Let's Take the “Pols” Out of Policy-Related Research

Abstract

With the presidential campaign and election now behind us, and with last June's Supreme Court ruling validating the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), supporters of health reform can take solace in the fact that the ACA is here to stay. However, if the vitriol of the campaign is any indication of the continuing opposition to the ACA, there likely will be future political skirmishes over funding for its specific provisions, as well as additional challenges to the constitutionality of reform. As of this December writing, House Speaker John A. Boehner has asserted that all ACA provisions are the table in discussions of spending cuts to avoid the fiscal cliff, and the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a challenge by Liberty University regarding the constitutionality of employer requirements to provide coverage. If such actions presage the legislative and judicial challenges to come as full implementation of the ACA progresses, we may be in store for a repeat of the distortions, baseless claims, and hyperbole by the ACA's opponents that marred reform during its congressional hearings and public debates. Thus, providing factual information and rigorous analyses of the reform's impact--both its accomplishments and shortcomings--will prove essential to set the record straight, and remains the best way to counter false and exaggerated claims designed to weaken public support for reform. More generally, the grueling Republican primaries and the intense presidential campaign provide a sobering indication of the challenges to be confronted in assuring that impartial and objective research are available for informed public policy deliberations. One of the more disquieting aspects of a presidential campaign based largely on negative attacks, lack of substantive policy details, and gotcha sound bites was the disdain and low regard held for facts and impartial research. While both political parties have been guilty of such infractions, those on the right have rather flagrantly ignored or discarded unwelcome research findings and sought to influence the policy debate with factual inaccuracies. Such behavior has resulted in the rising prominence of fact within the media in this year's congressional and presidential elections. In this regard, the arrogant pronouncement by a Mitt Romney pollster that we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers speaks legions of this prevailing attitude, as do attempts by others to accuse government analysts of political motives as Election Day neared and official government estimates concerning the economy favored the president. Such partisan behavior brings to mind the observation by the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that individuals are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Unfortunately, such disregard for objective research findings, while far more apparent in the present era of nonstop Internet postings, blogging, and electronic news, is not unique to this period. Instead, it represents continuation of a long-standing and pernicious pattern of deliberate distortion, especially by those who seek to disparage research findings that conflict with their strongly held ideological beliefs, and to question the motives of analysts responsible for such research. Three Recent Examples In the waning days of the presidential campaign, with polls showing tight and teetering races both nationally and in the swing states, reports of three disturbing efforts to discredit unwelcome research findings for political gain came to light. In the first instance, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its September labor market report that revealed a decline in the unemployment rate to 7.9%, the first drop below 8% since 2009. This was a particularly bitter pill for those on the right since one of the Romney campaign's signature messages was the inability of the Obama administration to reduce unemployment below 8%. …