Is the bloom off the Obama rose?

Dorothy Rabinowitz thinks that Obama and his administration's response to protests against their health care plans have revealed something of the true man behind all that adulation we saw during the campaign.

There was no such hand-wringing over the decline of civil debate, during, say, election 2004, when cadres of organized demonstrators carrying swastika-adorned pictures of George W. Bush routinely swarmed about, and packed rallies. There was also that other “breakdown of our media culture,” that will dwarf all else as a cause for embarrassment, the town-hall coverage included, for the foreseeable future. That would be, of course, the undisguised worshipful reporting of the candidacy of Barack Obama.

That treatment, or rather its memory—like the adulation of his great mass of voters—has had its effect on this president, and not all to the good. The election over, the warming glow of those armies of supporters gone, his capacity to tolerate criticism and dissent from his policies grows thinner apace. His lectures, explaining his health-care proposals, and why they’ll be good for everybody, are clearly not going down well with his national audience.

This would have to do with the fact that the real Barack Obama—product of the academic left, social reformer with a program, is now before that audience, and what they hear in this lecture about one of the central concerns in their lives—his message freighted with generalities—they are not prepared to buy. They are not prepared to believe that our first most important concern now is health-care reform or all will go under.

The president has a problem. For, despite a great election victory, Mr. Obama, it becomes ever clearer, knows little about Americans. He knows the crowds—he is at home with those. He is a stranger to the country’s heart and character.

He seems unable to grasp what runs counter to its nature. That Americans don’t take well, for instance, to bullying, especially of the moralizing kind, implicit in those speeches on health care for everybody. Neither do they wish to be taken where they don’t know they want to go and being told it’s good for them.

Who would have believed that this politician celebrated, above all, for his eloquence and capacity to connect with voters would end up as president proving so profoundly tone deaf? A great many people is the answer—the same who listened to those speeches of his during the campaign, searching for their meaning.

It took this battle over health care to reveal the bloom coming off this rose, but that was coming. It began with the spectacle of the president, impelled to go abroad to apologize for his nation—repeatedly. It is not, in the end, the demonstrators in those town-hall meetings or the agitations of his political enemies that Mr. Obama should fear. It is the judgment of those Americans who have been sitting quietly in their homes, listening to him.

Both Rabinowitz and William McGurn note the semi-religious appeal of the Democrats' crusade for universal, government-provided health care. Here is Rabinowitz.

Crusades are busy endeavors, the enlistees in this one, like those in every undertaking of this White House, concerned with just one message. Which is that the Obama administration is in possession of vital answers to ills and inequities that have long afflicted American society (whether Americans know it or not), and that those opposed to those answers and that vision are cynics, or operatives of the powerful vested interests responsible for the plight Americans find themselves in (whether they know it or not), or political enemies bent on destroying the Obama administration.

I wouldn't advise the Republicans to celebrate prematurely. The Democrats still have the power to push through some version of their health care plan. It might not be as overreaching as the House and Kennedy plans, but that was always likely to be the case. Legislation usually begins at the more extreme end and moves toward the middle to pick up more supporters. And once they get some sort of public option put into place, they can then follow the inexorable path of all entitlement plans and expand into a huge, new government program. As Fred Barnes writes, the Democrats' Plan B is no good either.

s you might expect, there are many, many problems with Plan B. Its first impact would be on health insurers. All but the largest five or six of 1,300 insurers across the country would be out of luck. Since Plan B would reduce the profits for insurance companies, and those with smaller margins--namely, regional, state, and local insurers--probably wouldn't be able to compete.

"It's another chapter in the book on crony capitalism," says Republican representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who first described Obamacare 2.0 as "Plan B." "The government erects barriers to entry against the smaller and most innovative insurance companies and leaves the big, established firms in place."

Insurers would be allowed to offer new policies after 2013 only if they joined a government-operated "exchange." And the policies would have to include a minimum--and more extensive and expensive--set of benefits. This would deny smaller firms their competitive advantage of offering insurance packages with fewer benefits, specially tailored for a client's needs....

The biggest impact of Plan B would be on all of us, assuming it retains most or all of the regulatory requirements and details of Obamacare. There would be victims and beneficiaries. As insurers go out of business, people would lose the coverage they've chosen. Young people, the healthy ones, would suffer even more. They'd have to pay far more for their coverage. Cheap catastrophic plans and cost-saving health savings accounts would be unavailable. By paying more, those in their 20s and 30s would subsidize the old and sick.

With all the new benefits--for mental health treatment and "professional services" and "well baby/child" services--the total cost of health insurance is bound to soar. The poor and uninsured will need a subsidy. Caps on out-of-pocket expenses will increase the cost of insurance. And so on. The price will have to be paid through higher premiums and tax hikes.

So, those opposed to Obamacare may win the battle and lose the war.

And don't celebrate the bloomless rose of President Obama too soon. I still don't see a Republican capable of beating him in 2012. The Republicans' only hope is to reduce the stranglehold that Democrats have in Congress.

I think that there were many people who voted for Obama because they were inspired by the idea of electing the first black man for president. They bought a lot of his rhetoric and found John McCain singularly uninspiring and rather clueless on the economy. Perhaps they didn't like Sarah Palin. But the Republicans still have to come up with a candidate. You can't beat someone with no one. And somehow I just don't see those currently in the mix such as Romney or Pawlenty as being able to draw enough independents back to the Republican column against the media onslaught and Obama campaign skills that we will see in the 2012 election.