« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »
April 30, 2008
Bedside manner
Despite appearances to the contrary, the recent vitriol between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama masks some genuine differences between the Democratic candidates.
One particularly important difference involves health care. The difference, however, is not so much one of policy. It is really a distinction of process.
On substantive grounds, their health plans are very similar. Both would maintain the employer-based system of private insurance while introducing a public insurance option for consumers. Both would place significant new regulations on private insurers, forbidding them from denying coverage or charging higher rates to those with "pre-existing conditions."
But there is one major distinction: Clinton's plan includes a governmental mandate that every individual has health coverage, and Obama's doesn't.
Clinton argues that without a mandate, healthy people will not buy insurance and will seek health care only when they get sick. This could raise costs for everyone else and threaten the viability of any reformed health care system. Obama argues that the problem is not that people don't want health coverage; it's that they cannot afford it.
Much of the rhetoric between the candidates has muddled the issue: Is the ultimate goal of health reform an individual mandate or expanded coverage? One is an intermediate step; the other is the policy objective itself. Indeed, Obama is not opposed to the concept of mandates; his plan includes one for children, and he has repeatedly said he would consider one for adults if needed. Mandates aren't the issue - universal coverage is.
Or is it? Some have suggested that Obama's plan would leave more people uninsured than Clinton's. As a result, Obama no longer describes his plan as "universal." Clinton, however, still does. This only adds to the confusion. "Mandating" is not "providing" - just because the government requires something does not make it so.
The only truly "universal" system would be a single-payer model, in which the government automatically insures everyone. Neither candidate currently advocates such a system, or anything else that is really "universal." Rightly or wrongly, both Clinton and Obama are champions of the "near-universal."
But assume that mandates really are indispensable. In a health system still dependent on private insurers (as both Clinton and Obama propose), the clearest beneficiaries of an individual mandate would be private insurers. The mandate represents a bargain: The government gets tighter regulation of the insurance industry, and private insurers receive millions of guaranteed new customers in return. Clinton's plan, with its explicit mandate, concedes this deal up front. Obama's plan, without a mandate, does not. He simply starts from a stronger negotiating position than Clinton.
The health care debate actually highlights a far more important distinction between Clinton and Obama, one that goes beyond differences in their policy objectives to whether either candidate could actually achieve them as president.
Throughout their careers, Clinton and Obama have earned and deliberately nurtured distinct political personas. Clinton is the policy wonk and political street fighter, a tough survivor who seems to enjoy the fight as much as the outcome. She spearheaded the failed attempt to reform health care in 1993-94 - an effort stymied by secrecy, complexity and an unwillingness to consider outside ideas.
Obama is the community organizer - more results-oriented than ideological, more likely to see potential allies than certain enemies, and equipped with a keen sense of power relationships and negotiating strategy. His political career has been marked by pragmatism and a commitment to make government more transparent and accountable.
Essentially, Clinton's persona is divisive, while Obama's is inclusive. This has been reflected on the campaign trail, where Clinton has relied upon a core of Democratic partisans and Obama has depended on a broader base of people new to politics. These coalitions will affect the performance of either candidate in the general election. But they also will determine each candidate's effectiveness as president, where good governance is nothing without principled, successful coalition building.
Indeed, the greatest difference between Clinton and Obama is not over policy, but over process. Clinton and Obama may share similar policy destinations, but they would take very different paths to get there.
Despite the heated campaigning of recent weeks, no one should doubt the core principles of either Clinton or Obama. Both candidates have demonstrated their commitment to meaningful health care reform. The question is who is more likely to produce results, on health care and other issues. On that basis alone, the distinction is clear.
San Francisco Chronicle, 30 April 2008
Posted by Daniel Widome at 12:17 AM to U. S. Politics | TrackBack (0)
April 24, 2008
Special interests
By now, the Democratic primary has stretched on longer than almost anyone could have predicted. Senators Hilary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) are each well-funded and broadly supported candidates. But as the race has dragged on, the sparring between Clinton and Obama—and between the Democrats and the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain (R-AZ)—has gotten more bitter, and the attacks more pointed. This is particularly true with the amorphous issue of “reform;” each candidate believes that they would be the most effective agent of change. In the presidential race, this issue is of particular importance in terms of foreign policy. But at this late stage of the campaign, the issue of reform is being treated more as a rhetorical football than as a serious issue.
In every election, candidates vie for the mantle of “reformer” or otherwise market themselves as change agents. This year, however, the issue has taken on a new level of prominence. In his slogans, speeches, and advertisements, Obama explicitly frames his candidacy in terms of “change.” Instead of downplaying his relatively brief time in Washington DC, Obama trumpets it as evidence of his outsider status: “I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.” Both Obama and Clinton take advantage of the unpopular incumbency of a Republican administration. After eight years of President George Bush's particularly partisan style of governing, a simple change of parties alone would seem like a significant reform to many. Even the Republican nominee, John McCain, claims the mantle of reform. He has a record of bucking his own party and championing issues that would clean up the political process, such as campaign finance reform.
