The Myth of Choice_ Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits - Kent Greenfield [13]
Yet it is not just wig-wearing eighteenth-century types who think of consent and choice as a powerful political frame. Present-day political movements also use it with great regularity.
The biggest issue during Obama’s first two years in office was the effort to reform health care, and much of the debate depended on rhetoric about choice, freedom, and personal responsibility. Obama and the Democrats initially advocated a “public option,” which would give Americans an additional choice for health insurance, namely a government-run insurance company. The Republicans successfully opposed the public option by saying it was inconsistent with the free market. The Democrats were successful in winning protection for people with pre-existing conditions, giving them the freedom to buy health insurance and the right to protection from forced exclusion by insurance companies. But in order to make such coverage work as a financial matter, the bill had to include an individual “mandate”—a requirement that everyone buy insurance. This mandate is the target of a number of lawsuits around the country, with the principal argument being that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to institute such a mandate. At the time of this writing, it is unclear how the constitutional debate will shake out. But it is clear how reform’s opponents are attacking it. So-called “ObamaCare” is a “death of freedom” and a violation of “the growth of personal responsibility and self-reliance” as well as the “cultural movement to choice.”6
Another contentious issue on Capitol Hill during the first years of the Obama presidency was the proposed bill to make it easier for unions to organize. The unions have framed the issue brilliantly, calling the bill the Employee Free Choice Act. Currently, employees must win a secret ballot election to authorize a union as their representative, and unions have long argued that such elections give employers too much power to intimidate employees and prevent them from voting to unionize. The act would allow workers to authorize a union as their collective bargaining representative by gathering a majority of employee signatures on cards designed for that purpose, rather than having to go through an election. In fighting for the bill, the Service Employees International Union organized protests around the country with labor union members chanting “Free Choice Now!” outside offices of the Chamber of Commerce.
Businesses, fighting against the unions’ efforts to seize the “choice” frame, called the legislation the “card check bill,” which sounds much less attractive. Business groups tried to recast the argument to reclaim the choice and freedom frames. The Workforce Fairness Institute, funded by business owners, argued that the bill should be called the “Employee Forced Choice Act,” because it would “force employees and employers into unions whether they support them or not.” The Facebook page for opponents of the bill said that “workers will be coerced and threatened into signing union cards, and their vote against unionization will no longer be private, leaving them open to further coercion, threats and harassment.” The Chamber of Commerce named its efforts to oppose card check the Workforce Freedom Initiative.7 It looks like both sides agree: coercion is bad, choice is good. Eventually, business groups captured enough of the rhetorical high ground and exerted enough political influence to stall the legislation.
Another example of the power of choice in political