Nancy Pelosi is telling House Democrats that there will be no last-minute fixes to the health care bill, and that the House might pass health care without voting for it–by instituting a “self-executing rule.”

Yes, you read that last party correctly.  Politico explains:

Under this scenario, the Senate bill would be automatically attached to the reconciliation package, if the House passes reconciliation. In other words, Bill A would just become part of Bill B if the House passes Bill B, and the Senate could then vote on a reconciliation package before sending it to the president. This allows House members to approve the broader measure without actually voting on it.

All clear? No? Let’s turn to Byron York, conservative commentator extraordinaire, who actually describes the self-executing rule pretty effectively:

Whenever a bill goes to the house floor for debate and a vote, the Rules Committee is required to write, and the House must pass, a rule setting the terms of debate: how many amendments will be offered, how long debate will run, etc.  The rule is normally a limited measure that applies only to the particular bill in question.  And it covers only the process; the bill itself is passed separately.  But it is possible for the Rules Committee to put in language stipulating that if the rule is passed, then a separate, unconnected piece of legislation will also be considered, or “deemed,” to have passed.  “It embodies a ‘two-for-one’ procedure,” says a 2006 Congressional Research Service report on self-executing rules.  “This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself.”

Using the self-executing rule strategy, Democrats could conceivably pass the rule, the Senate bill, and the House reconciliation “fixes” to the Senate bill all in one vote, without a single House member voting for any specific health care measure.

The obvious follow up question: isn’t this kind of sketchy? York certainly seems to think so, and I can’t really blame him. Passing health care as twofer seems somehow hollow, the equivalent of going to a great restaurant with a friend and having him shrug and say “I’ll have what he’s having.” This is supposed to be an experience, man! Can’t you even look at the Daily Specials?!

I digress, but you get the picture: the self-executing rule comes across as kind of weak sauce. But–and this is a big but–it’s not trickery and it’s not unprecedented in either party. As with reconciliation, Republicans have traditionally been pretty gung-ho about self-executing rules, even though they now poo-poo both measures. Yesterday, Media Matters highlighted an interesting 2006 column from Roll Call that gives some additional context:

From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they…proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively).

Still, the self-executing rule has never been applied to something as big as health care reform, and it’s true that this rule is clearly a last resort–which, depending on your interpretation, could be seen as proof that health care reform is unpopular or that Congress is corrupt and incompetent.  The bad news is that either of these scenarios will have political implications: if health care really is as unpopular as conservatives say (and for the record, I don’t think it is–transformative legislation is always controversial until it’s passed, at which point we all absorb its measures into the fabric of our lives) or if liberals are angry that Congress couldn’t get its act together to pass the right health care in the right way, it could be a bad election cycle for Democrats.

Indeed, it may be that in our current political environment, brimming with populist discontent and a disillusionment over the fact that Obama-ism didn’t breed widespread open and honest collaboration, something like the self-executing rule will be viewed as particularly loathsome to voters. On the whole, I’d venture that passing health care is worth the risk, but make no mistake–there is a risk.

From Rasmussen’s analysis:

“Women give a slight edge to Giannoulias at this point, while male voters and voters not affiliated with either major party break nearly even….Only nine percent (9%) of Illinois voters view Giannoulias very favorably, while 19% view him very unfavorably. Another 13% are not sure. Kirk is regarded very favorably by 13% and very unfavorably by 12%. Nineteen percent (19%) do not know enough about him to venture even a soft favorable or unfavorable opinion….Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters in Illinois favor the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, while 46% are opposed to the plan. These numbers include 35% who Strongly Favor the plan and 37% who Strongly Oppose it. Support for the plan is considerably higher in Illinois than among voters nationwide.”

Unfortunately, it’s still Democrats–and only Democrats–who are pushing that ball along. The GOP isn’t going to sign on to health care reform. So what are Democrats to do, given that the president is going to announce next steps on health care this upcoming week? Say it with me: reconciliation.

