Red-Baiting 2010 Style

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
March 26, 2010

In the 1950 election squeaker that saw Governor G. Mennen Williams narrowly best former Governor Harry Kelly, one of the big issues of the campaign was not whether the state should build the Mackinac Bridge or even how to improve the state’s finances. No, it was the damn Reds. Not the Cincinnati Reds but the Soviet Reds, the Bolsheviks, the Commies. More specifically, the campaign dealt a lot with how the state would make sure no one with a pink tint was working in state government.

No, this is not a wistful look down memory lane when we all we had to worry about was nuclear annihilation with no warning. It is to make the point that national issues can easily outweigh state issues — and to say in the wake of the passage and signature of the national health care bill that there is a chance we the people of Michigan in November will decide who our next governor is, not on what that person will do to help restore the economy or fix the state’s fiscal position, but on where that person stands on the new national health care bill.

The politics of that vote swept over the state this past week, as it has every state, and it is impossible to anticipate what the overall public mood will be in November (towards anything really, whether it’s the health care law, the election, the new TV season, how the Yankees with Curtis Granderson — damn you, Tigers — will probably win the World Series, again), but this past week gave a fascinating preview of how both sides in the debate are going to fight this one ’til they all need hospitalization.

First, however, whatever one’s feelings about the health care law, take a breath, step back and admit, grudgingly for many, the fact that President Barack Obama and the Democrats’ victory was impressive. One can descry all one wants about tactics, strategies, deals (backroom-made or not), but honestly, just two months ago with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts it was assumed the health care bill was dead.

So in the teeth of ferocious opposition, which the Republicans somehow did not play well at all, as well as the natural timidity of politicians to run from anything that looks like their shadow, for this puppy to be aborn yelping is an accomplishment of its own. Your team may have lost the game, but a wise player still admires how his opponent crafted the victory.

Okay, back to reality. Focus this moment on what it means it various political races. Start with the one person no one would have thought a year ago would be a national figure: U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Menominee).

It is a rare feat to isolate both the left and the right, but Mr. Stupak done did it. Michigan is rare in that it has long had a strong Democratic anti-abortion faction in both state and national politics, and Mr. Stupak has been part of that faction.

First, he incensed the left by leading anti-abortion Democrats to oppose the House measure. Then, on the compromise that came from the Senate, that seemed to have split various Roman Catholic factions, that would have allowed federal reimbursement on private insurance that could pay for abortions, Mr. Stupak, after winning the additional guarantee of an executive order on abortion funding from Mr. Obama, voted for the bill.

Before the vote to approve the national health care bill, more-leftist Democrats were lining up potential candidates to run against Mr. Stupak in the August primary. Now it seems less likely that will occur, but not yet definite that Mr. Stupak will not face a primary challenge. The left is still wrestling with itself on the question. A primary challenge that Mr. Stupak should be able to beat easily could still hurt him in the general election.

And expect this to be a very tough general election for Mr. Stupak. Republicans have put up heavy hitters against Mr. Stupak in the past only to see them take the heavy hits. But the karma surrounding this race, the national hatred being fomented against him, the loss of the Right to Life endorsement, the possible isolation by the Catholic church, the potential for massive fundraising against him, the open call for opponents and the search for a topflight campaign manager (though recruiting for that post via Facebook seems a little weak) to direct the contest, could make this the congressional campaign of the still young millennium.

Previous to this, the political world was expecting U.S. Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) and U.S. Rep. Gary Peters (D-Bloomfield Hills) to have tough re-election campaigns (and they will, and passage of the health care bill significantly ups the ante in both those races), but Bart Stupak? Solid, stolid, kind of boring Bart Stupak? Book your hotel rooms in Marquette, Grayling, Alpena, Petoskey and Dollarville early to watch this race, ’cause, mercy, it could be epic.

Then to the governor’s race. Attorney General Mike Cox filed suit to try to block the new law. Not for a minute does one dispute that Mr. Cox sincerely opposes the new law on constitutional grounds, and would likely have filed suit even if he were not running for governor.

But he is running for governor. At a time when Republicans everywhere are screaming to repeal the new law, Mr. Cox gets a tremendous advantage by being able to say, as he has several times already, that he is actually taking the fight to the ring.

None of the other Republicans running for the post, not even U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Holland), gets that advantage. Mr. Cox can even fashion his move, as he has, that he is defending the constitution, which, frankly, just plays better with the public than the open political fighting over the specific bill.

Too bad for Mr. Cox then that the current governor, Jennifer Granholm, is a Democrat who supports the law and who delivered a mighty slap back at him when she directed him to effectively sue himself. Technically, he is now to intervene on behalf of the state and the governor to defend the new law he is trying to strike. Since Ms. Granholm is the client, the attorney general has no choice but to intervene.

It is not unknown for an attorney general to come down on both sides in a lawsuit, but the move both takes some of the starch out of Mr. Cox’s flag and was a tremendous boost to Democrats who want to fight back supporting the law.

Some points to keep in mind:

• The health care law is not going to be repealed. Not before 2013 anyway, and probably not totally ever. Even if Republicans win back the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama will veto any repeal, and the Tigers have a better chance of winning consecutive World Series (which, without Granderson, they won’t) than the Republicans have of winning a veto-proof Congress. Besides, by 2013 enough parts of the bill will have taken effect that it might prove difficult to eliminate those parts, so any repeal would be a partial repeal.
• It probably would be very bad if Mr. Cox’s lawsuit and that of 12 other states won, since it would reverse the basic operating principles the U.S. has used since something started about 150 years ago called the Civil War. If using a 10th Amendment argument (and just for the record, the 9th Amendment guarantees individuals all rights whether enunciated or not, so couldn’t one just as easily argue they have a 9th Amendment right to health care insurance?) wins, then one could see efforts by states to withdraw from the IRS, the Social Security system, the national highway system and wars (Hey, Iowa, we still need your National Guard in Afghanistan. Iowa? C’mon guys, seriously, 10th Amendment what? We’re getting shot up over here.). It is now settled law that all states must comply with federal law. Saying the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions are now the law of the land could be devastating.
• Which still means the U.S. Supreme Court could in another case decide essentially in Mr. Cox’s favor that the mandate provision is unconstitutional. The law actually does have safeguards limiting the mandates, religious objections for example, and the lineup of arguments both pro and con to the question is pretty impressive. So long as the 10th Amendment isn’t involved, if the issue fails on the basic question, well then, more fun for us.
• The ugliness of the congressional debate and rising threat of violence that accompanied the vote, mostly against Democrats but also against some Republicans, are a disturbing sign that we have forgotten the most basic value that makes a republic work: mutual respect. The Democrats won this time; the Republicans will win another time. This is the work of making laws, not declaring clan wars. Yet, for some two decades both parties have made politics objects of total war, and it is nothing more than stupid. What does Al Qaeda have to worry about if we tear ourselves asunder over transitory items?

So, welcome to red-baiting 2010 style. Pass the vodka, comrade.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.