Political Science

                 In 1774 upon his election to Parliament, Edmund Burke provided the classic description of the tension between representing one’s constituents and governing the nation. He said a representative should “live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living.” Burke believed this because he thought that Parliament “is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole.”  

 

                Burke then went to Parliament and voted his conscience. At the next election, the good people of Bristol decided to send a different representative to Parliament. And thus was born the Burkean dilemma: how can a legislator make decisions in the best interest of his constituents even if it is not in the interest of his constituents and remain in office.  

 

Tennessee legislators today are facing the age old tension between doing what they think is best for the state and representing their constituents. They may feel Insure Tennessee is good for poor constituents and rural areas, both of whom have less access to health care in the first place. Yet at the same time, many of their constituents are strongly opposed to President Obama and his health care proposal, aka Obamacare, so that voting for Insure Tennessee may put them out of step with their constituents and cost them their reelection.

 

More specifically, Republican legislators are facing conflicting pressures from groups that typically support them. Not wanting to alienate any of their reliable supporters, they are waiting to take a position until they are confident of the outcome to minimize the political damage. If Insure Tennessee looks like it will pass, many legislators will support it and take the electoral consequences. If it looks like Insure Tennessee will fail, the legislators can convince the governor to withdraw the proposal or vote to kill the proposal because Insure Tennessee supporters realize that legislators who normally support their cause would be stupid to vote for a controversial item that has no chance to pass.

 

This calculation specifically applies to the pragmatic conservatives In West Tennessee like Jimmy Eldridge, David Byrd, Curtis Halford, Tim Wirgau, Jon Stevens, and Ed Jackson. Democrats like Craig Fitzhugh and Johnny Shaw have no problems supporting Insure Tennessee because providing health care to more people easily fits their ideology and district interests. Holt is a Tea Party legislator and would not support Insure Tennessee under any circumstances.

 

Steve McDaniel’s support is not surprising because he better represents mountain (in East TN) or river (parts of Middle and West TN) Republicanism, a more moderate brand of Republicanism, that dates back to the Civil War. This combination of moderate Republicanism while representing constituents who are less affluent and would benefit from Insure Tennessee makes it easier for McDaniel to support Insure Tennessee.

 

The other pragmatic conservatives face more conflicting pressures from their electoral coalition. On the Insure Tennessee side are business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Tennessee Business Roundtable, health care providers, and civic groups of which many legislators are members. Members of these groups traditionally support Republicans. Moreover, these groups interact with the officials more and fund most of their campaigns. This strong business support is one reason that Rep. Eldridge and Sen. Jackson were initially more supportive of Insure Tennessee. Health care is the biggest industry in Jackson, West TN Healthcare is especially supportive of it, and the officials want to represent their district’s interests.

 

On the opposing side are conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity Tennessee (aka AFP TN – a Koch brothers group), the Beacon Center (a free market think tank), and the NFIB or National Federation of Independent Businesses which represents the interests of small businesses rather than corporate interests (e.g., TN Business Roundtable). These groups are more in touch with grassroots conservatives (AFP TN), provide policy analysis for legislators (Beacon), or reflect a large constituency of the GOP (small businesses).

 

Now look at their constituents. Most of these legislators represent rural districts which have less access to health care. In fact, the closure of Haywood County hospital last May was attributed to the failure to expand Medicaid in Tennessee. Since the rural areas are the most likely winners in the expansion of Insure Tennessee, these legislators have strong reasons to support the governor’s proposal because they do not want to be seen as voting to close more rural health facilities.

 

Yet, these same constituents are the biggest opponents of President Obama. The suburbs have been Republican for years. The rural areas provided Democrats with their majorities in the state legislature as local Democrats ran as conservative Democrats distinct from the national party. However, the election of Obama and the growing nationalization of politics blurred this distinction for many rural voters. The rural voters saw Obama as representing the Democratic Party and have punished Tennessee Democrats each election since 2008. Thus, rural voters have provided Tennessee Republicans with their majority and supermajority.