It’s pretty much agreed that reconciliation–basically, a process that lets the Senate pass a bill with 51 votes (a simple majority) instead of 60, which just ain’t going to happen for health care reform–is the only way to ram through change. Some people complain that using reconciliation is strong-arming reform undemocratically. Some of those complainers have actually defended reconciliation in the past (*ahem* Senator Judd Gregg), but you know, politics first, common sense second, I guess.

But more importantly: reconciliation is not new. It’s not even new to health care or social policy. NPR ran a great piece this week highlighting the high degree to which health care policies have been instituted through reconciliation in the past (timeline of health care-related reconciliation bills pasted to the left). Take note of how many major milestones–COBRA, welfare reform–were passed through reconciliation, as well as the even split between reconciliation measures in Reagan’s 1980s and Clinton’s 1990s.

But there’s more: in 1990, the famous PAYGO provision in federal spending was instituted through reconciliation; in 2001 and 2003 the Bush tax cuts were passed and accelerated through reconciliation; and all in all, Republicans have supported 17 of the 22 reconciliation bills passed since 1980.

Is reconciliation the norm? No. But the normal ground rules of the Senate–that any Senator can invoke the filibuster to essentially talk a given bill to death and obstruct its passage unless it has 60 out of 100 votes–is just absurd. This is why leaders of both parties regularly use  reconciliation to pass significant, sweeping legislation. The odds of any one Big Idea, whether it’s from your party of the opposition, managing to get 60 votes or not offending any one legislator to the point of filibustering is pretty low.  Republicans know this; it’s why they have relied on reconciliation so many times in the past. But now they don’t like health care reform, so they’ve flip-flopped. But if Democrats are being undemocratic by considering reconciliation, than Republicans have been guilty of the same. Let’s hear the GOP say that welfare reform or the Bush tax cuts were undemocratic; let’s hear them condemn quality control in health care, the ability to keep health insurance after being laid off, or a patient’s right to emergency care.

The truth is that reconciliation has produced a lot of the policies and measures that we take for granted as being part of our institutional fabric, and that, for the most part, people don’t wag their finger toward policies that they like today which were passed via reconciliation yesterday. So go, Democrats–reconcile away.

It’s all those references to “the people” (real ones, no less) that have helped brand the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee a populist, as well as win her ardent applause and adulation from her target audience.

That populism does not seem limited to those responding to Palin, though. President Barack Obama’s defense of nothing-if-not-unpopular bankers caused quite a backlash from those who are nostalgic for the days when he got in trouble for talking about “fat-cat bankers.”

Seemingly logical conclusion: Populism is newly popular, on the left as well as the right.

But though one might think that believing in “the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people” would, almost by definition, be likely to be “commonly liked or approved,” it turns out the p-word is not as universally acclaimed as current events might indicate.

“Populist” is actually the least popular of five common political labels, with just 8 percent of U.S. voters viewing it as a politically positive description and 36 percent classifying it as a negative description, according to the Rasmussen Reports polling company. It got beat out by “political liberal” (which 14 percent consider positive), “libertarian” (18 percent), “progressive” (22 percent and heading downhill) and “conservative” (40 percent and on the upswing).

Perhaps the confusion over the (un)popularity of contemporary populism is related to the confusion over which ideas this populist fervor seeks to propagate, and on which side of the aisle those ideas belong.

Though the anti-Big Government ideology might seem like it would mesh with classic Republican tenets, this kind of Palinesque populism is also anti-Big Business, without which the GOP would probably just be the OP. It also doesn’t really have the support of those inside-the-Beltway politicos who happen to be Republicans - and who are trying to convince Wall Street that, unlike the Democratic White House, they’re on the side of Big Business.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he visits New York about twice a month to try to tap into Wall Street’s remorse about supporting a president who has been publicly attacking them.

“I just don’t know how long you can expect people to contribute money to a political party whose main plank of their platform is to punish you,” Cornyn said.

