A couple of days ago I finished reading Robert Caro’s phenomenal Master of the Senate (which I earlier wrote about here). The last third of the book is about how Lyndon Johnson, the Senate majority leader for much of the 1950s, helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
As I was reading, I kept shaking my head at the parallels to the recent health care reform efforts in the Senate.
We tend to associate the legislative successes of the civil rights movement with the 1960s: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, place of recreation, etc.), and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discrimination against voters on the basis of race. But there was a Civil Rights Act of 1957 as well. The bill was intended as a sweeping measure against racial discrimination in everything from public accommodations to voting. But there was a big roadblock: the southern senators were dead set against it. No civil rights bill had passed the Senate since 1875, and the southerners meant to keep it that way.
But Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, the de facto leader of the southern senators and an ardent enemy of civil rights, desperately wanted a southerner in the White House. No true southerner had been elected president since before the Civil War, and Russell considered this a great embarrassment. Russell himself had run in 1952 and had failed to win the Democratic nomination; he was too southern, too much an enemy of civil rights, had too much of the “scent of magnolias” on him, to win the support of northern Democrats. But he came to realize that Lyndon Johnson was a southerner who could win. And LBJ himself desperately wanted the presidency; he had half-heartedly run for the nomination in 1956 and had lost, and he vowed not to make the same mistake in 1960.
Both men knew that the only way for Johnson to win the 1960 Democratic nomination was for the Senate to pass a civil rights bill; Johnson, as the Senate majority leader, could reap much of the credit and win accolades from northern liberals. But the southern Democratic senators would filibuster any bill they didn’t like, and the northern liberals of both parties would stand for nothing less than a sweeping civil rights act.
Johnson needed to water the bill down enough so that southerners would at least agree not to filibuster it, but not weaken it so much that liberals would abandon it.
First he managed to throw out the sweeping “public accommodations” portion of the bill, so that the law would cover only voting rights. This angered the liberals, but he convinced them that voting rights were what was really important; if blacks could vote, they would have the political power to get the more sweeping antidiscrimination provisions passed eventually.
But he weakened the voting rights provision as well. As things stood, there was no federal law under which southern officials could be sued for prohibiting blacks from registering to vote. The 1957 bill meant to change that by allowing such lawsuits. But Johnson managed to get the bill amended so that these lawsuits would have to be conducted as jury trials. Of course, no southern all-white jury would ever convict a southern registrar. So this would render the bill completely toothless. Northern liberals were even more outraged.
What did Johnson give to the northerners? He managed to add an amendment that banned racial discrimination in any federal jury nationwide: not just in southern voting cases, but in all federal trials everywhere in the country. But while this seemed like a good thing, in the South it would have no effect on voting rights cases, because any conviction of a voting rights official would have to be unanimous, and no white on a southern jury would ever vote to convict.
This was enough to convince the southerners not to filibuster the bill. But northerners were dejected. The bill was practically worthless; why not let it die? Why vote for it?
Because it would be a psychological victory, and it could lead to more substantial victories later. As Caro writes:
[Johnson] knew… that the most important thing wasn’t what was in the bill. The most important thing was that there be a bill.
One of the reasons for this was psychological. The South had won in the Senate so many times that there existed in the Senate a conviction that the South could not be beaten, particularly on the cause that meant the most to it. … A victory over the South would begin destroying this mystique. Demonstrate that the South could be beaten and more attempts would be made to beat it.
Johnson saw this. … He used a typically earthy phrase to explain it. “Once you break the virginity,” he said, “it’ll be easier next time.” Pass one civil rights bill, no matter how weak, and others would follow.”
And there was a further reason, Lyndon Johnson saw, why the passage of any civil rights bill, no matter how weak, would be a crucial gain for civil rights. Once a bill was passed, it could later be amended; altering something was a lot easier than creating it.
The liberals came around, and the bill passed, and Eisenhower signed it into law.
And a few years later, Congress passed sweeping civil rights and voting rights measures. And the president who signed those bills into law was Lyndon Johnson.
(Look at Robert Kennedy in the front row of this photo — enlarge it, look at his face: what is he thinking, seven months after his brother’s assassination, as he watches his adversary Lyndon Johnson sign the Civil Rights Act that his brother fought so hard to get passed? He looks haunted.)