 

So from a legislator’s perspective, how do you vote for a proposal that benefits your constituents when those same constituents oppose the proposal? Insure Tennessee is a lose-lose political situation for Republicans. No matter how a legislator votes, one will alienate an important part of the Republican coalition. Vote for Insure Tennessee and make the business community, hospitals, and poor constituents happy but face a potential primary challenge because you anger conservative and party activists who oppose anything that smacks of Obama. Vote against Insure Tennessee and avoid a primary challenge from the right but anger the important interests in your community and many of your donors.

This question is complicated by the governor’s political miscalculations in promoting Insure Tennessee. First, Governor Haslam ran an issueless campaign in 2014 even though he was so popular that no one could challenge him in the primary or general election. He had to know that he was close to a deal with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) this past fall. If he ran strongly on something similar to Insure Tennessee, he could have claimed a mandate for the policy and would have a much easier time pushing his proposal through the legislature. Now, Haslam cannot run again for governor but all of the legislators can run for reelection. Who is going to sacrifice one’s legislative career when the governor wouldn’t sacrifice his electoral career?

 

Haslam is in the situation that Governors McWherter and Sundquist were in when they had easy reelections knowing that they were going to push the adoption of a state income tax after the election. Unsurprisingly since the governors would not risk their career, legislators, then and now, will not risk theirs.

 

Moreover with no significant opposition in the primary or general election, Haslam has neglected his statewide campaign organization and has not engaged Republican voters and activists much. In fact, Haslam campaigned for Republican gubernatorial candidates in other states the weekend before his own reelection. Because of this, many see Haslam with support that is a mile wide but an inch deep. Yes, Haslam won 70% of the vote last November but few legislators, party activists, and conservatives have strong ties to Haslam. Thus, Haslam has no political organization that can mobilize statewide support for Haslam’s proposals to convince legislators to support Insure Tennessee.

 

Second, Haslam wasn’t prepared for a fight. He expected easy approval even though the recent difficulty of Republicans in Arkansas to keep a plan similar to Insure Tennessee should have told him that opposition to Obamacare would hurt his chances of passing Insure Tennessee.

 

Third, Haslam has not kept the legislature informed of his plans.  He should have kept the legislative leaders and his allies better informed of the negotiations with the Obama Administration so he could have gotten more feedback along the way. When Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris (R-Collierville), one of the more moderate Senate Republicans and the point man for the Haslam Administration in the State Senate, complains about not being informed and not knowing the specifics of the legislation, it is clear that the legislature as a whole is probably not well informed. Lyndon Johnson’s old legislative adage is “don’t expect me to be there for the landing if I am not there on the takeoff.” Haslam did not include legislators on the takeoff and negotiation of the HHS waiver and thus they are less committed to the proposal as it approaches landing (and a crash landing at that).

 

Fourth, Haslam made a crucial error in waiting too long to provide specifics.  By declaring a deal on Dec. 15 but then providing information on the HHS waiver almost a month later, Haslam allowed his opponents time to define the policy. AFP TN opposed Insure Tennessee upon its introduction in December and has waged a fight ever since. Moreover, they have spent the past month declaring this Obamacare.  Meanwhile, Haslam did not provide enough information so that supporters could explain why it is not Obamacare.

 

AFP TN is now running ads across the state declaring Insure Tennessee is Obamacare and creating opposition among grassroots Republicans. The governor and his allies are now trying to fight back but they have not been able to come up with as effective strategy for labeling and explaining Insure Tennessee than AFP TN’s “Stop Obamacare Expansion.”