So if the Dems are anti-Big Business and the Tea Partyers are anti-Big Business, is everyone on the same populist page, but just shouting so loud they can’t tell? Or maybe the answer to the question of which ideas today’s populism is pushing is: All of ‘em! As long as it makes me mad!

That’s pretty much what James Surowiecki  argues in The New Yorker, writing: “The electorate, we hear, wants Barack Obama to be more of an economic populist but less of an ambitious reformer. He has to aggressively create jobs but also be less spendthrift. This advice may be contradictory, but then so are the economic opinions of the many angry voters who are animating what’s being called the new populism.”

This new populism, he adds, “has stitched together incompatible concerns and goals into one ‘I’m mad as hell’ quilt. The people may have spoken. It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense.”

Photo by ann-dabney

Hamsher responded in a lengthy post:

“The breathless Marc Ambinder prints this today:

Already, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is blasting Democratic activist Jane Hamsher for using Survey USA to essentially poll-pressure Blue Dog Democrats into retirement.

Really? We’re trying to pressure Blue Dogs into retirement? Where? Well, he doesn’t say.

The fact that the poll was on health care, and we’ve been writing about health care solidly for the past 8 months, seems to have escaped his notice. Are the polls accurate? Yes, but that doesn’t matter, printing them is tantamount to ‘poll pressure.’

There’s a key piece of information Ambinder seems to have omitted from the article:

BARON HILL IS LOSING BY 8 POINTS TO HIS GOP OPPONENT…

Rahm Ambinder goes on to say that Bayh ‘really grew to dislike the influence of liberal activists on his Senate colleagues.’ Well, it’s nice to know Bayh found the strength to vote against Byron Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment that would have saved both the government and the public billions of dollars in drug costs. Having taken $439,000 in campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies alone, what’s a guy to do?”

In the world according to Jane Hamsher, Rahm Emmanuel controls the universe, is the root of all evil, and Marc Ambinder is his bitch. Needless to say, the world according to Jane Hamsher is a rather peculiar place. Still, leaving aside the vitriol in her response, I think some of the criticism aimed at her with respect to her polls is unwarranted. Hamsher contends — and the pollster confirms — that she played no role in crafting the questions.

Now, that doesn’t mean the polls aren’t flawed.  I think they are. Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz, in my view, debunks them  quite convincingly. But it in this case, bad questions are the fault of the pollster, not the person who commissioned the surveys.

What to make of his latest post?

“For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda — one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw….

Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction — and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.

There will be those Democrats who bid good riddance to Bayh and his coal-burning-state apostasy about cap and trade, etc. If so, they won’t need a very big tent to contain the celebration. On a more pragmatic view, Bayh’s dramatic vote of no-confidence in his own party’s leadership looks like another Massachusetts-sized political earthquake for the Democrats. Not only does it imperil the president’s short-term hopes of passing health care and other major legislation this year. It also makes it much more likely that the Republicans can pick up Bayh’s Senate seat in normally red Indiana and, with it, control of the Senate itself. If present trends continue, November could turn into a Republican rout.”

First, Lane has simply invented a false narrative here. No one believes that Bayh’s retirement is the beginning of an insurgent campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from President Obama in 2012. Such an idea is, on its face, preposterous. This is partly because an insurgent campaign from the right — within the Democratic party — is a phenomenon that simply does not exist. Of course, Lane is trying to push a purely fictitious narrative of his own invention into mainstream discussion. After all, if a member of the Washington Post editorial board is loudly proclaiming Bayh’s viability, then the notion of his candidacy must have some credibility.

Second, Lane seems to be encouraging Democrats both to focus more attention on the deficit and abandon efforts on health care reform. This, of course, is illogical. As conservative stalwart Rep. Paul Ryan readily acknowledges, the deficit cannot be addressed without making structural changes to the health care system.

