The growing effort to couch scaling back healthcare reform efforts as some kind of solution, and remarkably as what Ted Kennedy would have wanted, brought to mind a fantastic post Jonathon Cohn wrote Monday at The Treatment, Scaling Back Reform: Dumb Policy, Dumber Politics. He wrote it in response to Kent Conrad's Sunday show appearances, in which he delivered the same message "he's been delivering for a while: It's time to scale back health care reform. "It's going to have to be significantly less than what we've heard talked about," Conrad said."

Still, it's safe to assume some of the advocates for scaling back are thinking about politics, too. And not without reason. After a rough month in which talk of "death panels" filled the airwaves and polls showed voters growing gradually more disenchanted with the administration's handling of health care, these people undoubtedly figure it's a safer political bet--that a smaller reform package will ultimately prove more popular. But would it really? As I've written previously, the legislation that's made it through committee has already been "scaled back." In order to keep the price tag at or below $1 trillion over ten years, Democrats had to write bills that would roll out reforms slowly, over several years, so that a new system was not fully in place until 2013 or later. That's a long time to wait for change, particularly if you're one of the unlucky souls who ends up without insurance--or with inadequate insurance--when illness strikes.... Put aside, for a moment, whether [scaling back] makes sense substantively. It makes absolutely no sense politically. Scaling down legislation basically means gutting the benefits that would go to the working and middle class. In other words, it would help fulfill the fear many of these voters already have and that opponents of reform have tried hard to stoke: That reform doesn't have much to offer the typical middle-income American. You can imagine why Republicans might think this is a dandy idea. But why on earth would Democrats agree?

Cohn's analysis of the substance of the various pieces of legislation is very good, and I recommend you read the whole thing. But his take on the politics is one that we see too infrequently from the analysts. Digby has a similar, and more trenchant, take:

This is, of course, assuming the Democrats actually want to pass their own agenda. If they don't, this behavior is merely political malpractice, whereby they allow themselves to be trapped into opposing their own initiatives and being blamed for their failure. In this case, you get crappy health care reform and look like a bunch of sell-out losers in the eyes of the American people. Heads you lose, tails they win. I've always said that the Republicans are an extremely effective opposition party and manage to advance their agenda even when they don't have institutional power, but this is ridiculous. If this works, they will never have to work to win another election --- the corporate Democrats will do their dirty work for them and they can just sit on the sidelines lobbing tea bags until it becomes clear to the American people that no matter how bad the Republicans are, they can't possibly be as lame as the Democrats.

Passing a strong, comprehensive healthcare reform bill? Smart policy, smarter politics.