The First Casualty: A Political Campaign Lexicon

Re-Framing The Issue

Make the topic about what you want it to be - not what it is to others

Following the highly anticipated Health Care Decision by the United States Supreme Court, President Obama took to the cameras and said, "Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America - in the wealthiest nation on Earth - no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.  (Emphasis Supplied)

Yet that wasn’t the issue or the principle before the Supreme Court.  The Decision itself states at the outset,  "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions … In this case we must again determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess."

Focusing just on the individual mandate, that is, the law’s requirement that each individual purchase health insurance, the issue, and therefore the principle before the United States Supreme Court was really a simple question: What Part of the Constitution did Congress rely upon to pass the individual mandate?

 It is a question that perplexed even elected members of Congress: 

• Then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) became almost apoplectic when pressed on the question that she repeatedly responded, “Are you serious?  Are you serious?”
• Then Representative Phil Hare (D – Ill 17) when pressed on this topic at a town hall meeting stated, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this to be honest.”

In the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the mandate, there were only two possible arguments.  The first, and primary argument of the government was that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce gave them the power to require participation in the market.  The second, almost an after thought argument, was that Congress’ power to tax gave it the power to “take” money from individuals who did not purchase insurance.  It was the latter argument that prevailed. 

Mitt Romney provided a more nuanced reaction to the decision,  “Let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do," he said. "What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do is say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."

 With such parsing, he may have scored points with Constitutional Scholars and other intellectual purists, but he lost an opportunity to speak to the average voter who, with Obama’s encouragement, may consider the decision to be an endorsement of the his political aims.