 

Because of the governor’s inability to define the terms of the debate, Republican legislators are receiving calls to oppose Obamacare and what Republican wants to run for reelection in 2016 having supported Obamacare? Republicans are worried about being “primaried” by a conservative opponent calling them a RINO or Republican in Name Only. This fear is a real concern because over 20 incumbents have been primaried each of the past two election cycles (though some of those primaried this past electoral cycle were Tea Party Republicans).  Moreover, AFP TN is threatening to oppose supporters of Insure Tennessee and with the Koch brothers and their friends promising to spend almost $900 million for the 2016 electoral cycle, many legislators may fear some of that money reaching their district. If they were confident that they would get similar funding supporting them in 2016, that might make a difference. However, Advance Tennessee a political action committee (PAC) created by friends and supporters of Governor Haslam had a poor track record of supporting winners this past August in Republican primaries.

 

The best example of these tensions may be newly elected Representative David Byrd.  He has establishment credentials as a former county commissioner, member of the chamber of commerce and Rotary Club while his time as a coach and principle taught him the importance of working for the good of the team. The Republican team, in this instance, is led by Coach Haslam who wants Insure Tennessee. Yet, Byrd defeated incumbent Republican Vance Dennis, a business friendly Republican in the 2014 primary with strong Tea Party support. In fact, his campaign treasurer, Dr. Shirley Curry, was the Tea Party candidate that barely lost to Dennis in 2012. Under these circumstances, it is a surprise that he is undecided rather than an outright opponent. And since he defeated an incumbent state representative, Byrd, more than most, understands that an incumbent can easily lose a primary.

 

This fear of losing a primary is real for other West Tennessee Republicans. Even though Eldridge, Halford, Stevens, Jackson, and Wirgau have no real reason to fear a primary challenge right now, the old adage is that there are two ways to run for office: unopposed and scared.  Right now, the recent history of challenges to incumbents from the right and their success have these legislators running scared and cause them to pause before supporting Insure Tennessee.

 

Finally, Insure Tennessee is a captive to recent history.  Haslam depicts Insure Tennessee as a two year pilot project that Tennessee can drop in two years if things don’t work out. However, legislators remember the problems with TennCare. Tennessee created TennCare in 1994 to expand access to health care and control costs. Unfortunately, TennCare was financially unsustainable and legislators had to remove 190,000 Tennesseans from TennCare beginning in 2005. The politics of removing poor Tennesseans’ health care was traumatic and many legislators have heard enough stories about that time to want to avoid potentially taking away health care from 170,000 (now 280,00 due to a recent estimate yesterday) Tennesseans in 2017 just two years after giving it to them.  

 

Small Government v State’s Rights

 

The debate over Insure Tennessee also brings into focus two competing views of conservatism. The small government mantra of Republicans is not as simple as it sounds. Republicans do favor smaller government but most of their concerns about small government is directed at the federal government.  Republicans do not mind states doing more. Republicans believe in state’s rights because states are closer to the people and can be more easily held accountable. Moreover, it is both more efficient and more effective to have flexible policies that address state specific problems rather than having a one-size-fits-all national policy.  Thus, states should have more power vis-à-vis the federal government and if they want to experiment with different policies, they should.   

 

 Insure Tennessee reflects the state’s rights idea that the lowest level of government competent to handle an issue should do so. Insure Tennessee achieves a national goal, increase health care, but it does it on Tennessee terms with largely national money. For many conservatives, this is one way to prove that there is an alternative to President Obama’s vision of highly regulated health care. Moreover, the health care crisis of rising costs is real (even though it has temporarily slowed down due to the recession and slow economic recovery). For this reason, no Republican Congress will repeal Obamacare unless there is a replacement because the politics of kicking millions of people off health care who have received it under the ACA is politically untenable. Replacing Obamacare will only happen if the winners in Obamacare feel the replacement makes them no worse off while the losers feel like they are getting a better deal.  Returning to the previous system does neither. Therefore, Haslam is proposing something with principles that could potentially replace Obamacare.  

It is the libertarian idea of minimal government period that opposes any expansion of health care.  These people believe that the American people will rejoice at the end of ACA and reward them. However, loss aversion says otherwise. Those who are most affected by a decision are most likely to mobilize. Just like those who saw higher premiums, fewer work hours, and worse insurance for the money under Obamacare have helped keep Obamacare unpopular, those who have their health care removed with repeal will make Republicans pay the price later. 

