« They Were Only Freshmen | Main | National Service »
May 22, 2007
Specifics In '08!
Mark Schmitt thinks candidates are wise to stay vague about policy details, while Ezra wants more specifics. With Ezra out of the office, it's time to crank his music, pretend I'm four years younger, and defend the values of the wonk community!
Ezra is approaching this from the viewpoint of an activist and primary voter trying to figure out which candidate to support, while Mark is trying to help candidates avoid the kind of trouble that a detailed health care plan caused for Bradley in his primary against Gore. From the activist's perspective, you want to know what candidates expect that they'll be willing to push for once elected. This is Jon Cohn's commonsense point:
Obama is so inexperienced I have very little sense where he'll come down on the key questions I set out in my essay. And while Clinton has a very clear track record--thanks to her role in the Clinton health care plan of 1993-94--it's not clear whether she'd go in a similar direction, or show similar ambition, if given the chance all over again. In a nutshell, I want to hear some details because I care a lot about health care and want to vote for a candidate whose views on the matter make the most sense to me. How are voters supposed to make informed choices if the candidates remain vague on the issue until after the election, as Mark advises?
It's a particularly important question given the Senate calendar. During the next presidential term, Democrats are probably going to have a substantial Senate majority -- 21 Republicans and 12 Democrats are up for election in '08, with a 19R-15D split in 2010. Our advantage expires in 2012, when it's 24 Democrats and 9 Republicans. What activists want here is some demonstration of a candidate's interest in using a large but temporary majority to push the most progressive plan possible. We want boldness, and Edwards' plan suggests that he'd govern boldly. Mark says that any candidate's dreams will be tempered by the political realities of Congress in 2009, but what a candidate dreams of doing is especially relevant in this election, because we've got a Senate calendar to make dreams come true.
I'm suspicious of Mark's view that candidates should just "put forward a few basic principles and some benchmarks for reform," because anything I can imagine on that score either seems vague enough that I wouldn't know how bold the candidate was interested in being, or too detailed for Mark. I like his "identify some models you like" line more, though identifying too broad a range of models can leave me a little confused about what the candidate's goals actually are.
All this is to say that Ezra and Jon are right about how activists should see things. Whether or not it's strategically wise for a candidate to come out with a detailed plan, we should support candidates who come out with good, specific policy proposals.
But how about things from the candidate's position? Is it smart strategy to come out with specifics? While the primaries are young, I haven't seen Edwards' health care plan face anything like the kind of sniping that came at Bradley. Instead, the plan has helped to establish Edwards both as a candidate with solid, well-thought-out proposals, and as the most progressive of our three major options. Maybe the political landscape has shifted over the last eight years, maybe the Edwards plan is just better, or maybe it's something specific to the candidates and their situations. But so far, it looks like coming out with a good and specific plan has only been to his advantage.
May 22, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
"Mark says that any candidate's dreams will be tempered by the political realities of Congress in 2009, but what a candidate dreams of doing is especially relevant in this election, because we've got a Senate calendar to make dreams come true."
Yup.
Saying you can't/won't get something done in the '09-'10 Congress means you're saying you'll never get it done.
The stars are never going to be better aligned.
And Hillary (explicitly) and Obama (implicitly) are both saying they won't get health care done in the '09-'10 Congress.
-----
I'd actually agree with Mark to this extent:
If you aren't planning on passing a health care plan in the '09-'10 Congress, you have little electoral reason to offer a detailed plan.
The only good reason for putting out a detailed plan is if you actually intend to expend political capital on getting it enacted into law.
This is why Edwards is offering a detailed plan while Clinton and Obama are not.
Posted by: Petey | May 22, 2007 7:01:13 PM
Petey, we're largely in agreement, but I'd add that the '11-'12 Congress doesn't sound that bad to me either, because of the 19R-15D split in 2010.
Of course, it's possible that we can convince some among those 19 to break ranks. I imagine that they don't want a popular president campaigning in their states and telling people, "George Voinovich is the reason you don't have health insurance!"