Interestingly, Lane makes no mention of the blatant cynicism surrounding the manner in which Bayh chose to leave office — that is, waiting until one day before the filing deadline to announce his retirement. This maneuver, of course, makes a primary all but impossible, leaving state Democratic leaders to choose a new candidate. In other words, Bayh has willfully denied his constituents a chance to choose the Democratic nominee. I would love to see how Lane reconciles this manipulation with the brave, principled character he has depicted.

Lane’s latest drivel is a symptom of a larger problem in political punditry: worship of a warped notion of centrism. A centrist, as traditionally understood, defies the dogma and doctrines of ideology. But a self-styled “centrist” who believes that, by defying one’s political party you have done something intrinsically noble, is a different breed altogether. This centrism, as Lane’s post demonstrates, can itself become an ideology, with its own brand of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

“’After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,’ he said.

“’My decision was not motivated by political concern,’” he added. “’Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.’”

The announcement, needless to say, comes as somewhat of a shock — and a blow to Democrats.

What compounds our frustration and bewilderment over our fellow Americans’ negligible participation in the political process is the overarching irony. We’re citizens of the nation that put participatory democracy on the map for God’s sake. How did we arrive at this sad state of affairs, which I call the enduring enigma of the American public?

Among the many reasons advanced, first here’s a selection from the obvious:

1. Our “dumbing down” thanks to the “escapism” found in television and other electronic media in general.

2. In the same vein, the isolation of modern life, which militates against congregating for the common good.

3. Loss of faith in legislators, most of whom are perceived to be on the pad.

Next, three explanations for apathy with which we’re likely less familiar:

1. According to polling and focus groups conducted by John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, authors of a respected work of political science entitled Stealth Democracy, Americans are adverse to the conflicts, debates, and compromises inherent in participatory democracy. In other words, though we may still be rabble, we’ve had the rough and tumble ironed out of us.

2. Some libertarians maintain that the size of our government and the sheer number of issues that fall under its auspices leave us standing, jaws agape, in stunned silence. Thus do they make it seem like the success of participatory government is dependent on the implementation of one of their pet causes, downsizing government.

3. Speaking in psychological terms, we don’t speak up for ourselves because we suffer from low self-esteem and don’t believe we (nor others) deserve justice.

This final rationale for apathy is mine:

There’s a glitch in our wiring: In other words, blame God. He, or whatever higher intelligence — or lack thereof — to which you subscribe, endowed certain individuals with leadership qualities. But He (or She or the Nonentity) failed to note that left little space on the hard drives of their DNA for ethics. Equally appalling, it also seems to have escaped His attention that said failings needed to be compensated for by a mechanism in the rest of us that would act as a safety net for our leaders’ moral failings.

Apathy, of course, aids and abets corrupt leaders. But it wasn’t until the publication of a book in 1996 that I realized apathy might be socially redeeming. Titled Who Are You, Really? (Carroll & Graf), it was written by Gary Null, the noted (and controversial) nutritionist who is also that rarity in this day and age — a Renaissance man.

You may have heard of a personality assessment questionnaire used by prospective employers, among others, called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. If it was an acknowledged product of Carl Jung’s book Personality Types, Myers-Briggs, in turn, seems to have been the inspiration for the categories into which Null divides us humans. You can find the heading under which most of us fall in his chapter “Most of the People You’ll Ever Meet: Adaptive Supportive.”

What, you ask, is an Adaptive Supportive? Null explains:

Adaptive Supportives generally do functional work. They may be clerical-level employees or blue-collar workers in government agencies or factories. They may work at the checkout counters in retail establishments or at construction sites. … sticking with a job year after year sometimes constitute an unrecognized act of heroism on the part of members of this group.

In fact. . .

Adaptive Supportives play an absolutely essential role in our culture, as in any. Without them, the inner workings of society would simply cease to function. … Because there are so many of them, their values and way of life pervade our culture.

Summing up. . .

Adaptive Supportives are the followers in life — the vast majority of the people who adapt their lives to prevailing belief systems. … Their whole lifestyle is supportive of the status quo and they thrive on the sense of belonging that comes from “fitting in.”

