His Ideas Are Good, But I Want More Bullet Points

So we're back to arguing about John Edwards' plan to strip members of Congress of their health care if they don't pass comprehensive reform. I'm always astonished at how bizarrely literally pundits act when they approach this idea. It's true that, in the strong form, its; unconstitutional. Edwards cannot, with his pen, deprive anyone of their health care. The Edwards Campaign, by contrast, says that it will take the form of a bill sent to Congress, which seems constitutional, though everyone says it would be impossible to pass.

But would it be? That's the part I don't understand. Why wouldn't the Democratic leadership want to use this legislation to hammer away at Republicans? To force them to go on the record about the importance of their own health care? The idea behind this bill is that it will ratchet up political pressure for change, creating a situation in which Congressmen come to the table because they fear losing their seats if they don't. It's a strategy based on the application of political pressure, not legislative finesse. And while not a surefire winner, it's certainly a plausible theory of reform.

Meanwhile, I find the liberal outrage and bewilderment over this bit of populist symbolism to be very unsettling. At base, Edwards is doing something very simple: Dramatizing the inequities in our health care system. Most liberals would have you believe that dramatizing, and fixing, the inequities in our health care system is their primary political goal. But not like this, I guess. This is too uncouth, too aggressive, too much theatre and not enough legalism. I think a perfectly fair case could be made that this is bad strategy that will irritate the Congress and make reform less likely. But I've not actually heard that case made. Rather, many liberals simply seem offended that Edwards would engage in such crass political theatre. The fact that actual voters seem to thrill to the argument hardly enters the discussion.