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 22, 2007 7:13:15 PM
Also, I'll make a related point:
Mark badly misinterprets the '00 primary battle over Bradley's health care plan.
That battle wasn't truly about health care. It was a proxy battle about whether or not Bradley stood with the core constituency of the Democratic Party.
That exact same battle would have taken place on another policy front even if Bradley had never said a single word about health care, and it still would have had the exact same results - a loss of Bradley's base credibility.
Mark misses this in the precise way as one would expect a Bradley-ite to be utterly oblivious to Democratic coalition politics.
Posted by: Petey | May 22, 2007 7:18:28 PM
"I'd add that the '11-'12 Congress doesn't sound that bad to me either, because of the 19R-15D split in 2010."
- The President's party usually loses seats in off-year elections.
- Historically, major policy initiatives generally get enacted in a President's first Congress after the election, not second.
Posted by: Petey | May 22, 2007 7:20:53 PM
The only good reason for putting out a detailed plan is if you actually intend to expend political capital on getting it enacted into law.
This is why Edwards is offering a detailed plan while Clinton and Obama are not.
More transparent Petey spin. It's quite plain from Neil's discussion and from what Mark actually said that the chief reason not to have a detailed plan is a matter of winning the election, and in no way implies lack of intent to pass a plan in '09.
Neil, I think one reason Edwards' plan hasn't been attacked is that it's so early. When the primaries are near, if Edwards appears to be a threat, his plan may well get some heat. It's a good plan, on the whole, but that doesn't always prevent effective attacks, fair or not.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 22, 2007 7:22:47 PM
(1) not in 2002.
(2) Bush passed Medicare Part D in the second Congress.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 22, 2007 7:24:02 PM
Re: Nich:
I know well enough that no election is really a "normal" election, but even given that caveat, 2002 is an aberration from your standard election, and really not the year to hold as a counter-example. (Incidentally, it doesn't even compare to 1942, where the incumbent party got a clobbering over - among other things - World War II.) The radical change in Congressional and Presidential approval ratings in response to 9/11 were unprecedented and unlikely to occur again for any foreseeable reason.
Posted by: Jon O. | May 22, 2007 7:39:15 PM
Jon O: Do you get to say the same thing about 1998? I think the dynamics have changed, and it's now more about Presidential approval. If a President is bringing the troops home, the ratings will be high, and the GOP will be sputtering.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | May 22, 2007 7:43:06 PM
What activists want here is some demonstration of a candidate's interest in using a large but temporary majority to push the most progressive plan possible.
Forcing Democrats today to define the fight in specific detail a year and a half before they could conceivably take office seems like a pretty good way to add a little extra oomph to "temporary." But other than that, what's not to like about the plan.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | May 22, 2007 7:44:49 PM
I don't get to say the same thing about 1998. Sure, the events of the day were unique as well, but we can't discount that after 9/11, GWB registered the highest Presidential approval rating in the admittedly less-than-comprehensive history thereof. It's totally about Presidential approval, seeing as we're in a time of particularly high partisanship and party unity. However, like any tracking poll, there are limiting factors and a general regression to the mean, so such a drastically high approval rating as one in the 90s is unlikely to happen again - not even for something like a new President taking the troops home. (Incidentally, I sincerely doubt the next President will ever see an approval rating above the low 70s - and low 70s would require our new President to be Jesus B. Washington. The '08 elections are going to be incredibly expensive, and consequently incredibly negative, and consequently making Edwards, for example, into the new Clinton among anybody within the right-hand side of the room.)
Posted by: Jon O. | May 22, 2007 10:07:15 PM
Yes, Neil analyzes the need for specifics... and lo and behold, John Edwards rings all his bells. :)
I think there's still questions about Edwards' plan, myself, but I think Schmitt is right that you can't really expect politicans to give policy wonks what they're really looking for - that's the nature of politics. The good politicians know how to say vague things that seem just specific enough without really committing to anything - and this is one place, I'd say, where Edwards can come off green and occasionally naive - not because he doesn't sound political, but because when he does sound very political, it's kind of obvious. Whereas Hillary Clinton has made a career out of offering next to no specifics, and Obama's "above it all" notions have everything to do with vaguely appealing bromides we can all agree with.