The Democrats can’t give up on health care reform. Ironically, now it’s the House that needs to take action, not the Senate. The House needs to pass the Senate bill. It’s not a perfect bill, but once health care reform is signed into law, it will be easier to fix it later. The “virginity” of health care reform will be broken. They could do this in a day and then move on to other things. And it would be a huge psychological victory as well.
Pass. The. Damn. Bill.
Excellent! A perfect example of why something is better than nothing. However, the Civil Rights Acts also show why the Republicans will be committed to do everything they can to block ANY reform bill lest it be the slippery slope to Nazi fascist Muslim communist government rationed health care.
The Senate bill is not a healthcare bill at all. It is a wealthcare bill that moves backwards, not forward. Fining people for not being able to pay exorbitant premiums, slashing Medicare, restricting abortion, and shoveling more money at corporations who get more than enough money already to provide quality healthcare to all Americans is not reform.
The Senate could easily pass real healthcare reform with budget reconciliation. The filibuster is an empty excuse that anti reform politicians like Harry Reid have used far too long.
Of course this bill is reform.
If we’re going to have a bill that prohibits insurances companies from denying people insurance based on pre-existing conditions, then healthy people will avoid getting health insurance until they get sick, which will mean that only sick people will have health insurance and premiums will skyrocket. So you have to mandate that healthy people get health insurance, so you have a more even risk pool. What other mechanism is there for making sure healthy people buy health insurance besides fines? Also, this bill subsidizes health insurance for millions of people. This bill gives people money to help them buy insurance.
And yes, those premiums would go to insurance companies. Ideally, we would have a public option or a single-payer system, but that’s just not going to happen in this environment. Given that, who’s left to provide insurance? Insurance companies. What is the next best thing to do? Nothing?
This bill is flawed, but it does lots of good. And it’s psychologically easier to fix an existing program than to pass one from scratch, which is the point of my post. We are THISCLOSE to passing a program from scratch — all the House needs to do is pass the goddamn bill.
And not everything can be done through budget reconciliation. It would be better for the House to pass the Senate bill and then use reconciliation for the rest. Nate Silver explains here and here.
There are some facts you are not aware of.
We already spend more per person on healthcare than any other country in the world.
Most people in this country get less healthcare than people do in Canada and most of Europe.
The HMOs and insurance companies already get more money than is needed to provide healthcare for everyone in our country now. No one in this country needs to pay a penny more.
The subsidies for healthcare don’t come close to what the HMOs and insurance companies charge. Most of the people who lack coverage now will simply have to pay the fines or go to prison.
Also, keep in mind the fact that premiums and HMO charges will skyrocket once the system of fines is in place. The money going to HMOs and health insurers never has had anything to do with actual costs. It’s what those thieves can get away with.
If you don’t believe me, remember what happened when California made car insurance mandatory. Everyone’s premiums immediately skyrocketed, even though people were told the legislation would make them go down.
There is this big myth that people who aren’t buying health insurance are “cheating the system.” That is just as much a scam as the whole “ex gay” thing. It is perpetrated by wealthy and upper middle class people who have health insurance and have no clue what most people in this country actually have to go through.
The idea of “doing something” can sound great. But, this is a case where there is a far right wealthcare bill that manages to achieve what many considered improbable or impossible. It’s far worse than even what we have now.
The Senate legislation will cut benefits, make poor people poorer, make HMOs and health insurers wealthier. The fact is that it won’t provide healthcare for anyone. This is why we need public financing of political campaigns to fight the massive corruption in DC.
What is your suggestion, then libhomo? What should we do? My preference is for socialist revolution, but beggars can’t be choosers.
You’re saying it will cut benefits, make poor people poorer, and won’t provide healthcare for anyone, when it will actually give people health insurance subsidies, thereby helping them buy health insurance and save tons of money when they get medical care instead of paying thousands of dollars out of their own pockets? And you really think people are going to go to prison for not buying health insurance?
This debate is kind of out of date, anyway, since it looks like whatever eventually get signed into law will not be exactly like the current House or Senate proposals. You’re also forgetting the political aspect of this whole thing, which was the whole point of this blog post, which is that passing something now will be a big psychological victory that will make it easier to get more victories later, because altering a system is easier than creating it.