Obama says the debate is over and Republicans need to reach the grief stage of acceptance, but Jeffrey H. Anderson begs to differ:

In short, [Obamacare is] bad because it raises health costs, undermines liberty, costs jobs, and seeks to put American medicine under the control of the same folks who brought you healthcare.gov.

It might seem surprising, therefore, that Obama would have chosen to declare victory yesterday, imperiously proclaiming that “the repeal debate is and should be over.” In reality, however, his words might actually be true””just not in the way he intended. The American people hated Obamacare even before the Democrats willfully passed it, they hate it now, and they never stopped hating it in between. There’s strong evidence that the debate is, indeed, over””and that Obama and his allies have lost.

According to Real Clear Politics, since July 4, 2009, 458 polls have been taken on Obamacare. Twenty have shown Americans liking it, five have shown ties, and 433 (95 percent) have shown them disliking it. Perhaps even more strikingly, 299 (65 percent)””including the five most recent polls””have shown Americans opposing Obamacare by double-digits.

Imagine if Republicans were so stubbornly pushing something that was so evidently unpopular””and then had the gall to declare the debate over (in their favor). Do you think the mainstream press would let that fly?

No, I can’t imagine it. Republicans sometimes push unpopular policies—witness George W. Bush, persevering in Iraq even after the public (with an assist from the press) had turned against it. But they don’t have the sheer audacity to say debate is over, nor would the press ever let them get away with it if they did.

But that’s Obama’s m.o., and it has several purposes and is not “surprising” at all. The first goal is to shore up the base. The second is to simultaneously infuriate and intimidate Republicans into keeping their mouths shut. The third is to re-label opposition as illegitimate. The fourth is to talk people into believing that what he says about Obamacare is actually true—in other words, to piss on the legs of the American people and say it’s rain (or rather, wine).

Why would Obama think that fourth effort will succeed? Because in his previous life he’s managed to do just that sort of thing, through the power of his words and his personality. Why not again? He may be forgetting that the effects of Obamacare on people are up close and personal, and therefore might be more difficult to deny or talk his way out of. But talking his way out of things is his way, and the power of words has always been his biggest and most reliable power.

If reality is something we construct with narratives, then why wouldn’t this particular narrative work? Way back in the early days of Obama’s 2008 campaign, I wrote a post comparing him to Humpty Dumpty, and I’d like to revisit that idea now:

[The blogger] Shrinkwrapped wonders whether Obama is the Emperor or the Wizard, but I would add that he’s also Humpty Dumpty of Through the Looking-Glass.

Here’s the famous dialogue from the Lewis Carroll work, in which Humpty arrogantly tells Alice he can manipulate words and make them do whatever he wants:

‘[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents — ‘

`Certainly,’ said Alice.

`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory,”‘ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,”‘ Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master—that’s all.’