Edwards and Obama Dare to be Specific on Reforms

Paul Krugman's observations on policy and the Democrats


Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion -- namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn't add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.

snip


Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Edwards, Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there's not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates -- but she's offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Edwards or Obama, she hasn't announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Clinton said about health care in February's Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: "Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term."


snip

All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It's easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=303816

by a guest columunist. I'm having trouble finding it, so I'll try to recap its main points:

(1) Republicans never have any specifics. Go to their web sites. It's all vague ideology.

(2) Democrats like to think they are discerning in choosing their candidates, and thus demand all kinds of policy specifics of them.

(3) These policy specifics are hardly worth the paper they're written on, since the president is not the final arbiter of legislation. By the time the candidate gets to the WH and proposes legislation, it comes out highly compromised, if at all. Sometimes the candidates switch positions altogether.

(4) The example was given of the 1992 elections. The op-ed writer compared three Democratic candidates' plans on health care (this is where I'm going to screw it up, remembering exactly who had what plan): Tom Harkin staked out a single-payer, universal plan; Paul Tsongas went for the middle-of-the-road managed care route; Bill Clinton, having nothing left, went for something else (can't remember what). Harkin later abandoned single-payer, Tsongas voted against managed care, and Clinton ended up proposing a managed care plan. They all three pretty much reversed themselves from what they were campaiging on.

I may have gotten the details wrong, but the moral of the story was: a candidate will give us detailed plans because we demand it of them (we think we are smart). But in the end, these plans are far from what will transpire. Some broad outlines would probably be a better route: more than what the Republicans give us, but not some vacuous game of policy wonkism.

So whoop for Obama and Edwards making plans. It don't mean much.

(PS: I'll try to find that op-ed)

Great article, thanks i/p..

In 1993, she acknowleged that single payer would be the least expensive approach, and so invited insurance companies to the table. They fucked her over anyway! Now it looks like John and Barack want to take over the role of Charlie Brown, with the insurance companies playing Lucy and our health care system the football.

They called Obama articulate!
How dare they?!