The selling of the president's policies
I noticed this tidbit while reading Michael Kelly's epically long profile of David Gergen:
In the selling of the Administration's health plan, politics, policy, advertising and journalism have become, finally, a single organism. Speaking before Congress to introduce the health plan on Sept. 22, the President holds aloft a red, white and blue card of gleaming Visa-like plastic, on the back of which is printed, in the language of a late-night-television insurance pitch, a promise of such largesse as to give God pause: "This health security card guarantees you a comprehensive package of benefits that can never be taken away."
In the surrounding hoopla: Hillary Rodham Clinton makes five televised Congressional appearances and sits for interviews with Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Paula Zahn, Katie Couric and Joan Lunden. ... The President answers questions from the citizenry for two and a half hours on "Nightline," is the host of a televised "town meeting" in California and conducts an Oprah Winfrey-style show at a Queens diner, where people chosen by the White House to illustrate inadequate health insurance tell of their suffering. ... The Democratic National Committee kicks off a direct-mail-and-telephone drive featuring letters, which are Robo-signed by the President and resemble in tone Ed McMahon's missives on behalf of Publishers' Clearinghouse. ("The winner of this campaign would not be a politician, but every American family.") . . . The Clintons hold what Gergen calls "a very dignified lunch" for two dozen big-foot journalists, including R. W. Apple Jr. of The New York Times, David Broder of The Washington Post, Jack Germond of The Baltimore Sun, Michael Kinsley of The New Republic, Jack Nelson of The Los Angeles Times and Albert Hunt of The Wall Street Journal. . . . Meanwhile, 55 radio talk-show hosts broadcast live from tables set up on the front lawn of the White House, as Administration spinners shuttle and weave among them.
By contrast, Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced the Social Security Act in 1935 with a modest, brief message to Congress that was read by clerks; during the ensuing legislative process, he spoke publicly about it only twice: once in a short press conference and once in a radio address.
If that's the whole story, it certainly vibes with the argument I made here. But maybe some of my more historically inclined readers will know whether it's an accurate picture of the Social Security fight.
By
Ezra Klein
|
February 24, 2010; 7:17 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Fin.
Next: What can Obama trade?
Posted by: gagkk | February 24, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse
The antithetical spin will probably focus on the fact that House Democrats are meeting in secret today (24 Feb), which happens to be the anniversary of the kick-off of another notable health care reform effort. At least it was hailed (and welcomed) as a health care reform effort back in 1920... many today see the reform in a different light.
Posted by: rmgregory | February 24, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse
Ezra! You heard it here first!
The Keynote Speaker at RNC in 2012!
Evan Bayh!!!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33406.html
Posted by: FastEddieO007 | February 24, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse
Ezra - that's at best misleading. First, FDR did sell the Social Security Act, in ways that were, for its time, aggressive. Maybe your point is that all politics is more pervasive today - and that's surely true. But it's not right to say FDR sat on his hands or adopted a log cabin approach.
Second, Social Security passed in the context of growing popular support for much larger and more generous pensions. There were any number of single-issue agitators pushing this issue (Doc Townsend was seeking paymenst of $2,400 per year, about 10 times what Social Security actually paid), they were gaining support from the public and the attention of unscrupulous political leaders like Huey Long who FDR and other elected officials needed to co-opt. The broader political context included destitution among the aged that those of us who've come of age since the Soc Sec expansions of the 1950s and 1960s would find hard to believe, an unemployment rate for prime-age males still hovering around 20%, and the coming to power of frightening extremist movements throughout the West.
Put another way, Social Security didn't need much selling from the White House; it was a moderate measure intended to calm popular unrest that made today's tea parties look like... tea parties.
Posted by: Sophomore | February 24, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse
This is why Mark Twain said statistics are lies--correlation is not cause. Do you really think the increasing polarization of the past few decades is due to presidential involvement? Are all of those 290 bills not voted on by the Senate presidential initiatives?
The Republicans aren't opposed to the president--they are opposed to progress. When they cast racism as their strategy, they insured an increasingly acrimonious and polarized environment.
I will say this: Obama's decision to waste time trying to get Olympia Snowe signed on to his health coverage reform was an egregious interference.
Posted by: toweypat | February 24, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse
"Jibes," not "vibes."
Posted by: randrewm | February 24, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
The social Security Administration has a pretty comprehensive history section in its webpages where some of Ezra's curiosities may be addressed. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/index.html
There's a video clip of FDR and the signing ceremony for the Social Security Act at
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/mpeg/fdrbig.mpg
caution: FDR is clearly using a crude teleprompter type sheet of paper.