On Political Moderation

I know very little about the intricacies of the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.  I do know one thing:  Obamacare was approved in the US Senate by a vote of 60-39.  Every single Democratic senator voted for the bill.  Every single vote against the bill was cast by a Republican.  https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396  (Republican senator Jim Bunning did not vote.)

I also know very little about the intricacies of the American Health Care Act, colloquially known as Trumpcare.  As things currently stand, the bill will receive zero votes from Democratic senators.  If the bill is to become law, it will happen based solely (in the Senate) on votes by Republican senators.

Without commenting on the merits and demerits of Obamacare, Trumpcare, or any other potential national health care system, I am confident in exclaiming that enacting significant legislation related to health care along strict party lines is stupid.  STUPID!

The country is not split on strict party lines.  The country is moderate.  Current polling from Gallup indicates that 30% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, that 26% consider themselves Republicans, and that 42% consider themselves independent.[1]   http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx  Gallup polling from a year ago was essentially the same:  28% Democratic, 28% Republican, 42% Independent.

Unfortunately, voting does not reflect this independence.  Below are the votes cast in congressional races since 2000.

Even though 42% of Americans consider themselves independent, fewer than 4% of the votes in congressional races are cast for candidates who aren’t either Republican or Democratic.  And the situation is even worse if you consider the winners.

Thus, 42% of Americans are independent, but only 4% of votes are cast for independent candidates.  And those votes managed to elect only four Independents to the House of Representatives, barely one tenth of one percent of the members elected in the last nine elections.

The picture is slightly better in the Senate, where 4.5% of votes have been cast for independents.

Alas, only 2% of Senators are putative independents.  I say “putative” because Senators Lieberman, Sanders, and King associate with the Democratic Party rather than with the Republican Party or a third party.

The total votes and the total seats are roughly equivalent for the two parties that duopolize the political process in this country.  The political leadership in the country is essentially split between Republicans and Democrats.  Accordingly, there is no reason for either party to think that any short-term virtual monopoly on the legislative process – based on control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency – will be long-lived.  History suggests that it won’t.

History also suggests that if, say, the Democrats have the short-term ability to impose a health care system along strict party lines, Republicans will devote considerable effort to impair that system and will, as soon as they are able, repeal that system.  Similarly, if the Republicans impose their will and repeal and replace Obamacare, the Democrats will devote considerable effort to impair the new system and will, as soon as they are able, repeal that system.

None of this is good for the country.  I would suggest that the parties don’t care.  They care more about their party than about finding long-term solutions that are supported by a broad swathe of the republic.  They would rather force-feed a political solution that is compatible with their ideology.

A better path would be to craft solidly bipartisan legislation that would be more likely to provide a long-term solution and less likely to inspire the ire of the other party.  Below is a proposal that might help ensure that legislation is bipartisan.  It could be used whenever our national legislature is crafting broad policy implicating a long-term national issue, like health care, tax reform, or massive infrastructure funding.

1. The Senate Majority Leader selects 25 senators that do not belong to his or her party.
2. The Senate Minority Leader selects 35 senators that do not belong to his or her party.
3. That group of 60 senators crafts legislation that at least 51 of them support.

Quixotic?  No doubt.  But such a process would ensure that the influence of Senators inhabiting the far left and the far right would be minimized.  It would result in legislation that would necessarily be more moderate than either party would propose and enact on its own.  It would lead to more legislation that reflects the predominant moderateness of the country, instead of rewarding hard-core partisans.  It would result in long-term solutions that are less likely to turn into political footballs at subsequent elections, allowing us to focus on real issues, not politics.

I harbor no illusions that any such process will be adopted.  It would diminish the power of people who currently possess much power.  They would never allow that because they care more about themselves and their party than they care about their country.  But I continue to hope that our leaders will adopt the principles of moderation that a plurality of the country embraces instead of continuing to engage in the rancorous partisanship that is currently crippling Washington.  I remain a moderate idealist.

[1] I consider myself independent, though I am a registered Republican because the last primary in which I voted was a Republican primary.