Online NewsHour: Broder and Johnson on "The System"

A Conversation with Haynes Johnson and David Broder

authors of "The System" The American Way of Politics at the Breaking Point

Q: How did you come up with the idea for "The System?"
Johnson: As collaborators we have been watching and reporting on The System -- the presidency, the Congress, the political parties, the lobbyists, and the press -- for more than 35 years. It is very apparent today that people feel they can no longer trust their leaders or the institutions that are supposed to govern them. There is a pervasive and corrosive belief in America that our government, our entire political system, is broken. We thought it was time to explore the question: "Does The System work anymore?" And we decided to use the recent debate over health care reform as the vehicle for our investigation because it impacted on every citizen, touched on every issue, and involved every key component of The System.
Q: There have been other books, articles, and news stories written about Bill Clinton's failed health care reform initiative and the problems plaguing American politics. What's different about this book?
Broder: What makes this book unique is the fact that much of it is presented from the first-person perspective of key participants in the health care struggle. The fact that Haynes and I have worked together and watched The System evolve over a period of 35 years also gives us a historical perspective that other writers may not have. Finally, we've looked at this not just from an "inside politics" point of view but also from the perspective of doctors, nurses, and others on the front lines of the health care issue.
Johnson: I think this is an unusually candid exposition of how individuals in our political system deal with issues of national importance.
Q: How did you gather sources for this project?
Broder: When the health care fight started moving onto the horizon in early 1993, we locked down commitments from all the key players to let us interview them on a regular basis during the struggle -- however long it took. They agreed to tell us what was happening behind the scenes; to describe their emotions and feelings; to reveal the strategies they were employing; and to let us in on their own internal struggles throughout the reform process.
Johnson: As we invested more and more time over a period of three years, key players started treating us almost as if we were their psychiatrists. They would call us up -- when things were falling apart -- and say they wanted to see us. They wanted us to know what they were going through in a way that was quite remarkable.
Q: What do you think will most surprise readers of this book?
Johnson: I think readers will be surprised at the candor with which many of the key players speak and at the complicated nature of the story. I think they'll be surprised when they realize how many times a different action or a different approach on the part of the White House or Congress might have led to a totally different result. And I think people will be surprised at the degree of cynicism evident in many of the lobbying efforts that were aimed at destroying health care reform. Even with the negative politics we're now accustomed to, cynicism reached new heights during the health care battle.
Broder: I think readers will be surprised to learn that many in the Clinton administration -- from the President on down -- felt that the best chance to achieve health care reform had expired even before the plan was formally presented to Congress. Very few people realize the extent to which the administration pinned its hopes on getting reform passed by the spring or summer of 1993. I also think readers will be thoroughly surprised when they read that Newt Gingrich had anticipated the health care reform fight almost two years before Clinton was elected and that Gingrich planned to use any battle over health care to wipe out Democratic control of Congress.
Q: You are both veteran political reporters and have covered every President of the past four decades. Is there anything in particular that surprised you as you conducted your interviews for this project?
Broder: Bill Clinton's statement that he had unintentionally set Congress up for a fall is one of the most extraordinary admissions that either of us has ever heard a sitting President make about his own actions. Clinton was extremely candid in admitting that he took on more than he could accomplish with the political capital he had in the bank; that he missed opportunities to reach out to Republicans for a bipartisan bill; and that ultimately he contributed directly to his party's loss of control on Capitol Hill.
Johnson: That statement took our breath away. He was being extremely analytical. It wasn't said in an LBJ or Nixonian way with a wringing of hands; it was said in the spirit of totally accepting responsibility for his actions. It's not something sitting Presidents usually say or even write about later in their memoirs.
Q: What were the biggest mistakes made by the Clinton administration during the health care battle?
Johnson: Trying to do too much too fast. Bill Clinton wanted to regenerate the economy and become the new FDR. But with only 43 percent of the vote, he was really a minority President. He tried to do it all at once and in the end accomplished nothing.
Broder: I think one of his biggest mistakes was in trying to use an "in-house" task force to develop his reform policy rather than letting it be developed at some distance from the White House. It was also a mistake to place Hillary in charge. Cabinet members and advisers didn't push their own positions very strongly because they knew they couldn't compete with the First Lady. Another big mistake was the use of two different legislative strategies. The administration accepted the judgment of leading House Democrats that they needed to build their coalition from the left first and then move toward the center. In the Senate their strategy was to build a bipartisan coalition with the Republicans. The two different approaches were never reconciled amid ended up undermining each other.
Q: Why was it such a blunder to implement a secrecy policy for the task-force?
Johnson: The policy development process stretched out from January to October 1993. By the time the bill finally reached Capitol Hill, the administration had given up nine months of valuable time that might have been used to educate voters. By keeping the lid on what was going on inside the task force the Clinton administration presented its opponents with an opportunity to define the issues and set the agenda.
Q: Is the failure of Health care reform totally Bill Clinton's fault?
Broder: Absolutely not. The whole battle revealed significant problems in the Democratic Party as it broke down into a group of squabbling tribes or enclaves. Although they were in control of the entire federal government, Democrats failed to pass legislation that they had been promising for 60 years or more, and didn't even manage to generate a single roll call vote in the House or Senate. This stunning failure reflects much more on the Democratic Party than it does on Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Johnson: Another group that needs to be considered is the news media. The press failed to explain fully the stakes in the health care battle or properly investigate the intense lobbying that was taking place. While there were flashes of brilliance along the way, reporting was generally inadequate and failed to do justice to the complicated -- and critical -- issues involved.
