Government by Faculty Lounge Subject to Repeal

By Michael Barone President Barack Obama went up to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to counsel congressional Democrats on how to save Obamacare. Or at least thats how his visit was billed. But to judge from the responses of some of the Democrats his advice was typical of the approach hes taken to legislation in his eight years as president -- which is to say disengaged above the fray detached from any detailed discussion of how legislation actually works. He was very nostalgic said Louise Slaughter a veteran of 30 years in the House and the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. But she added he left it up to Hill Democrats to come up with a strategy to protect Obamacare. This is in line with the standoffish relations Obama has had with members of Congress even with Democrats who are inclined to be and capable of being helpful. Schmoozing with those he gives the impression of regarding as his inferiors has not been his style. Nor has he ever seemed interested in the content of laws even his trademark health care legislation. His February 2010 decision to move forward on Obamacare despite the election of Republican Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts meant accepting a bill with multiple flaws many of them glaringly visible after passage. But policy just hasnt been his thing. At the Hill meeting Obama -- according to Massachusetts Democrat Bill Keating -- was basically saying Lets not get down into policy language. The key word there may be down. The problem with this approach has been apparent since the 9 oclock hour on election night when it became clear that Donald Trump was going to be elected president. In 2010 Obama assumed there always would be a Democratic Congress to repair any glitches in Obamacare. In 2016 he assumed that there would be a President Hillary Clinton to keep his pen-and-phone regulations and guidances in place. Its apparent that Obama is thrashing around trying to keep his policies in place. But more than those of other outgoing presidents replaced by successors of the other party theyre in danger of being overturned. One reason is that they were never firmly established in the first place -- and not just because the Democrats 60-vote Senate supermajority existed for only eight months from July 2009 to February 2010. Rather the Obama Democrats policies passed through slapdash legislation or through questionably legal regulations never really captured the hearts and minds of the American people. Obamacare was based on the shaky premise that mandating often expensive and limited health insurance would be seen as guaranteeing good health care. As a result as historian Walter Russell Mead recently wrote for The American Interest it did not generate enough public support to protect itself from its opponents. Regulations imposed on coal and other fossil fuel production -- instituted after Democrats even with strong congressional majorities were unsuccessful in passing cap-and-trade legislation -- failed to impress a population that did not share liberal elites faith that climate change is certain to produce catastrophe. And regulations legalizing the presence of millions of undocumented immigrants have failed to pass muster in federal courts thanks to legal maneuverings as sloppy as the legislative legerdemain that shoved through Obamacare. Public policies prove to be enduring when they address what people regard as genuine needs and thus create constituencies that politicians dare not defy. Social Security retirement benefits are a prime example. You can jigger the taxes and benefits as a bipartisan majority did in 1983 but voters who believe they paid for their benefits will insist they not be taken away. Policies that induce long-term reliance also tend to endure a prime example being the home mortgage interest deduction. Theres a good argument that this policy like the Social Security benefit formula unduly benefits the affluent. But that argument doesnt move most voters. In my view Obama owed his election and re-election to the feeling -- widely shared by Americans including many who didnt vote for him -- that it would be a good thing for Americans to elect a black president. What they didnt expect but got was a president who governed according to the playbook of campus liberals imposing -- or attempting to impose -- policies that he believed would be good for people whether they knew it or not. This was governance that was both inattentive to detail and law and out of touch with how policies affect peoples lives. That is why so many of these policies seem headed for the ash heap of history.