 

                So the real question for conservative is not whether we should replace Obamacare because they all agree it should be replaced. The question is replace Obamacare with what?   The libertarian wing has no solution to this question or no solution that can gain a majority in either chamber of Congress.

 

The Future of Insure Tennessee

 

When asked whether Insure Tennessee would pass, my initial thoughts were, “Sure, Insure Tennessee will pass. Huge reelection victory + business community support = legislative success. The primary opposition to Insure Tennessee is grassroots conservative organizations but business almost always wins these battles and will win this one.” Yet, the more I think about it. I can see why Insure Tennessee is in trouble.

 

Haslam has basically pursued an “inside game” while governor. He works with the relevant interests and gets their support and relies on them and the legislative leadership to get bills through. For his first term, most of his major proposals aligned with Republican interests and ideology and passed easily with little need for mobilizing public support. Moreover, the vast majority of the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate are pragmatic conservatives with a small minority of extreme conservatives. Thus, Haslam always had support for his positions among the vast majority of the Republicans in the two chambers. When faced with proposals that animate grassroots conservatives like open carry gun laws and Common Core, Haslam has relied on legislative leaders to derail the proposals rather than take on the extreme elements in this party.

 

Now that Haslam is trying to pass a bill that is not aligned with the party’s ideology, he needs an “outside game” of strong public relations combined with an organization that can mobilize supporters to pressure legislators to support Insure Tennessee. Unfortunately, he lacks it.

 

However, the Tea Party and libertarian Republicans excel at the “outside game” because that it is all they have.  At most, they have 15 members in the State House as demonstrated by the support for Andy Womick (R-Rockvale) in his quixotic bid against Beth Harwell (R-Nashville) for the Speakership this past December. They can’t use an “inside game” because they are a minority in the state legislature and Republican caucus. 

 

These Tea Party Republicans and their supporters also have a list of grievances against the “establishment” represented by Haslam.  First, these members and their supporters believe that Haslam and Speaker Harwell, one of Haslam’s closest allies, were behind efforts to delay the mark up of their bills, kill some of their bills, and manipulate the financial notes on their bills to justify killing them. Second, they feel that Haslam as well as Senators Corker and Alexander are not conservative enough and are upset that they cannot recruit quality candidates to run against and defeat them. Third, they felt that Haslam and the “establishment” worked to defeat Tea Party Republicans in primaries through the Advance Tennessee PAC and to defeat Tea Party candidates for the Tennessee Republican party Executive Committee through the Strong and Free Tennessee Pac. Fourth, many are complaining that the Haslam Administration is using blackmail to advance Insure Tennessee by threatening not to build roads in their districts in the upcoming transportation bill if they do not support Insure Tennessee.

 

All these things feed into the Tea Party narrative that it is the “true conservatives (i.e., Tea Partiers)” against the squishy moderates (Haslam et al). Now that Haslam has stated his need for Democrats to pass the bill with a minority of Republican legislators, the Tea Party groups are reminded of Congressional Republican leaders who “sell out” the grassroots to get things done in Washington. This feeds into the narrative that the establishment, represented by Haslam, does not respect or listen to grassroots conservatives.

 

Even though Insure Tennessee opponents have all of the momentum, Haslam may be able to turn things around if he can develop a strategy that defines the policy in a way that Republican legislators can defend to constituents, especially conservatives.  If not, he can agree to seek further changes that can make the bill more popular with conservatives. The problem is that those changes are ones to which the Obama HHS is unlikely to agree.

 

                Regardless, Republican legislators must decide whether the state legislature is a parliament of ambassadors or an assembly on one state. Right now, legislators are responding to the conservative groups that are most vocal. Unless Haslam can adopt a new strategy that changes the calculation of most legislators, the parliament of ambassadors will win.