Editorial: When pollsters take over

Monday, June 26, 2000 | 9:29 a.m.

Republican House leaders recently made a dramatic turnabout, signaling that they will support prescription drug coverage for 39 million Americans who receive Medicare. The sudden reversal by the leadership, which long has argued against government intervention in providing drug coverage for the elderly and the disabled, was curious. But the mystery quickly was resolved. Virginia pollster Glen Bolger (who also is working on Nevadan John Ensign's Republican bid for a U.S. Senate seat) privately warned these Republicans two weeks ago that they were in danger of losing their majority in the House if they continued their public opposition to this politically popular benefit. The way that the Republican leaders embraced the memo shows that it is the pollster -- not the elected officials -- who is the true architect of the GOP's drug benefit bill.

The New York Times recently reported that many House Republicans are offering statements that lift -- almost word for word -- the talking points that Bolger suggested they use. For instance, Bolger recommended this line: "Our plan protects low-income seniors by giving them prescription drug coverage, and offers ALL other seniors a number of affordable options to best meet their needs and protect them from financial ruin." A few days later House Speaker Dennis Hastert said: "Our plan not only protects low-income seniors who lack prescription drug coverage, it also offers ALL others a number of affordable options to best meet their needs and protect them from financial ruin." Even if you watch this ventriloquist act closely, you'll swear that you never see Bolger's lips move.

It's no secret that both Democrats and Republicans rely heavily on pollsters. Indeed, polling can be incredibly beneficial in letting members of Congress -- whose Washington cocoon insulates them from the public -- know what is important to Americans. What's troubling about this episode, however, is that many House Republicans are willing to use this pollster's advice in a deceitful way, saying they're offering relief from the high costs of prescription drugs when the reality is their plan would require beneficiaries to pay much more of their prescription costs than would a Democratic proposal.

Particularly telling, then, is this line from Bolger's memo: "It is more important to communicate that you have a plan as it is to communicate what is in the plan." In other words, don't worry whether your plan will actually make a difference, just show enough empathy to make voters believe that you care. But such cynical politics should have no place in deciding how best to help the elderly and disabled defray the high costs of prescription drugs.