The most convince-able President in recent memory

Earlier this week, I posted a piece on LinkedIn discussing how the failed Republican health care push showed how much President Donald Trump is willing to let others handle the details for even his biggest policy goals.

This business in Syria makes that even more obvious.

President Trump’s shift on Syria – from isolationist to hawk – isn’t something typically seen of politicians. But it tracks pretty closely with the way plenty of Americans view the situation. It also fits with his over-arching message of renewing the perception of America’s strength on the international stage, even if the specific policy (military involvement in Syria) runs against what he has previously advocated.

None of this is necessarily a bad thing. Cynics will note – correctly – that such willingness to change course suggests a President who lacks grounding in a set of deeply held core beliefs. We typically long for elected leaders who take bold stands and stick to their guns.

Look at the Senate this past week to see how those qualities don’t always work out as planned.

But there is a positive side to having an opportunistic deal maker in the big chair. It means that if you can make your case for your cause – regardless of party or philosophical lines – you might just win an ally.

First with healthcare, and now with Syria, President Trump is showing he’s more pragmatist than ideologue. Will anyone take advantage?

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Dumb politics

Last week the Boston Globe quoted me in their story about young conservative activists (despite the fact that it has been more than a decade since I organized campuses for the Leadership Institute). Reporter Dugan Arnett picked just about the perfect quote to sum up our discussion:

“There are always people who are going to say, ‘This is my ticket; I’m going to make sure my campus burns down, I’m going to be on Fox News a bunch, and that’s going to be my path to the spotlight,’ ” says Jim Eltringham, formerly of the Leadership Institute and currently a Republican campaign consultant. “The problem is: That’s a spotlight that burns out quick.”

Our discussion centered on how some campus activists welcomed controversy for controversy’s sake, provoking outrage on purpose to gain attention with little substance behind the actions. It seems like a lesson some in Washington need to learn, too: In a piece on Medium, I argue that there’s a direct link between this type of superficiality and last week’s Republican failure on health care .

Great meal. Let’s talk about Obamacare.

The Organizing for America/Obama Campaign folks took some ribbing in the past week for their campaign to get people talking about Obamacare around the Thanksgiving table.  OFA provides you talking points on your way home, and you are supposed to convince your Drunk Uncle that Health Insurance is a good thing.

As silly as the campaign is, here’s the really ridiculous part: There’s no engagement of the actual issues people are talking about.  People are seeing their premiums go up, or losing their plans.  The website is broken, and the government knew it was broken.  There is precious little credibility in even the rosiest talking points OFA offers, and there’s no real guide to handling pushback.

OFA’s effort – in as much as it really is an effort and not just an excuse for periodic communication to keep the email list fresh – will fail because they have no idea how to talk to people who disagree with the concept of Obamacare.  And that population seems to get bigger everyday – without a website full of discussion guides.

More Messaging on Health Care

Following up on a previous post on the semantics of the upcoming health care debate, the good folks at Pocket Full of Liberty make a strong point about the best levers to move the issue:

This law is a disaster. And we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. There is this huge opportunity out there for Republicans to once again, show the public how the government tried to do something and failed at it. They can do that a lot better by telling the stories about people who have had to search for new doctors and different healthcare plan…

The case for Obamacare (just like the case for previous attempts to socialize the health care system) was made with highly individual personal stories.  Despite people being satisfied with their own insurance, the weepy tales of a working Mom who couldn’t get insurance for her kids because of a pre-existing condition were fairly convincing.  Hey, if it doesn’t affect my insurance and I can help someone else, why wouldn’t I, right?

Now, the American people are getting less insurance, not more.  They are paying more, not less.  Getting insurance is harder, not easier.  And the supporting facts for these statements are out there – in the form of the people who are getting letters that their insurance policies are being cancelled, or who are waiting in long virtual lines to access a website to buy insurance.

The path to health care reform starts with those stories.