Q: Is there a particular incident or anecdote in "The System" that stands out in your mind?
Johnson: Bob Kerrey and Ted Kennedy's stormy confrontation at a Democratic leadership luncheon in August 1994 was a stunning event. Observers were shocked as they watched Kerrey and Kennedy turn on each other. They came away convinced that the Democratic Party was falling apart.
Broder: The failed Health Care Bus Caravan was also an important milestone. In a desperate attempt to recall the freedom riders of the civil rights movement, the administration loaded buses at various locations around the country with victims of terrible health care tragedies. The White House thought the nation would respond to the plight of the victims as the buses made their way, along four separate routes, to Washington. Instead the buses became a moving target for a marvelously sophisticated and cynical opposition campaign, coordinated with the secret help of Newt Gingrich's office.
Q: Are there any "heroes" in this story?
Broder: There are several individuals who operated from beginning to end with complete political integrity as if they believed their part in this process was to try to get as much done as possible. Republican Senator John Chafee was an example of someone who kept trying to “move the ball down the field" despite unbelievable pressure from other Republicans to derail any and all health care reform. Another "hero" was Bob Reischauer, the head of the Congressional Budget Office (CEO). Reischauer had his own strong personal belief in the importance of health care reform but insisted that his organization remain an honest scorekeeper in the game. He stood up to unbelievable pressure from all sides to trim or fudge the numbers in favor of one group or another, and insisted on maintaining the integrity of the CBO.
Johnson: When the public thinks of The System they think only of a massive bureaucracy. They often fail to see that there are selfless public officials who engage in great acts of personal courage to do what they think is right. Chafee and Reischauer represent The System at its best.
Q: Constitutional and political roadblocks that make it hard to enact huge policy changes quickly are an ' integral part of The System. Some might suggest, therefore, that everything operated exactly as it should have during the health care battle. What's your reaction?
Broder: It's true that The System is designed to make it difficult to enact large changes. But it's not designed to make it impossible to address universally acknowledged national problems. The argument that The System worked exactly as it was meant to may be true if you assume the Clinton plan was flawed. But Clinton's effort was only the latest in a half-century of attempts by administrations and congresses of both parties to address the nation's health care needs. If The System was truly working our health care problems would have diminished over time, not grown larger. In this case, it is clear The System is failing the people it is supposed to serve.
Johnson: In 1992 there was an overwhelming national consensus that health care needed to be reformed but despite all that public opinion nothing happened! Something should have been done. Some small incremental step should have been taken. But The System didn't even manage to bring a bill to a vote. And Republicans are no less stalemated today on Medicare and Medicaid reform than the Democrats were during Clinton's failed reform effort.
Q: Why do you characterize pro-business groups and special interests as "crypto-political parties?"
Johnson: The political process today is loaded down with people for hire -- representing narrow, selfish interests -- who manufacture and manipulate public opinion and then present it as "the voice of the people." Unfortunately they are answerable to no one.
Broder: Reform groups emphasize limiting or ending private contributions to political candidates, or forcing greater public disclosure of contacts between lobbyists and public officials. But even if such changes are implemented they will have little impact on the way special interests operate today. Interest groups have become political parties in their own right. They have their own communications networks, lists of supporters, sloganeers, image makers, and "campaign workers." The difference is that political parties represent broad coalitions of voters who at least agree on a general approach to government. Special interest groups, on the other hand, represent narrow interests with very specific economic goals.
Q: Can we get "The System" back on track?
Johnson: Despite all the problems of American life, we've made enormous progress in this society. The System has always responded when people fully comprehend what the stakes are. That's why we need to better understand The System's problems. As voters we need to turn out in greater numbers at the polls and stop listening to fear-mongers. As politicians we need to campaign for initiatives in ways that bring the public in rather than force them out. As journalists we need to make the issues more understandable and shed light on the secrecy-shrouded lobbying campaigns, that create phony public opinion. If we do not make these and other changes, cynicism and disgust will continue to erode our political institutions and our government.
Q: What lessons do we need to take from the health care battle to future attempts to achieve major reform on controversial issues?
Broder: In a political system where power is divided and where the constitution has installed major barriers to large-scale rapid change, political leaders need to advance their objectives in small incremental steps. They also have to accept that a precondition to effective progress is informing the public of its stake in any change. The health care reform battle has taught us that we need to rebuild the institutional capacity of the country to advance change in the public interest. Private interests are a legitimate part of an open society. But when the balance is tilted so heavily toward their power to set the agenda and there is no offsetting institutional capacity -- either in the Presidency or among political parties -- the constitutional system cannot work for the public good.
Q: What do you want readers to get out of this book?
Broder: I hope readers will come away with a realization that the people who make up the system are fallible human beings struggling with very important issues. I want readers to have a better understanding of what these people go through in trying to accomplish their work. I also hope readers will come away with a useful historical perspective on what has happened to our government and our political system and why it has reached the point where it seems incapable of dealing with serious national challenges.
Johnson: It is important for readers to understand the stakes involved in this kind of battle and how the power to manipulate public opinion is used today. I hope they'll be able to see that this book is not merely a description of the techniques, strategies, philosophies, and ideologies that were used to fight one battle. This is the story of what's happening throughout our government and our political system today.


Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.

PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.