The Telling Anecdote

A big thing in political reporting is what's known as the "telling anecdote." This is basically a form of politics-as-fractals, the idea of a single moment or story that perfectly encapsulates a given candidate or issue. Mike Dukakis in the tank, George Allen's "macaca" slip, these are both decent examples. John Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" is even a better one. The best one I can think of is the Bush Administration's (man, I'm glad they're gone...) response to Katrina. Incompetence, arrogance, willful unpreparedness, and callous disregard for the damage caused to real people by bad policy, all wrapped up in a flooded American city? The perfect shorthand for 8 years of Dubya. (I'll cover McCain's in tomorrow's election remembrance.)

Anyway, there was a lovely one today from Orrin Hatch, longtime holder of the coveted "Most Hypocritical Member of the Senate" crown. He was giving an interview to a conservative news service, and in talking about healthcare, he voiced his fears that the passage of a reform bill could destroy the two-party system. Since the Dems are pushing for socialized medicine (I pause here for a wistful "oh, if only..."), then once we've got it, "...almost everybody's going to say all we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party." This, he implied, was the major rationale behind healthcare reform.
Now, a couple things. Firstly, even if the Dems were inclined to go for the "if you don't vote for us, your children will die of easily curable diseases" route, the moment they got healthcare reform passed, they'd promptly start tripping over their own feet, because such are the Democrats. Secondly (this deserves a line break)...

...I'm not sure it's ever occurred to Orrin Hatch that there might be non-electoral reasons to support healthcare reform. Are there political points to be scored by giving people cheap healthcare? Sure, of course. I'm not sure the Democratic Party is smart enough to capitalize upon such a thing, but it's foolish to suggest that there's no possible political motive involved. However, the US spends a sixth(!) of its GDP on healthcare, and we have 50 million people uninsured or underinsured. Americans who do have insurance regularly lose it for such horrifying offenses as changing jobs or going to a dermatologist five years prior to developing cancer. The status quo is horrifying, and one of the basic tasks of government is to solve problems such as this.
But I don't think Orrin knows that. I'm not sure he can wrap his head around the idea of doing something because it's a necessary and worthwhile policy decision, rather than an electoral winner. The only reason that Democrats and progressives could possibly want to provide cheaper health insurance is to bribe low-income voters, thus gaining their votes in a sinister plot to win legislative majorities that will pass mandatory gay-marriage laws.

So why is this a telling anecdote? Because it reveals a party in its basic philosophy. The Republican Party, when it looks at legislation or policymaking, doesn't see the forging of a social contract and the building of a commonwealth. It sees patronage and electioneering.