One of the more common ways the candidates have attempted to prove their reformist credentials is by trying to convince voters that they are more independent-minded than their competitors. On the Democratic side, both candidates believe it serves their electoral purposes to disassociate themselves from big businesses and other “special interests.” In a recent television advertisement in Pennsylvania, Obama claimed that he “didn't take money from oil companies.” Clinton immediately challenged this claim, noting that it has been illegal for corporations to contribute money directly to federal candidates since 1907. She also ran her own advertisements that highlighted the contributions Obama has received from individuals who work in the oil and gas industries.
Like an increasing number of disputes in the campaign, this particular episode was both relevant and superfluous, in ways that neither candidate had necessarily intended. It is certainly true that Obama has not taken money directly from oil companies; it is also true that no candidate has directly taken any money from any company, of any kind, for over 100 years. But corporations, like candidates, have long since adapted to this reality. For decades, they have been able to form political action committees (PACs) to promote their interests or those of their wider industries. PACs face specific limits on how (and from whom) they can raise money, and on how they may then use it to support their preferred political cause. But they are a common vehicle for corporations, unions, and other like-minded communities to channel financial support to a political candidate.
Obama often notes that his campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or from federally registered PACs (although he has received support from state-based PACs in previous campaigns). Clinton, on the other hand, does accept contributions from these sources. This political reality, however, is not easily boiled down to a 30 second television commercial or reduced to a pithy sound bite. When Obama claims not to have taken money from oil companies, he is technically correct. When Clinton criticizes him for making a meaningless assertion, she too is technically correct. And when Obama rebuts Clinton by noting that he, unlike her, takes no money from lobbyists or PACs, he is again technically correct. But by this point, the original distinction has been parsed and obscured to the point of irrelevance. The fact is that there is a legitimate distinction between Obama and Clinton on this particular issue. But the primary campaign has become so heated that legitimate distinctions are buried under the weight of rhetorical combat and political point scoring.
On the Republican side, John McCain faces something of a dilemma. He has a well-earned reputation as a political reformer. Along with Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI), McCain championed a major revision of campaign finance laws in 2002. He has taken positions at odds with many in his party, including his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, immigration reform, and his vocal opposition to torture. But as the nominee of the incumbent party, McCain cannot easily maintain his image as a sincere agent of change. Indeed, his Democratic opponents are sure to paint a potential McCain win, fairly or not, as four more years of Bush.
McCain has found that the scrutiny of a presidential campaign makes it nearly impossible for him to remain a pure reformer. In 2007, when the prospects for his campaign looked dim, McCain entered the presidential public financing system. This decision made him eligible to receive federal matching funds, but it also obligated him to abide by strict spending limits. In 2008, as his campaign rebounded, McCain sent a letter to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to announce his withdrawal from the public financing program. But McCain has exceeded the $54 million spending limit mandated under the public financing system, and the FEC has not been able to resolve the matter due to vacancies on the commission. The question is not just whether McCain successfully withdrew from the public financing system before he broke the spending limits, but if he was even permitted to leave the system after entering it in the first place. The issue may ultimately prove to be a minor one. But no matter how it is resolved, the mere impression that McCain broke campaign finance laws could seriously damage his reputation as a political reformer.
The question of which candidate is the more genuine “reformer” is a vexing one. On one hand, it is quite trivial. Unlike health care or tax policy, the issue of “reform” is amorphous, unspecific, and somewhat arbitrary. It is a great vehicle for a candidate to exaggerate their own credentials and unfairly attack another's qualifications. But on the other hand, “reform” is extremely important. At its heart, it is an issue of process. A policy is only as good as the likelihood of its enactment. If a candidate is financially beholden to a specific group, their policies may reflect the interests only of that group, at the unfair expense of others. Likewise, if a candidate is seen as bending the political rules for their own personal benefit, it will be more difficult for them to achieve their desired policy objectives. Process-based questions such as these are particularly important in the realm of foreign policy and national security, where the president has great ability to act independent of Congress. In a situation where the president has such freedom of action, a transparent and trustworthy process is the best way (and in some cases, the only way) to ensure some modicum of accountability.
In the hypersensitive context of a competitive campaign, however, it is impossible for any candidate—regardless of their qualifications, records, or credentials—to maintain the image as a pure reformer. If voters understand that no candidate's record is spotless, than the pretense of purity can be dismissed. But if no candidate can realistically hope to live up to their own lofty projections as reformers, they can only be judged (imperfectly) on their campaign rhetoric. In this sense, there are distinctions among the candidates. Each one emphasizes their reforming credentials in different ways, and each one relies upon reform-based arguments to different degrees. If a candidate speaks more often about change or reform, they will be more easily held accountable to such language if they win office. It is an imperfect way to measure the candidates, but with the campaign rhetoric at such a fevered pitch, it may have to suffice for now.
Foreign Policy Association, 24 April 2008
Posted by Daniel Widome at 08:13 PM to U. S. Politics | TrackBack (0)
