February 17, 2006
Phony White House Populism
By E.
J. Dionne Jr.
WASHINGTON -- Many people turn away from politics because so many
of the players evade difficult questions by attacking their critics
and changing the subject. Phony populism is the technique of choice,
and it is much favored by the current administration.
On the same
day this week, Americans were offered two examples of the politics
of aggression and evasion. In both instances, politicians sought
to duck hard issues by inventing an elitist enemy. In both, they
ascribed to their adversaries views their critics don't hold,
and never did.
Take, first,
the case that received little attention. Campaigning at the Ohio
headquarters of the Wendy's fast food chain for his proposal to
expand health savings accounts, President Bush dismissed critics
who contend the accounts ``are not a solution for the uninsured,
they're regressive, they favor the wealthy.''
That was
an accurate enough description of the opponents' criticisms, but
then came this zinger: ``It's kind of basically saying, if you're
not making a lot of money, you can't make decisions for yourself.
That's kind of a Washington attitude, isn't it -- we'll decide
for you, you can't figure it out yourself. I think a lot of folks
here at Wendy's would argue that point of view is just simply
backwards and not true.''
But opponents
of Bush's plan are not ``kind of basically saying'' anything
of the sort. They want people ``not making a lot of money'' to
have a chance to buy affordable health insurance. They are arguing
that HSAs, as the accounts are known, would offer a lot of money
to the best-off among our fellow citizens without increasing health
coverage. Indeed, there is good evidence, mustered this week by
the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that HSAs
would actually lead to a net increase in the number of uninsured.
And, as
Elisabeth Bumiller pointed out in The New York Times,
a $5,000 contribution to an HSA would have saved a couple with
two children who have a combined income of $40,000 just $630 on
their 2005 federal income taxes. (And that assumes the couple
could have afforded to put away the whole five grand, which is
unlikely.) But a comparable couple with an income of $120,000
would have saved $1,500.
In other
words, HSAs give the smallest benefits on those least
able to afford health insurance. That is not exactly showing
respect for those who are ``not making a lot of money.'' The elitism
here lies in those making the proposal, not with its critics.
The same
phony populism was on display during Dick Cheney's more widely
noted interview the same day on Republican State Television --
excuse me, Fox News -- in which the vice president tried to dismiss
questions as to why he waited so long to tell the world he had
shot Harry Whittington.
Let's let
others argue about Cheney's claim that he was only waiting so
he could put out an accurate story, and move directly to his efforts
to change the subject.
``I had
a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to
some extent, it was about them -- they didn't like the idea that
we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of
The New York Times,'' Cheney said. ``But it strikes me
that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid
a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for
covering a major story in South Texas.''
Now there's
populist jujitsu for you. Absolutely no one is saying that Cheney
should have leaked to The New York Times. The question
is why he didn't make the story public, early on, for everybody,
at the same time.
Cheney wanted
one of his ``good friends,'' Republican loyalist Katharine Armstrong,
to tip off ``reporters she knew'' so she could put the story in,
well, perspective. Armstrong helpfully explained to the Texas
paper that getting shot is ``a risk when any shooting sport is
involved'' and that in this instance, ``everybody behaved exactly
as you would want them to.''
By the way,
the two Corpus Christi reporters who reported this, Kathryn Garcia
and Jaime Powell, were not diverted from one of the central mysteries
of the case: in their original story, they reported that the tip
to their paper came ``18 hours after the incident occurred."
So thank
goodness there are limits to spin, but up to now, there have been
no limits on the administration's willingness to divert attention
from its problems through attacks on elitist scarecrows. The flaws
in Bush's policy arguments will rarely make big news. But perhaps
the reaction to an unfortunate event in South Texas' wide open
spaces will help bring an end to phony populism by exposing it
for what it is.
©
2006, Washington Post Writers Group
