By Fred Barnes - WSJ
ObamaCare would be an exception to the historical rule of large social legislation.
For decades a rule of thumb in Washington has said that there should be popular support and a bipartisan majority before approving an initiative that significantly affects tens of millions of Americans. Health-care reformObamaCarehas neither yet Democrats want to impose it anyway. If they succeed the consequences could be devastating for the country and probably for the president and his party.
The reasoning behind the rule is simple. Forcing drastic change on an unwilling public is likely to cause national disunity stir angry protests increase political polarization and deepen distrust of Washington. But if popular opinion and both political parties support the change discord will be minimal.
Discord is all but certain if ObamaCare in anything like its present form is enacted. A majority or at least a large plurality of Americans oppose it. Their opposition is raw and intense as weve learned from the spate of contentious town-hall meetings held by Democratic members of Congress last summer. A Washington Post/ABC News poll of Oct. 19 confirmed the obvious: Far more Americans strongly oppose ObamaCare (36) than strongly support it (26).
In survey after survey a majority of Americans or close to it say they believe ObamaCare will drive up the cost of insurance premiums while worsening health care. They expect it to necessitate a tax hike and boost the budget deficit. Most Americans (nearly 90) consistently express satisfaction with the current health-care system despite its imperfections.
Opposition to ObamaCare is not limited to conservatives and Republicans. Independents have increasingly turned against liberal-style health reform. On Oct. 8 Gallup reported one of the largest declines in support for ObamaCare was among independents falling in one month from 37 to 26. On Oct. 21 Gallup said that by nearly 2 to 1 (36 to 19) independents predicted theyd oppose the final health-care reform bill to come out of Congress. Even the undecided are skeptical. In general Americans who are undecided on health care legislation predict it is more likely to make their own situations worse rather than better especially in terms of cost Gallup said on Oct. 22.
President Obama however continues to proclaim the time is now for America to adopt universal health care directed from Washington by the federal government. This is what President Truman in the 1940s and President Clinton in the 1990s said when they proposed national health care. The public was unsupportive then too and bipartisan backing in Congress was absent.
A glance at some sweeping measures enacted in Washington over the past half-century underscores how essential popular approval and bipartisanship approval are. Without them the controversy and wrangling never stops.
The creation of the interstate highway system in 1956 the passage of civil rights legislation the war on poverty and federal aid to education in the 1960s and No Child Left Behind in 2001 all were reasonably popular measures. True the antipoverty bill the Economic Opportunity Act drew only 10 Republican votes in the Senate and 22 in the House. But that dwarfs Republican support for ObamaCare. At the moment only one Republican in the Senate and one in the House are seen as possible votes.
Even the original Social Security Act of 1935 drew majority support by Republicans in the House (81 yes 15 no) and in the Senate (16 yes five no).
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 with doctors opposed but the public on board. The two programs attracted a bipartisan majority in Congress of nearly all Democrats and half the Republicans. In 2003 President Bushs Medicare prescription drug benefit got only nine Democratic votes in the House but 35 of 48 Senate Democrats voted for it.
On the other hand consider how Congress and the White House have dealt with the volatile issue of immigration. In 1965 immigration laws were liberalized. In 1986 the laws were tightened. Both actions had public support and strong congressional backing. Then in 2007 legislation to liberalize immigration rules was drafted by Republicans Democrats and the White House. But the public was fervently opposed and the legislation was abandoned. A powerful backlash bound to fuel ethnic turmoil was averted.
Social Security reform is the classic example of an issue in search of public and political support. Neither party would consider passing it without at least some support from the other. In 1983 when Social Security revenues were falling short of promised benefits reform was temporarily popular. Congress raised taxes and the normal retirement age to 67. When President George W. Bush sought another round of reform in 2005 national opinion had shifted. He failed to generate support even among Republicans.
Only once in recent decades has Congress inadvertently prompted a protest so formidable that it had to reverse itself almost overnight. In 1988 it passed the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act to protect seniors against ruinous medical costs. Fees paid by middle- and upper-income seniors were to finance the program.
Seniors rebelled because they were required to pay too much on a means-tested basis for coverage that would disproportionately help others and because it didnt have what they actually wanted long-term health-care benefits. The following year the law was repealed.
The furious reaction to unwanted Medicare coverage which included seniors climbing on the car of then-House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski is a preview of the eruption of public outrage that would greet the signing of ObamaCare into law. Only the protests would be larger more frequent and angrier. Since everyones health care would be affected a sizeable chunk of the country would be in a constant uproar.
There would be more tea parties angry demonstrations and marches on Washington. Town-hall meetings of Democrats would be raucous. Sit-ins would occur at congressional offices. Conservative talk radio would turn opposition to ObamaCare into a national crusade.
Many Republicans believe the passage of liberal health-care legislation would be a windfall for them. Indeed it might be. Theyve already discussed taking up the crusade to kill ObamaCare as their own. They would make it the centerpiece along with the economy of the 2010 midterm election.
In Washington theres an atmosphere of denial. Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Sunday that the White House believes a majority supports the presidents health-care program. It depends on what poll youre looking at she told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. Ms. Jarrett must have polled congressional Democrats. Theyre the only majorityand a lopsided onein favor of ObamaCare.
At best Americans are roughly divided on ObamaCare. The half opposed are far from ready to accept its enactment as permanent. This is a situation where the longstanding rule of waiting for popular support and bipartisan backing should apply.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.
