The (Crowded) Politics of Reform

Today, I have a piece in the History News Network comparing President Clinton’s health care reform efforts to President Bush’s push for social security reform. I argue that:
 
“Although the features of Clinton's health care reform and Bush's Social Security reform were quite different, I believe they failed for the same reason: crowded politics. In both cases, the overwhelmingly number of groups and individuals interested in the issue created a paralysis, ultimately leading to the reform's downfall.
 
Gone are the days when policy design was negotiated and controlled through small Iron Triangles consisting of the relevant executive agency, the congressional committees of jurisdiction, and at most a handful of interest groups. Since the 1970s, the number of associations has more than doubled, the number of lobbyists has quadrupled, and the number of think tanks has grown six fold. Meanwhile, academics, politicians, and private citizens have become more interested and informed in a wider array of policy areas.”
 
I essentially suggest that all involved parties, whether they support, oppose, or simply study reform efforts, contribute to “crowded politics” and ultimately reduce the chances that a reform will succeed. I conclude by looking at President Obama’s current push for health care reform, saying that:
 
"Just because these two presidents failed, though, doesn't mean President Obama will. Of course, big reforms do sometimes succeed. And we are currently in quite unusual political and economic times where the combination of huge majorities, strong popular support, and a nation-wide crisis mentality may allow the president to achieve his goals.
 
But whether or not he succeeds, the president will have to confront the obstacles of crowded politics. We're already seeing resistance to many of the policies proposed to finance health reform. It comes from charities, the mortgage industry, veterans groups, the sugar industry, defenders of Medicare Advantage, liberals, and of course conservatives. And debates are abounding over what to do with the tax exclusions for employer-provided health insurance, whether to mandate coverage, if there should be an optional public plan, and whether health reform must be fully paid for in the short-run. As proposals become more concrete, opposition and resistance will surely strengthen. They may not prevent the president from achieving his reform, but they could neuter it so as to undermine his goals of universal coverage and large health care cost reductions. Ironically, Social Security reform might now be easier, as there has been some “de-crowding” in recent years. But whatever the policy, and whatever the time, this president and others will face a world of complexities – one where more information and more interest stifles or limits actions. Such is the nature of crowded politics, and the reality of our democracy.”