It must have been sometime during the health care debate when the polls on Obamacare started going significantly south that the president started complaining that if only it weren’t for FoxNews, he’d be able to get his message across and people would support his health care overhaul. It seems the comment lament on the left that when Democrats lose elections, it’s all because of messaging — and never the message. Heck, someone even wrote a book about it.
This, Timothy Dalrymple writes, provides “a convenient narrative for the midterm slaughter“:
In a 60 Minutes interview after the midterms, Obama was asked whether the problem was that his administration had failed to sell its successes. He was only too eager to agree. It is barely a criticism. Bravely taking responsibility for this failing, he said, “We were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation, that it’s a matter of persuading people.”
(Via Instapundit.) Yet, as David Harsanyi pointed out yesterday in his Denver Post column, there are a number of problems to that bunch of health-care stuff the president and his team got done. The Administration’s numbers don’t add up. And despite its “fuzzy math” (to borrow an expression), Harsayni finds the The White House repeating it’s mantra of having “a ‘messaging’ problem when it comes to health care reform. As in, a’ you’re-not-buying-our-message’ problem.”
Even when the evidence fails to match up with their expectations, all too many on the left refuse to believe that the problem may be one of their policies. Obamacare can’t lead to increase costs; the policy was designed to contain costs. Indeed, when some corporations announced that Obamacare would “will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses“, my Congressman who happens to chair the House Energy & Commerce Committee (but not for long) summoned their chief executives to his star chamber committee informing them that “The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern.”
How arrogant to think he knows more about running business than those who actually run businesses.
If those who craft a new law believe it will yield a certain benefit, then gosh darn it, it will whether the data back them up or not. The invitation was later rescinded when we learned that, because of a law ol’ Henry supported, companies had to release “information of adverse impact on earnings . . . at the earliest possible time“.
In short, the Democrats’ claim that their problem is “messaging” reeks of hubris, an arrogance that they are always right. Just as Waxman was incredulous when the world did not respond to legislation in the manner legislative social engineers designed it to respond, so do his fellow Democrats, including the president respond, when people respond to adversely to the failure of this signature legislative achievement to meet expectations.
They’re so confident they’re right, that the problem could not be in their policies, but in the way those policies have been presented. If just they would change the manner of messaging, then surely people would respond favorably to the message.
They can’t seem to accept that the problem may well be their message.