In other words, it’s time to stop libeling them as apathetic. It’s just how they’re wired: Their passivity is in the service of fulfilling their role as the bedrock of society. But, as with all personality types, you take the good with the bad. Of course, the liberal left is more familiar with how harmful they can be to society, as well as themselves. Gary Null again:

The real danger with Adaptive Supportives is that they will cling to faulty belief systems. They have a strong sense of trust in one authority, and they feel vulnerable and threatened if an idea or person challenges that authority. … They relinquish control over their own lives, giving more power to authority figures than they do themselves. That gives them a myopic view of life and closes off many avenues of growth and transformation.

Can They Transcend Their Limitations?

Here’s Null’s answer:

When Adaptive Supportives do change, it’s usually because an authority figure has given them “permission” to do so. When the authority in their lives changes, they’ll shift course and go along with whatever the leader expects of them. If the pope were to allow women to become priests, the masses would adapt to the change and support it. … The irony is that Adaptive Supportives could be a tremendous force in society, simply by virtue of their numbers.

Resolving to act against injustice tends to result from personal growth, about which Null writes:

. . . Adaptive Supportives must recognize that there is nothing intrinsic about them that prevents personal growth. … But they have to take charge of their own development. They can’t wait for some big boss figure to give them permission to change, to say it’s okay. The few Adaptive Supportives who do break through the “big-boss barrier” become very excited about their own untapped potential. … The catch is that they may need someone to work with them — generally a more dynamic personality — to keep them motivated and to supply structure and direction.

Just because Adaptive Supportives embody the turning-ship cliché doesn’t mean we should be discouraged. In fact, Null’s analysis should encourage us to cease lecturing them and throwing up our hands in exasperation. Instead, engaging them individually, we can draw out their needs and fears, and address them without the harshness — toward themselves as well as others — to which Adaptive Supportives are accustomed.

Still, it can’t be denied that engaging them on subjects such as politics, culture, and the future of the planet can be a thankless task. The most hidebound are best left to stew in their own juices. But, in the long run, most Adaptive Supportives would probably be glad to be weaned off those who prey upon their insecurities.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., as quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

“‘Mr. Obama said he’ll challenge Republicans to explain how they will cover large numbers of uninsured people. But Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.) rejected that standard. ‘We didn’t portray our bill as being universal coverage,” he said in an interview. “We never attempted to do that.’”

Well, this is somewhat of a departure from the standard GOP line, which contends that Republicans would love to do some version of comprehensive reform and cover the uninsured.  They just can’t sign onto the Democrats’ bill.

Anyone who has watched this debate knows this is crap. One need only look at history: when was the last time a Republican president proposed a comprehensive health care reform bill — or made any effort to cover the uninsured? (Answer: Richard Nixon.) When was the last time Republicans, when they controlled Congress, tried to pass comprehensive health care legislation?  Never.

Camp, to his credit, is simply stating the truth: Republicans don’t want to see comprehensive health care reform enacted. And covering the uninsured just isn’t their thing.  After all, why would you want to cover the uninsured when you could just cut taxes?

Meanwhile, the stalling of health care reform in D.C. has opened up the possibility of dramatic action in the states: California has proposed a single-payer system within its borders, Republican forces are mobilizing in two-thirds of all states to pass legal reforms that would outlaw have mandated health insurance (though federal law would supersede any such stipulation anyway), and Missouri, Virginia, and New Jersey are all contemplating reforms to expand coverage.

Bottom line: a lot of things may be up in the air right now. Clearly, Democrats are trying to be as overtly bipartisan as possible in order to give the GOP a chance to contribute–which, if history is any guide, they won’t. The real question is how the White House and Congress responds if Republicans continue to stonewall–how far across the aisle do the Democrats have to reach before they, and voters, feel that they’ve given cooperation a real chance? And how far states will get in implementing their own health care reform before the Beltway blowhards get their you-know-what together?