Add this phrase to your arsenal: “Health Care Reform”

…or “Healthcare reform.” Either way, it’s time for center-right voices to stop talking about “Obamacare Repeal” and start talking about “Healthcare Reform.”

The website might as well have been cobbled together on Geocities.  Premiums are going up, and current plans are being cancelled.  Jobs are being downgraded and lost.  The flashpoint of the recent government shutdown was Obamacare, which has many on the conservative side locking and loading for 2014 and 2016 with the hope of repealing the law with a more favorable Senate and White House.

There’s a reason a President was able to get elected and re-elected based on the idea of improving the country’s health care system (even if the actual policy won’t do that): people were generally dissatisfied with the health care system.   They were  very satisfied with their own coverage, but unsatisfied with the system overall (kind of like the old “I hate Congress but love my Congressman” mentality).

So talking about going back to 2008 isn’t going to move voters, no matter how horrible the law is.  It also doesn’t help the GOP emerge from the “Party of No” boulder they keeping getting stuck  behind.

Republicans can win on health care by ditching the talk about “repeal” and carrying the mantle of “reform.”  Costs are high, the program is mismanaged, and people are being forced into inefficient, one-size-fits-all coverage plans.  In other words, health care now is just as ripe for reform as it was in 2008, but the Democrats have had their shot – and it failed.  The Republicans have the opportunity to fix it.

The vision of a better tomorrow resonates a lot better than the image of a slightly better yesterday.

Obamacare and the NFL

News broke yesterday that the Department of Health and Human Services hopes to enlist the NFL as a partner in expanding enrollment in health insurance plans through state exchanges.

There’s probably no better, more apt partner for Obamacare than the NFL, a league which is certainly familiar with health care:

Will Obamacare offer a system that will take care of you the way the NFL takes care of its players?  Kathleen Sebelius might want to re-think the optics of that partnership.

The Googlization of Government

Rep. Tim Huelskamp has been banging the drum on a proposed Health and Human Services rule that would mandate insurance companies share patient data with the federal government.  The purpose of the program ostensibly noble – the administration wants to collect as much data on health care as possible to determine.  But Huelkamp correctly notes that data is not always secure.  Companies and governments lose personal data on customers and citizens periodically.

In a related story, Google revealed that the US government asks the search company for more user data than any other government on the planet.  In fact, there were more requests for Google data than there were wiretaps on phones last year.

While Google may look skeptically on the government requests for information, the HHS program sounds like something out of Google labs – aggregating data about users of the health care system to ensure better future outcomes.  Just as Google has multiple touch points where it meets its users (search, YouTube, Android, Gmail, etc.), so does the government.  What if they started connecting the dots?  We send tax returns in each year, so the IRS knows how much we make, where we live, whether we own or rent, what we do for a living.  On a state level, readily available voter registration data tells them how often we vote and may even give them a good idea how we would vote, based on primary voting history.  That doesn’t even get into people who participate in federal programs for medical help, student loans, social security, or public assistance.  And it doesn’t take into account the possibility of government looking elsewhere for data.  Today it’s Google, but a host of other companies are out there looking at what you but, what magazines you subscribe to, how often you gas up your car, and what TV shows you watch.

Eventually, other government agencies could follow the same model as HHS, expanding their data points on each citizen.  That’s when it could get really interesting, especially if some enterprising staffer in some agency realizes all the information that’s pouring in.  Imagine if the roadblocks between executive agencies came down, all the data was in one big pile?  The administration could be an even more voracious consumer of data, and use if to create detailed analyses of national trends, attitudes, and issues.  Here’s a video representation of how this might look:

A campaign or company wouldn’t use available data to recruit new customers or make life better for existing ones.  When I go to Amazon or Best Buy’s website, they look at what I’ve bought in the past and make recommendations; it’s simply good business.  An executive agency, which is supposed to strive for efficiency, would pick up on this trend as a way to streamline government services.  The difference, though, is that if you’re creeped out, you can always shop somewhere else.