In any case, it's still early, and we can't really tell if Americans even understand enough about healthcare to understand what the choices are, let alone evaluate various proposals. And that, more than specifics, is what we should be worrying about.
Posted by: weboy | May 22, 2007 10:26:32 PM
Specifics? How about this: (I posted a diary on Mydd about it)
http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070522/NEWS01/70522003 /1079/NEWS01
"Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. will come to Iowa City next week to announce his health care plan, his campaign confirmed today.
A stop at University Hospitals on May 29 is the candidate's second in Iowa City and ninth in Iowa since announcing his run for president. Obama drew a crowd of almost 10,000 to the University of Iowa Pentacrest on Earth Day.
"The speech comes on the heels of a lot of forums on health care from across the country," said Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman in Des Moines.
The time and specific place of the health care announcement have not been determined, Vietor said.
Vietor said Obama has been hosting health care forums, including one in Mason City on April 5, to get feedback from voters on what they would like to see in his plan.
"It is a chance for him to hear from Iowa on what is working and what is not," he said.
Sarah Swisher, state director of Iowa for Health Care, said it is no surprise Obama would choose Iowa City for this announcement.
"This is the health care capital of the state," she said.
Iowa for Health Care is a project of Service Employees International Union, a health care workers' union with a chapter in Iowa City. The project, with more than 20,000 members across the state and based in Iowa City, is pushing all the 2008 presidential candidates to announce health care plans by Aug. 1.
Iowa for Health Care worked to bring Obama to the area next week, Swisher said. Obama is the second candidate to announce a health care plan, following former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, she said.
The campaign started five years ago, before the 2004 presidential election, Swisher said. During presidential election cycles, the group works to make quality, affordable and accessible health care an issue in campaigns. In other years, Swisher said the group works with the state Legislature to pass health care initiatives, such as the cigarette tax.
"This isn't a campaign that disappears," she said. "It does when everyone has health care."
Starting Friday, Iowa for Healthcare will launch its 2008 presidential campaign work. On Friday, the organization's members will meet in Iowa City with Congressman Dave Loebsack, Iowa Rep. Ro Foege, D-Mount Vernon and Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville, to talk about SCHIP funding. The Iowa Legislature recently expanded the program to offer health care coverage to 15,000 more low-income children and their parents, but needs matching federal funds.
On May 31, Iowa for Health Care will join Gov. Chet Culver on the steps of the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines to publicly announce their effort to push presidential candidates to make health care plans, Swisher said."
Posted by: vwcat | May 22, 2007 10:49:18 PM
One thing I must say. Ezra gets all hot and bothered by the fine details of policy stuff. I have insomnia. I think reading this kind of stuff is just great for a cure. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: vwcat | May 23, 2007 12:03:44 AM
"More transparent Petey spin. It's quite plain from Neil's discussion and from what Mark actually said that the chief reason not to have a detailed plan is a matter of winning the election"
I'm in agreement with you.
Mark is approaching things entirely from an electoral perspective, not from a legislative perspective.
If you don't care about enacting a health care plan, there's really no reason to provide a target by having one. The only reason for laying one out is to make things easier after the election.
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:45:47 AM
"Ezra gets all hot and bothered by the fine details of policy stuff. I have insomnia. I think reading this kind of stuff is just great for a cure. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
Well, if you don't care about policy, Obama is certainly a great candidate.
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:47:12 AM
"Do you get to say the same thing about 1998? I think the dynamics have changed, and it's now more about Presidential approval. If a President is bringing the troops home, the ratings will be high, and the GOP will be sputtering."
'98 and '02 were certainly historical exceptions, though '06 provided a return to the mean.
