An article by Politico profiles the work done by the Herndon Alliance and American Environics to reshape the health care debate in America

(original Politico piece here)

Health care reform is once again on everyone's lips. The current debate began to take shape on the road to the white house, in the primaries. It came from the camps of Obama, Clinton, and even Edwards. The need for health care reform was a hot button issue in the last election, a key signifier that across the board everyone was beginning to recognize the calls of their constituents to fix what many see as a system that was broken. But beyond repair? The question remains.

Previous campaigns to reform health care -- like the Hillary Clinton led initiative in 1993 - 94, and the Dean led one of 2004 -- failed by and large due to the fact that much of the focus was directed at the uninsured, while many of those who already had insurance were left twisting in the wind without a clue as to what their futures may hold with the new plan. As well, the great swath of disinformation coming from the right-wing in regards to what this "socialized" approach to medicine would hold for everyday Americans described scenarios oscillating at a Cold-War pitch not at all unlike those the AMA has been threatening the American public with for years.

Naturally, such disinformation sought only to derail the plan rather than to offer a genuine critique of the messaging strategy. But what it did was provide was a window into the thought process of those unconvinced segments of the American populace. When progressives went back to the table for this new round of debate, those at the Herndon Alliance were concerned with not replicating this prior mistake.

As the Politico piece elaborates:

"They [Herndon] position health care as part of the American dream -- providing peace of mind if their children fall ill, lifting the economic fortunes of the middle class and preventing anyone from losing insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

"Traditionally, those on the left have aimed at the head," Van Vranken said. "And a lot of this stuff is aiming at the heart, trying to get at the values of the American people. ... Everyone is serious about the words they are using and thinking long and hard about what resonates and what works and what doesn't scare the American people."

Those who helped organize Herndon were tired of losing the argument.

The source of much of that change in messaging is American Environics' social values research. American Environcis was hired to define groups of receptive population segments for targeting in upcoming debate about health-care reform.

[American Environics] identified persuadable constituencies, covering 67 percent of the electorate, and figured out what made them tick. "Proper Patriots" want hardworking people to get the health care they deserve. "Marginalized Middle Agers" want coverage they can count on, but are susceptible to attacks because they worry about government competence and dislike change. "Mobile Materialists" value individual choice over employer choice, and definitely favor a private market for insurance.

"By developing a health reform concept and an accompanying offensive narrative that connects with the values and beliefs of American voters while addressing the issues that concern them, we will expand the base of support for reform without losing those who are already with us," Herndon Alliance wrote in a 2007 presentation.

Herndon presented its findings to the campaigns of Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John Edwards. Deliberate or not, Herndon's footprints were discernable.

Clinton assured voters they could keep their insurance if they liked it, but could also choose from a mix of public and private plans. Obama always stressed the need to rein in insurers. Edwards tapped into polling that showed voters wanted a public insurance option.

Still, the fight has only just begun. As those on the climate side of regulation are beginning to realize, just getting our man into the White House is not a guarantee for any real, substantial change. Those of us fighting to reform America's Health Care have known all along that there are better options for the American people, but at least now we are beginning to understand just how to sell those options in the face of heavily entrenched resistance.

(original Politico piece here)

January 12, 2009,

Introduction
A broad inspection of public opinion data on the state of our economy reveals that Americans are worried about the future, less than optimistic about government's ability to face down the crisis, and ambivalent about Keynesian approaches to recovery.  Furthermore, as they imagine future possibilities, they seem to be relying upon traditional partisan and ideological understandings of the economy.  Thus, Democrats are more likely to support government spending as a stimulus strategy while Republicans are more likely to support reduced taxation.  However, the high incidence of "don't know" and contradictory or otherwise ambivalent responses suggests that Americans may be open to bold leadership.

This report consists of three parts.  The first summarizes the current state of public opinion regarding the economic crisis and its implications for Obama's proposed stimulus plan.  Here, we draw on surveys by CNN, Politico, Rasmussen, Gallup, and NBC/WSJ.  The second part of the report summarizes longitudinal data from the General Social Survey culled together by our research team.  These data reflect Americans' longstanding ambivalence regarding public spending and taxation.  The third offers some broad recommendations for approaching economic recovery given the current state of public opinion.
 
The Current Situation
Right now, Americans are feeling the pinch.  Fully eighty-nine percent of Americans report being dissatisfied with the current economic situation (63% are "very dissatisfied") (Politico).  Sixty-eight percent report that they are changing their habits to reduce their overall household spending (Gallup 12/14/2008).  Of those who have money in the stock market, 87% report losing money.  Almost half of them (47%) say they have "lost a lot of money in the stock market" in the past year (ibid.). According to Rasmussen polling released in early January 2009, half of Americans (50%) say their personal financial situation is getting worse while only 19% say their situation is improving.  As a result of the paired housing and financial crises, Americans are much more worried about their ability to "maintain the standard of living [they] enjoy" than they were prior to April 2008 when the housing crisis came to a head (Gallup).

Continue reading "Opinion Matters: How are Americans Thinking About Economic Recovery?" »