History: It Changes.

It's never a good sign when you use an argument that's already been tried by Michael Goldfarb, and that's the case with this from Megan McArdle:

I'm reliably informed that the Democrats think they're better off doing this alone than not doing it at all, and so it has to pass. If so, it will be the first time in history that I can think of that a single party passed anything of this size--certainly not a major new entitlement. Medicare and Social Security both had considerable Republican votes, something I don't see this time around.

Noting that Medicare and Social Security had significant Republican support is about is relevant as noting that prior to 1992 it was extremely unusual for a Democrat to win the White House without carrying Mississippi. The rather obvious difference with the current situation and the laws that McArdle cites is that parties have become aligned ideologically. Of course Medicare and Social Security had lots of Republican support: There were lots of northern liberal Republicans in Congress, whose support was often needed to counterbalance the reactionary segregationists in the Democratic caucus. In the current context, conversely, the liberal northern Republican is virtually extinct, and the few remaining ones are 1) subject to much stronger party discipline than was the case in 1937 or 1965, and 2) are more heterodox on social than fiscal matters. So thinking that the same kind of legislative coalition was viable would be silly.

More importantly, looking beyond the very short-term, it's all irrelevant politically. The evidence is overwhelming that the public evaluates policy by how it affects them, not based on the process by which it was enacted. A bill passed along partisan lines that people like will be popular. A bipartisan bill that forces people to pay large percentages of their incomes for crappy insurance will be extremely unpopular (and hurt the governing Democrats.) It's really that simple.

--Scott Lemieux