I don't think it's guaranteed that the party of the President will lose seats in '10, but I do think there are powerful forces at play that make it more likely than not.
-----
"Bush passed Medicare Part D in the second Congress."
No doubt. And Bill Clinton passed welfare reform in his second Congress.
But I do think that historically, it's easier to pass big legislation when you have the momentum of an electoral mandate. And that momentum is most likely to be in a President's initial Congress.
Exceptions abound, of course. But I do think the '09-'10 Congress is a special moment of possibility for health care legislation.
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 12:56:24 AM
If you don't care about enacting a health care plan, there's really no reason to provide a target by having one. The only reason for laying one out is to make things easier after the election.
More spin. I don't believe for a second that Edwards is doing this to make things easier after the election. He thinks it will help him get elected, which is the necessary predicate to passing anything in '09. He and his advisors just have a different strategy than Mark recommends.
Well, if you don't care about policy, Obama is certainly a great candidate.
Or if you think the best way to accomplish good policy is to have the most gifted articulator of ideas, someone with a broad vision and experience working out tough details with disparate interests, someone smart enough not to get hornswaggled about Iraq, and so on, he might be a great candidate for those reasons instead.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 1:45:08 AM
"he might be a great candidate for those reasons instead."
I would expect you to prefer Clinton or Obama, Sanpete. They both share your centrist ideology.
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 2:14:23 AM
Is there any good evidence that Edwards' underlying political commitments, as opposed to his '08 election year positioning, are to the left of Obama's? This is a serious question, not an attempt to be snide.
Posted by: ikl | May 23, 2007 2:36:35 AM
I don't favor Clinton or Obama over Edwards, Petey, so I guess that must make Edwards a centrist too. I also don't favor your snide remarks about everyone but Edwards. They're transparent spin rather than substance. You aren't doing Edwards any favors here.
Is there any good evidence that Edwards' underlying political commitments, as opposed to his '08 election year positioning, are to the left of Obama's?
Not anything very conclusive.
Posted by: Sanpete | May 23, 2007 2:47:20 AM
I don't want tremendous detail, but 6-8 bullet points from each candidate outlining their universal health care plan (if they have one) would be nice.
That should suffice to indicate what a candidate's intent is - and if his/her stance is still blurry after providing those bullet points, we can assume the blurriness is intentional.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 23, 2007 9:26:10 AM
"Mark Schmitt thinks candidates are wise to stay vague about policy details, while Ezra wants more specifics. With Ezra out of the office, it's time to crank his music, pretend I'm four years younger, and defend the values of the wonk community!"
Given that Commander Guy pledged in his campaign not to engage in nation-building, to pursue a "more humble" foreign policy, to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, and to be a uniter, not a divider, I'd differ. We know the GOP would promise anything to win, so why give them targets to aim at?
I think Democratic candidates should stay as vague as possible to give them the maximum flexibility pre- and post-election. Lots of Mom & Apple Pie guff. Let's leave the white papers and stuff until after we win the election.
Next question.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 23, 2007 10:25:35 AM
"More transparent Petey spin ... More spin ... They're transparent spin"
Well, I think we've established that you think you can dismiss my arguments by calling them spin, Sanpete, even though I'm making them from my assessment of the American political situation in regards to passing legislation.
You must feel quite proud to be the last honest man, though Joe Lieberman will try to give you a run for your money there.
"I don't favor Clinton or Obama over Edwards"
Huh. Are you going with McCain or Giuliani then?
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 11:27:34 AM
"That should suffice to indicate what a candidate's intent is - and if his/her stance is still blurry after providing those bullet points, we can assume the blurriness is intentional."
Again, the point here is not only to divine a candidate's intent. It is also to set up a situation where it becomes easier to pass legislation after the election is over.
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 11:30:02 AM
"why give them targets to aim at?"
Because you want to do something with the office of the Presidency beyond just holding it.
If you run on nothing, you pass nothing.
Posted by: Petey | May 23, 2007 11:31:35 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
