be a Vice-President like Johnson to take over and that Southern Dem opposition to civil rights would have likely caused a parliamentary government to fall in the 60s.
Mike
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
DTM, eliminating the filibuster would stop the Democratic kabuki of lying their assess of to get elected, and then turning around and saying ‘oh, sorry. We just don’t have the votes. Try getting us 60 seats next time! err, we meant 80!’.
Thats the real problem here. It’s not that Democrats aren’t getting things done. It’s that they aren’t trying, and don’t even really want to. They just want our votes and our money and then they want to turn around and give goldman Sachs whatever it wants while they fuck working people in the ass.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
People are not happy with the healthcare they have if they get it through a job — period. How can you be happy with something you could lose tomorrow?
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The argument Matt is making, for what is worth, is the same argument that is very controversial in pro-choice circles, i.e., that if abortion were actually decided in the legislature, pro-lifers would get badly beaten in elections; pro-lifers are able to take extreme positions on this issue precisely because the American public assumes they will never become law.
It’s an interesting theory; on the other hand, its the sort of thing you had better be right, because if you are wrong, you can end up with disastrous legislative results.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Of course, Dilan, many would say that it’s only because of Roe v. Wade that the legal right to abortion became so uncontroversial* in the first place.
*Obviously it’s extremely controversial in terms of how strongly people feel about it, but the margins by which people prefer that abortion remain legal are pretty overwhelming.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
MBunge:
I disagree. In Yglesias’ fantasy world, I could see Johnson as the Deputy Leader under Prime Minister Kennedy, as both a nod to his legislative abilities; disparate coalitions within a parliamentary party have and do exist (just using the British case, think about the Liberals and the Home Rule Party). And LBJ on civil rights bills did what Prime Ministers often do when a flank of their party rebels – he got the votes to pass legislation (and maintain his majority) from the opposition.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
soullite,
Eliminating the filibuster might change some outcomes in Congress, although by your own logic it wouldn’t seem to make much difference. But my point was that this would have little to do with presidential campaign politics in particular, because it would remain the case that Presidents couldn’t do much domestically without Congress.
In other words, the filibuster isn’t really what stands in the way of Congress simply doing whatever the President wants. What prevents that from happening is the fact that Congress is an independent branch of government.
July 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Your point on the filibuster neglects the fact that the very threat of a filibuster may have been enough to keep some republicans from supporting altering the “third rail”.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
A few weeks before Election Day 2004, Bush told a closed-door meeting of donors/supporters that Social Security privatization would be his top domestic issue if he got in for another term. Of course, the speech leaked. Up until then, I had not realized that Social Security privatization was a Bush administration priority.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“But the other thing is that my belief is that if the United States were the kind of country in which presidents who win elections are generally able to implement their campaign promises that Bush simply never would have promised Social Security privatization in the first place”
Is Matt suggesting that Bush didn’t really want to privatize social security because of the political risks? If so, he’s already forgotten George W. Bush.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“Margaret Thatcher, after all, didn’t try and fail to dismantle the National Health Service; she simply never espoused it as a goal. Presumably not because she was unfamiliar with free market critiques of the NHS, but out of political caution.”
Quite.
In what I consider to be the high point of Baroness Thatcher’s contributions to political discourse she said, and I quote IIRC
“The NHS is a political Hephalump trap.”
Just imagine that sentence in her charming accent and then try to sleep without nightmares.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“And in general, I think the politics of the welfare state are asymmetrical. ”
I think California provides a pretty obvious counterexample of this, where despite the fact that social programs are favored by an overwhelming majority of the electorate, anti-tax fervor and abuse of procedural tactics has nonetheless conspired toward a de facto dismantling of the programs…
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 am
Margaret Thatcher. Iron Lady my ass. Afraid of the NHS. She was a cowardly, closet Socialist, for fuck’s sake.
George Bush Jr., now there was an Iron Lady. His very name was audacity. He went after Social Security with both pistols almost completely drawn from their holsters. There was no scare in Georgy. No sir.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 am
“And how, exactly, would such a world have handled the Civil Rights movement when public sentiment was against equal rights for minorities throughout the 60s and 70s?”
That’s just wrong, as Nathan Newman has pointed out, the public support was there for Civil Rights laws since the 1950’s (and for the federal antilynching laws since the 1920’s) but it was Southern senators use of the filibuster that blocked them.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
To Chris O:
Bush absolutely campaigned on Social Security Reform, it was part of the Ownership Society:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898001_mz001.htm
He certainly campaigned on it more than Obama did the Spendulus.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
P.J. O’Rourke says that government has the engine of a lawnmower and the brakes of a Kenilworth. I’ve always thought this is a good thing. Heaven protect us from the good ideas of Congress.
Because of this reality, an idea needs to be pretty popular before it gets through this filter. And even then the stars must also be aligned.
Earmarks and other parliamentary tricks were engineered to get around this feature.
But, the really scary thing is that our society is so non-linear that even small distortions from Washington can really trash the country.
I have no faith that this Congress is smart enough to do anything useful around health care or pretty much anything else for that matter.
It’s also clear that Obama made a huge tactical error by using his one free kick to push Pelosi’s Porkulus bill. If you’re in favor of big government, health care is the gift that keeps on giving, the Porkulus is a one-time thing.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
I’m not sure Republicans have articulated their ideas very well; it could be that “socialized healthcare” is a big enough-bad enough idea that the only idea is to say no to it. That would suit me fine for the moment, while true cost-saving ideas could be brought forth.
Like TORT REFORM.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:20 am
@ Chris O.: Yes, someone disagrees with this (i.e. your point that Bush did not run on Social Security privatization but claimed to after being re-elected). He mentioned it in no uncertain terms in his convention speech. He was pilloried by Kerry for it. He certainly made more of it in January, 2005, than he did leading up to the election (which may have been the point you were trying to make), but this NYT editorial does not describe a man planning to spring privatization on an unsuspecting nation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/opinion/23thu1.html
July 26th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I didn’t vote for Obama or McCain. But I thought Obama had real potential to be a refreshing break from Washington’s usual crappy political games.
So how come so few of you are troubled that his push for health care changes is built on a lie — it will save lots of money — and that his push for cap and trade is being sold by Pelosi with the lie that it will be an economic bonanza? Not when India and China say no way.
Why can’t Obama be honest and say, “These are going to be downsides, but these are things we simply must do”? Why lie? He wasn’t supposed to be this way.
July 27th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Just out of a morbid sense of curiosity, what was your opinion of the Filibuster from 2003 – 2007?
Do you really think that people wont notice that you lefties are entirely lacking in principles, and poses nothing but political tactics?
What’s it like thinking that you can blithely get away with being dishonest, because you think no one will call you on it?