Asymmetry in Wonkland

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Matt Yglesias muses on a question that’s crossed my mind a few times too:

If you think the public option isn’t that big a deal and it’s not worth spiking health reform over it, then you ought to think that it’s not worth spiking health reform in order to kill it either….I get, for example, that Kent Conrad supports the Finance Committee version of health care and opposes adding a public option to it. But suppose a public option does get added. Does that suddenly take a vast package of reforms that he played a key role in crafting and turn it into a terrible bill? Why would that be?

Obviously there’s no universal answer to this.  Different people think different things.  But I suspect there really is an asymmetry on this question at the elite wonk level.  Ordinary activists and citizens may feel equally strongly about the public option on both sides, but healthcare pros don’t.  On the liberal side, the folks who study this for a living mostly like the idea of a public option (provides competition, helps lower prices a bit, etc.) but don’t think it’s vital to the success of the reform effort.  On the conservative side, though, opinion is much more entrenched because right-wing think tank types genuinely believe that it’s a steppingstone to a fully public single-payer system.  And they might be right!  But if that’s the case, then they really do have a lot more at stake than the lefties.

Anyway, this is just a guess.  But if it’s right, then this attitude spills over into elite opinion and from there into the halls of Congress.  The result is that there’s a big chunk of the Democratic caucus that’s lukewarm toward the public option, a smaller chunk toward the center that’s actively opposed because they don’t like single-payer any more than conservatives do, and then monolithic opposition from the right.  And it’s all because our wonks are a little too honest for their own good.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest