By Charles C. W.
Cooke
Tuesday, December 03, 2013
The American writer Bill Bryson once wrote that it was a
shame that the “important experiment” of Communism had been left to the
Russians when the British would have “managed it so much better.” Prepared by
their reserved and ordered culture for the deprivations that come inevitably with
government control, he proposed, the Brits would have accepted their fate with
alacrity. Keep Calm and Carry On, and all that.
In some sense, they already had. During the stagnation
and decline of the 1970s, the people of Bryson’s adopted home demonstrated an
uncommon readiness to “queue patiently for indefinite periods” and to “wait
uncomplainingly for years for an operation or the delivery of a household
appliance.” Surely, the reasoning went, this could be pushed ad infinitum?
Surely, there was no line so long that an Englishman wouldn’t join it?
As a piece of social commentary, the basic thrust of
Bryson’s claim is correct: Traditionally, the British are rather patient.
Nevertheless, the notion that even a patient people will queue indefinitely is
so much romantic fluff. They won’t. And for a government to ask them to do so
is for that government to open itself up to defeat.
This, the polls suggest, is precisely what the Obama
administration has been busy doing over the past few months. Before October of
this year, conservatives trying to make the case that state intrusion led
inexorably to queuing and to inefficiency were forced to rely on local failures
to illustrate their point. “Do you really want your healthcare run by the DMV?”
was a common refrain. “How about the Post Office?” Nowadays, there is no need
for hypotheticals. Critics can just say “Obamacare.” In December of 2013,
dissenters can point to the long lines, to the shoddy service, and to the
reports of frustrated users waiting for hours to get onto the site — and they
can say, “I told you so!” It’s been two months since the website was launched,
and swathes of people remain unable even to browse plans. Isn’t this exactly
what we were warned about?
If he has the time and the stomach, the president could
do worse than to read the story of the 1979 British general election. The
Right’s post-rationalizations notwithstanding, Mrs. Thatcher’s ascent was not
primarily a sign that the British had been magically converted to the charms of
privatization, free markets, tax cuts, and a strong defense, but that they were
sick and tired of what socialism had done to their country and that they were
reluctantly prepared to give the other side a shot. To her immense credit,
Thatcher recognized this, and she made sure that her branding focused more on
dissatisfaction with the status quo than on her own ideology. The Conservative
party’s election-season message was pitch-perfect for the moment: Showing a
snaking line of people outside an unemployment office, giant posters across the
country featured three simple words: “Labour Isn’t Working.”
The great genius of the ’79 campaign was that it served
as a veritable Rorschach test onto which voters could project their many
grievances. The high unemployment rate was certainly a critical problem for the
incumbent government, yes. But arguably more so was that years of ludicrous
statism had led to trash piling up in the streets, to the dead going unburied,
and to the electricity supply’s being so capriciously limited that many
households enjoyed just three days of power a week. By the late 1970s, nearly
every government service in Britain was wholly dysfunctional — which was a
problem given that almost everything had been nationalized. When my parents
were in their mid-twenties, it was not uncommon for customers to wait six
months just to receive a telephone from British Telecom. Interminable queues
were a way of life, even for the lucky employed. Eventually, the public
revolted.
That the public will eventually rebel against
government-imposed misery has long been the savior of reformers on both sides of
the Atlantic. In the 1980s, America’s radicals knew deep down that they had not
yet won the libertarian argument with the public. Instead, they had the long
lines, inefficiency, and public-sector dysfunction as shorthand for their
opponents’ political shortcomings. During the 1979 energy crisis, as cars piled
up outside gas stations and panic buying set in, a stunned Republican party
recognized that it could just sit back and wait. Democrats, stung for a
generation by a reputation for incompetence and overreach, won office again
only after they had near explicitly disavowed “big government.”
It is difficult to overstate just how dangerous to the
progressive agenda the rollout of Obamacare has been. “HealthCare.gov has a lot
of visitors right now!” the site’s failure screen announces bluntly when the
system is overloaded (which is always). “We need you to wait here so we can
make sure there’s room for you.”
As of yesterday, the site quite literally asks visitors
to enter a “queue.” This is the ugly language of the unemployment office or the
understaffed hospital — not, suffice it to say, what advocates had hoped
consumers would see.
Most disquietingly for the Left, the failure has
transcended the political arena. So widely known are the site’s woes that “Obamacare”
has become a lazy joke — a byword for catastrophe than merely needs to be
repeated to elicit laughter. In recent weeks, it has appeared in various forms
on homemade signs at football games, in late-night monologues, and in a
thousand memes across the apolitical Internet. Mockery being perhaps the most
difficult attack to counter, this will be a difficult blow from which to
recover.
Which makes it all the more peculiar that advocates have
taken to selling the long lines as a virtue — a feature, not a bug. “By GOP
logic,” MSNBC’s Alex Wagner inexplicably tweeted on Monday, “black friday was a
complete failure because of all those people lined up outside the stores.”
Leaving to one rather large side the fact that private stores judge their
successes not by the size of the queues but by the number of items that they
sell, this really isn’t the pitch I’d be making. Conservatives have been
warning from the outset that the federal government can’t run a system this
large, that forcing people to become reliant upon exchanges run by Washington,
D.C., was a mistake, and that rationing was unavoidable. They have been
painting pictures of shoddy treatment and long lines. These critiques have been
sharpened, not overwritten, by the rollout. What gives?
Nevertheless, pointing to the size of the backlog has
been a mainstay of the progressive defense. From the Washington Post’s
Wonkblog, through the Daily Kos, to the White House itself, “look at all the
people trying to get onto the site!” has been the tactic du choix through
launch, failure, and relaunch. If conservatives should worry that a working
website will remove one weapon from their arsenal, progressives should be
waking up at night quivering at the thought that their apologists are drawing
attention to their movement’s historical bête noire: the queue.
Thus far, Obamacare’s principal achievement has been to
kick millions of people off of plans with which they were happy while mandating
that they buy replacement insurance through a government-run choke point that’s
sometimes just closed entirely. I suspect that, if the website is ever truly
“fixed,” the law is going to become more, not less, of a liability for the
Left. Either way, it is almost certain that next time somebody suggests a vast
government program as the remedy to America’s ills, it will be more than just
conservative critics who say, as one, “your heart’s in the right place, but
remember how Obamacare went . . . ”
No comments:
Post a Comment