You probably missed it in the frenzy and speculation that was the run-up to the recent special election in Massachusetts, but a story caught my eye in which house majority leader Steny Hoyer was quoted as saying that passing the Senate’s health care bill would be “clearly better than nothing”. Perhaps it was just an odd turn of phrase or an expression of frustration, but the idea that passing nothing can be considered as a possibility, particularly in public, is revolutionary in Washington. Of course Hoyer was really addressing the difference in preference between the House and Senate versions, but the specter of not passing a bill at all had to be raised.
What this highlights is the notion prevalent among politicians that the worst thing they can do is nothing. It’s an article of faith and a point of conventional wisdom that passing a bill that deals with an issue is an inherently good act, and politicians find it very difficult to make the case for inaction. It’s nice to think that this might be borne of a tendency to want to help or to be responsive to constituents, but it would be even nicer to be able to believe they were judging on policy outcomes.
Proposing alternatives provides them with a way out, but few will advocate anything close to leaving well enough alone. This can be a nice public benefit inasmuch as the alternatives proposed to bad ideas are frequently helpful, but if they’re minor tweaks in response to a call for a massive overhaul, you can end up with a weak argument for something you have to defend instead of a strong argument against something you need only discredit. This is not to say that you have to make the argument for the status quo as the ideal, but we need to consider whether it’s superior to the specific proposed alternative.
This trap often ensnares even conservative lawmakers who see a smaller role for government–if not for themselves. Inside the beltway, ‘party of no’ is wielded as the ultimate mark of shame–the brand of politicians not doing their job. But we shouldn’t think that Congress’ job is to pass legislation so much as their job is to consider it. If the majority of bills proposed embody bad ideas, we shouldn’t complain if they fail to pass very much.
But many of us don’t think that the Senate bill (or the House bill for that matter) is in fact better than nothing. At Tea Parties, “party of hell no” is a popular sign and initiatives are springing up with goals from making state legislatures part-time to mandating that Congressmen spend time in their districts. The public is unhappy with the politicians, but it’s not because they’re not doing enough for us; it’s because they’re doing too much to us.
Of course, explaining this to a liberal amounts to explaining that Americans want smaller government and, well, we’ve been working on that for years. But conservative politicians with some understanding that government has a tendency to be more the problem than the solution need to remember that this can even apply to them so long as they are part of government. And awkward as it is to argue against your own power, it might be refreshing to hear some of them articulate it clearly too.
