It’s High Noon in America

It’s been a long, hot summer. The country’s greatest period of change since the Reagan administration has begun with violent, agitated overtones.

But the violence doesn’t awe me. Politics has been violent—or at least violently crude and crass—for all of my generation’s time. Although there’s special irony about an AR-15 at a healthcare debate, it’s not altogether unexpected.

More startling is the misguided attempt to move past the violence and push for a bipartisan health-care bill: the misdeeds and misfires of the so-called “Gang of Six.” Although an effort at bipartisanship is both necessary and appropriate, the Gang of Six is less likely to craft consensus than hamstring effective reform.

Most of the struggle now revolves around a slim set of decisions and a slim set of senators. All eyes rest on three Republicans and three Democrats from the Senate Financial Committee.

But why is the gang the center of debate? Contrary to conventional wisdom, there’s more agreement about health-care reform in Washington than disagreement. Four congressional committees have already agreed on core tenets: community ratings, expansion of Medicaid coverage, a health-care exchange, subsidies for low-income citizens, incentive for employers, and an end to underwriting on pre-existing conditions. Generally, more divisions have been bridged than broadened.

The hope of some is that these disinterested senators (mostly from rural Western states) can craft a bill that is both effective and bipartisan. But it won’t happen. The Gang of Six is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. The members are financially compromised, too far to the right of public opinion, and uncommitted to civil debate.

The gang has received disproportionate funds from the health-insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Most significantly, Democratic Senator Max Baucus has received $25 million in contributions from health-industry PACs since 1989, more than any Democrat. Republican Senator Mike Enzi has received a greater share of his campaign contributions from health- industry PACs than any other senator.
Admittedly, insurance and pharmaceutical companies should have a place at the table. But they shouldn’t be sitting at the head. I doubt that six “co-opted” hired guns can follow the money trail to common ground for the common good.

Although the Gang of Six may be centrist in a relatively conservative Senate, the gang is right of public opinion. When the summer meetings began, Senator Baucus refused a seat to single-payer groups, although a sizeable part of his own party preferred the option. Senator Enzi has gunned down subsidies for the uninsured, cut required minimum benefits packages, and weakened regulations to prevent underwriting against the sick. Democratic Senator Kent Conrad won’t support a public option. Even if the gang does manage craft a bill, the chances of it being acceptable to the president’s base are low.

Even worse, some of the gang continues to fan the flames of anti-government protests between the coasts. In a Washington Post interview, Senator Grassley said he would govern “upon the views of whichever group among his constituents yells the loudest” and engenders fear that reform will “pull the plug on grandma.” Senator Enzi has told roaring Wyoming town halls he has no plans to compromise.

As a New Mexico native, I know most Western voters are not the types conjured up to stymie reform. Many cowboys have a libertarian streak, but above all they are pragmatic. They have no time for winded speeches and empty pandering, which is mostly what they’re getting. Grassley and Enzi do nothing to challenge the fake grassroots spectacle, and in doing so they push away consensus.

How can we move forward without the Gang of Six? From the onset, many Democrats imagined a certain Central Texas boy twisting arms for Medicare and Medicaid. For them this president is all hat and no cattle.

But President Obama can’t be LBJ. For one, the new sheriff in town does not benefit from the widespread commitment to New Deal philosophy and economic prosperity of the ’60s.

Like my senator, Jeff Bingaman, I think some effort at bipartisanship is necessary to make reform more appealing. But that happy trail appears to be ending.

Grassley and Enzi are merely committed to watering down reform. They won’t vote for the final bill. From here on out, all the Gang of Six has to offer is a few seeds of catastrophe planted from the inside.

If we jettison the gang talks, the Democratic Party can pull back together. Despite all the abuse of lawyers, guns, and money, the right wing of the Republican Party will have a rough time stopping universal healthcare legislation. Centrist Democrats will be more willing to follow the president’s lead if the gang fails than if it succeeds. They can tell their interests they tried their best. Furthermore, the price of friendly fire for centrist Democrats—being voted out of office a la 1994—is just too high.

If we push further away from the politics of distraction, a universal health-insurance bill is likely around the bend. It will no longer be as expansive or cheap as some wanted, but it will help millions of folks. Above all, we should not forget the historical moment. We’re at a turning point, and if we end the saloon-style sideshows we can make sure a new era for the American people—and a new era for trust in government as a force for good—arrives with a bang and not a whimper.


Raúl A. Carrillo ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House.