"There could have been more outreach to conservative groups." That was the reflection of a senior White House aide about 24 hours after the decision by House speaker Paul Ryan to scrap Friday's vote on the American Health Care Act. The bill, presented as the best chance to repeal and replace Obamacare and backed by President Trump, didn't have enough votes in the House thanks to factions on both sides of the Republican conference's ideological spectrum.
But it was conservatives who helped kill the bill, from those in Congress who held together firmly as a bloc to help deny Speaker Ryan the votes to outside interest groups to health-care experts and commentators on the right who had few positive things to say and write about the bill.
The White House aide described conversations with conservatives about the bill as frustrating—many of the groups who had come out against the proposal from the beginning, the aide said, were pleasantly surprised to learn about the regulatory and post-AHCA legislative "prongs" that might have alleviated some of their concerns. But a humbling lesson for at least some in the Trump White House is that many movement conservatives can't be counted on simply to fall in line on the big things. For all the ink spilled after the Republican primaries and general election about how Conservative, Inc., had either been coopted or made irrelevant in the era of Trump, the White House (at least temporarily) appears to believe they'll need to do a better job convincing their ideological allies.
But what About the Freedom Caucus?
That sentiment may be true for interest groups, think tanks, and sympathetic journalists, but there's not much appetite in the White House for dealing with the Freedom Caucus—that small but influential group of the most right-wing (and, some believe, obstructionist) members of the Republican conference. The same White House aide who admitted Trump could have done a better job courting conservatives told me there's practically no reason to consider the demands of the Freedom Caucus or its chairman, North Carolina's Mark Meadows, on anything important again.
Perhaps the decision by Freedom Caucus members to play their trump card (so to speak!) on health care was wise, from a policy standpoint. After all, getting Obamacare repeal and replace wrong could have been more devastating than keeping the status quo. Throwing it down early on the AHCA might have been the best play for the Freedom Caucus.
And despite the tough talk, even the White House aide admits that it will be difficult to corral more moderate Democrats into supporting future Trump administration legislative initiatives. What incentive do Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leadership, who have control over committee assignments and campaign contributions, have in releasing its members to support the Trump administration on almost anything difficult?
So the Trump White House is stuck with the Freedom Caucus—but the reverse is true, as well. Most conservative opponents of the health-care bill have placed the blame on Speaker Ryan, not President Trump. The White House is hoping these members recognize that Trump retains enough cachet with Republican voters back home that becoming a consistent opponent of the president may not be a good look.
