GOP’s “New” Health Care Playbook Echoes 1993 Harry And Louise Ads
Okay, this is striking. This morning The Politico reported that uber-GOP pollster Frank Luntz has concocted a 26-page strategy memo advising Republicans on what language to use in the coming health care debate.
But if Luntz and House GOPers were hoping this new linguistic strategy would help the party recast itself as ready for today’s challenges — and not trapped in the past, as Dems have sought to portray them — they have a bit of a problem.
That’s because the language echoes, to a striking degree, the same language that was used in the infamous “Harry and Louise” ads to defeat health care reform back in 1993 — 16 years ago.
Luntz recommends that GOPers use the phrase “Washington bureaucrats,” and say they’ll make folks’ health care decisions. He recommends they emphasize the word “denial,” saying the Dems’ health care will “deny people” treatments they’re seeking. And he says GOPers should emphasize the idea that people will be deprived of their right to “choose” the health care they want.
That’s the basic linguistic framing of the issue Luntz wants GOPers to use. Now check out the text of the 16-year-old Harry and Louise ad, which was run by opponents of reform and played a big role in defeating it:
Louise: But this was covered under our old plan.
Harry: Oh, yeah, that was a good one, wasn’t it?
Narrator: Things are changing, and not all for the better. The government may force us to pick from a few health care plans designed by government bureaucrats.
Louise: Having choices we don’t like is no choice at all.
Harry: They choose.
Louise: We lose.
Narrator: For reforms that protect what we have, call toll free. Know the facts. If we let the government choose, we lose.
The framing is virtually identical. Both hit these three main elements: Reform denies you health care; it puts health care decisions in the hands of bureaucrats; and it deprives you of the right to make your own choices.
To be clear, we don’t know yet how closely Congressional Republicans will follow Luntz’ advice. While such messaging was very effective 16 years ago, the recycling of it could leave Republicans open to charges that they don’t understand how much the landscape has changed since then. Indeed, it could help opponents paint them as backward looking and lacking in new ideas.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Boy they are totally deaf, dumb and blind, Greg. I think the country has moved way beyond these concerns – they’re old news. Some people – say, the 20% base the GOP has left, comprised of white supremacists, very confused evangelical Xians and generally enraged old white dudes and their wives – might still buy this. I really don’t think many other Americans are going to pay much attention to it.
Most people aren’t unaware of exactly what their health insurance will cover until they experience a severe accident to themselves or a loved one that requires an emergency procedure only to find out the procedure is not covered or the deductible is more than they can afford to pay. Insurance in the US is only for health people. Once you have an injury or sickness beyond general practice or emergency treatment, the insurance company finds ways to drop you. And once you reach 50, you’re on your own.
Tena, this debate couldn’t happen at a better time. With all the people unemployed and using COBRA to extend their health insurance, the issue is ripe for debate! Especially seeing how the economic outlook is bleak and the chances of regaining a job with salaries and benefits near to what they lost are slim and none, there’ll be quite a number of people demanding their Congress critters pass a universal health care bill. Otherwise, when their COBRA benefits run out, they’ll be casted adrift.
Another aspect of the GOP’s new messaging is to come out on any issue and say they are “passionate” about “reform” as a cover for their obstructionism. Specious.
Well, that’s handy. I hope the Democrats have learned their lesson in how to respond to these asinine smears. For example, everyone repeat after me: Which bureaucrat do you want making decisions? One who has your health in mind or one who has his shareholders’ profit in mind? You have to choose.
Greg
.
Luntz’s big thing is word. He believes that you can change a word here or there in a statement you have already made to make it more effective. So in effect this is Harry and Louise 2.0. For instance he doesn’t want people to say a Democratic plan would be government “run” any more. He wants them to say its a government “takeover”. Kinda has that facist feel to it dontcha know.
Yeah, but they sure play a mean pinball!
More importantly, changes in the landscape will render such attacks much less potent.
.
Healthcare costs have risen hugely more than inflation, and this has impacted very many of us. Jobs with little or no health insurance. Higher deductibles. Reduced coverage. More people enrolled in HMOs and fewer in PPOs. More individual battles with insurers about what is and isn’t covered.
.
Yeah, GOOPers will be open to charges they just don’t get it. That’s probably because they just don’t get it.
Luntz is a very smart and effective guy. I expect the Republicans will run with something very like what he has proposed, in part because they seem to be stuck in old patterns that once looked successful and in part because they may well have no one better than Luntz who they might turn to for alternative strategies. Further, they’ll have a LOT of money provided (to GOP and front groups) and a lot of big time lobbyists. This will be a propaganda war as it was in ‘93.
As MD and Tena suggest however, the times are different now. That’s a matter of the economy and, I think, a matter of citizen re-evaluation of the old formula of “government is bad”.
I think the Obama team is going to win this one but it isn’t certain and it won’t be easy. Obama as spokesperson, on this matter as all matters, will provide an enormous advantage (Luntz correctly points to the value of personalizing and nobody around does this better than Obama presently). Apart from the dire seriousness of this issue, it will be a fun battle for those Dems engaged.
Bernie — there’s no question that Luntz is good and has been successful. That said, I really associate Luntz with the GOP’s linguistic successes of the mid-ninties … I wonder whether he grasps how much the political landscape has shifted. The current effort suggests he doesn’t.
What the Republicans don’t realize is that people with insurance are currently denied care by bureaucrats and have limited choices that aren’t really choices in the current health care system. By changing the insurance provider to the federal government rather than an insurance company the only difference will be the number of people covered by the new health care system.
I personally like the idea of a health care system that is not run on the basis of making a profit for the insurer and will cover nearly everyone.
Arlen…no, sorry, Greg – I suppose that the cognitive science boys would argue that certain facts about how our minds work make such manipulative techniques less susceptible to corrosion through time or cultural change than we’d think. We could think, for a parallel example, of the efficacy of marketing techniques developed in the 20s – 40’s.
I think the way in which you might be right and Luntz in error here is if a broad segment of the population recognizes the attempt at manipulation (we could imagine Clairol trying to push “redheads have more fun” then a year later, “brunettes have more fun”) Another example might be the use of fear-promotion as a technique, where the repetition of the technique over a long period makes it more visible as a manipulative device.
Still, Luntz usually field-tests his stuff with focus groups and polling, so he’s not merely hoping his tricks will work.
My expectation is that Obama’s people (and others aligned) will have counter-framings already well designed and ready to go. I also expect they’ll be studying Luntz’s prescriptions as thoroughly as their intended Republican audience studies them.
And finally, in support of your/my hopes, there’s no question that Dems have become far more expert at this game Luntz plays than they were in the early 90s. A year and a half ago, Drew Westen said in a lecture I attended that he’d been working with the Dems in the election run-up.
So, really, I just wanted to remind us all that we ought not to submisunderestimate guys like Luntz or Norquist or Rove. Unlike Bush or so many of the current crop of Republican office-holders, they aren’t uneducated and anti-intellectual doofuses. I think their time in power is over but their techniques and strategies will retain efficacy.
Tiff said:
“I personally like the idea of a health care system that is not run on the basis of making a profit for the insurer and will cover nearly everyone.”
.
There’s a good example of a counter-framing that will likely prove effective in the modern environment.