The Worst of Both Worlds
Over the last few weeks both Slate and The New Yorker have hit on the current political environment where every voter wants everything and, in turn, nothing. Here’s an example from Surowiecki in the New Yorker:
And, while voters routinely say that the rising cost of health care is a problem, it is the bills’ cost-control provisions–including a tax on expensive insurance plans and rules to restrain Medicare spending–that have proved especially unpopular. On top of this, many people are just annoyed with the whole process: a survey of voters who supported Obama in 2008 but voted for Scott Brown in the recent Massachusetts Senate race found that forty-one per cent of those who opposed health-care reform weren’t sure whether reform went too far or not far enough. In short, they don’t know why they’re against reform; they just are. It’s a bit like Marlon Brando in “The Wild One.” Asked what he’s rebelling against, he says, “Whaddya got?”
Hi, I'm 
The problem is even more fundamental than that. Out democracy assumes that people vote based on their own self interests. It assumes that people will act rationally and vote in a way that benefits them, discounting the impact it might have on others.
The problem is that people no longer know what’s in their own self interest–and rightly so. It’s nearly impossible for an individual to do a cost/benefit analysis on something like, say, universal healthcare. There are people who are adamantly against such policies, despite the fact that under such a system they would get better health care at a lower personal cost. But they dont’ know this. And it’s not that those people are uneducated, it’s just that actually calculating that is extremely difficult and time consuming, and as a result “too expensive” for most people to bother doing. Do you know the marginal cost and benefits to you for most policies? I don’t. There are policies that I agree with that might actually hurt me as an individual, because I haven’t taken the time out to actually understand what’s in my own self interest.
And it’s even *more* complicated by the lack of party discipline in Congress. Even when a party agrees on a particular ideology, all of the party members inject their own personal agendas into the policy raising the cost and changing the distribution of benefits.
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F19.html
Ned: Well, all right, I’d like to call this meeting of the PTA to or-diddely-order. Let’s see if we can’t put an end to this strike fuss, huh? Mrs. Krabappel, why don’t you begin?
Skinner: Boo!
Edna: Oh, “boo” yourself. Our demands are simple: a small cost-of-living increase and some better equipment and supplies for your children.
Audience: Yeah! Give it to them! etc.
Skinner: Yeah, in a dream world. We have a very tight budget; to do what she’s asking, we’d have to raise taxes.
Audience: Raise taxes? They’re too high as they are. Taxes are bad. etc.
Edna: It’s your children’s future.
Audience: That’s right. Children are important. etc.
Skinner: It’ll cost you.
Audience: No to taxes. My God, they’re going to raise taxes. etc.
Edna: C’mon!
Audience: She makes a good case. Good point. etc.
Skinner: [rubs his fingertips together]
Audience: More taxes? The finger thing means the taxes. etc.
Ned: Well, I guess this is a case where we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Skinner: I don’t agree to that.
Edna: Neither do I!
Nice catch,
I enjoy calling people stupid, really, it’s a blast, but I have to say, this is the type of situation where everyone is awash in information and unable to make a decision. We want to be for or against something, but at this point, we’re being asked to be for or against a vague set of conflicting data. The administration should take a note from OKCupid – what’s more complicated than dating? Out teach the competition. Make things blisteringly simple, approach hurdles one at a time, and spell out the individual benefits of the plan. I think what’s been lost is the argument that higher coverage actually equals lower cost, b/c more people will have access to preventative care.
On a personal note, I had a conversation with my father on the topic – he’s a staunch Republican and I’m pretty much the polar opposite. I started the conversation with a very basic conceit: who are you willing to turn away at the Hospital? If you’re unwilling to turn someone away who needs care, then we both have a commitment to make concessions in order to help that person. That seemed to work for us.
HA! @ Michal Migurski
But seriously, managing expectations is as much art as science … the fact that this country has been in intractable messes before should be a bit of a consolation — or not …