The hardest thing to notice is the thing that is missing. The election is about personality, tribe, and tone. What is missing? Policy.
It did not start out that way for the GOP. At first, the very first, there was talk about policy on immigration.
The Republican primary campaign began with a fierce battle over fine points of immigration. Cruz--and the Republican audiences I witnessed--criticized Rubio for having been involved in the Gang of Eight. (To remind readers: the Gang of Eight was 4 Senators from each party who hammered out a bipartisan compromise on immigration that outlined a long path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were on good behavior.) It was a big deal in September through the New Hampshire primary. Republican audiences paid attention to the question over whether there should be amnesty, whether the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship was negotiable, and whether "securing the border" needed to happen prior to or coincident with legislation to legalize undocumented people. Rubio was in trouble because he had compromised too much, was too bi-partisan, and GOP crowds considered that a fatal bit of RINO-ism.
 |
| Gresham's Law: entertainment trumps policy |
In an early debate Chris Christy halted their back-and-forth and said that this was just the sort of Senatorial debate we did not need. He got thunderous applause from the live audience. That was then.
I witnessed multiple Republican speeches from all the major candidates, usually given in a "Town Hall" format, where Q&A was a major component. I expected articulation of policy in such a format. There was talk that sounded like a discussion of issues, but in fact was not. There was essentially no discussion of actual policy. This seems so implausible a statement that I will repeat it: There was essentially no discussion of policy.
How does one give talk politics for an hour, and sound like you are discussing policy, without actually discussing policy, legislation, or specifics of any kind? Easy: one talks about problems and intentions. Not solutions.
 |
| Rubio: the purest example of policy free speech |
Example, foreign policy: The candidate says America is weak and not respected. The candidate says our enemies laugh at us, that Obama gets pushed around and Putin is a way better leader--strong and resolute. The candidate says our military is a shambles. The candidate says Israel is beleaguered and looks to America for help and we shamelessly turn our back on our great ally. America should be embarrassed to have betrayed its destiny.
You can go on and on with this, then segue to something like this:
"But there is a solution: Elect me and I will assure that America's navy is second to none, that our air force has the weapons it needs, that our army will be deployed where it makes sense. America has a great role to play in the world and the world counts on us, to be strong and prudent, to use our tremendous force for good when and where it will do good. Not foolishly, but wisely and with strength. Our allies will be proud and secure knowing we have their back. Putin will have met his match. Our enemies will hesitate to make trouble, Middle East oil will flow our way, the economic wheels of the world will turn, the American military will be respected and feared, and Sharia Law will never be the law of the land in the United States of America."
Read the above paragraph aloud and raise your voice with resolute determination at the final clause. A crowd will rise to its feet in applause. I have watched it happen. It isn't rocket science. It is just a version of what any 16 year old high school Cheerleader can do at any Friday afternoon pre-game pep rally. Rah, home team, smash the rival! Win!
 |
| Old School: policy list |
But there is no actual policy whatever in either the complaint nor the solution. There is just a general accusation that things are not good enough now,and that foreign entities do not immediately do our bidding, but that things could be way better. No articulation of what hardware we do not have but need, nor how to pay for it, nor exactly what intervention we would make or policy we would change. No tax hikes. No American blood. No sacrifice. Easy.
Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side, Hillary was articulating policy and her reward are smallish crowds unexcited by her incrementalism, preferring instead the bold revolution in politics voiced by Bernie Sanders. Voters considered her sensible and prudent, but uninspiring, at least in comparison with Sanders. I witnessed this myself, repeatedly, and wrote here that I was looking for a little more inspiration and a little less by way of policy planks. Or, ideally, that the policy instruments are woven into a framework of reform, of hope and change.
 |
| Passé: Getting advice on policy on opioid perscriptions |
Trump's GOP victory firms this up as a campaign about personality. Story after story discusses Trump's mood, language, prejudices, allies. Story after story looks at Hillary's likability.
This morning's Politico: A story about dog poop on Trump's Hollywood star.
A story about Trump blasting the federal court judge handling a Trump University lawsuit saying his should recuse himself: "Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel.” Click here to read the story
There is a story about Trump backing out of a Sanders debate.
There is a story about Trump wooing the heartland.
There is a story about a long ago complaint by Trump against NY food truck vendors who were veterans.
There is a story saying that Rubio--by tweet--explains he will support Trump.
A story says Sarah Palin assures it is "not stupid" to support Trump.
There is a story on an anti-Trump demonstration and Trump's response.
There is a story on a billionaire campaign bundler deciding to support Trump.
This is just a sample; there are more stories like these and only like these. Feel free to check my work: Click here to go to Politico.com
What is missing? Anything about anything relating to actual policy decisions relating to the office of the US president. If the campaign were between two old school politicians, say Hillary vs. Cruz or Hillary vs. Ryan then I am guessing they would consider this an election to be decided over the future course of America's government. They would discuss tax rates and trade policy and minimum wages and payments to Planned Parenthood for contraception services. Important boring stuff.
 |
| Trump Crowd: Reno, Nevada |
But Trump changed the game by giving people something else to watch, and the voters are drawn to it. We live in a democracy and the people are choosing, first by what they care about enough to watch and then by what they vote for.
The public is sending a clear message about what they want by who they turn out to see in rallies (Trump and Sanders), what they buzz about on social media (Trump and Sanders), what they watch on TV (Trump 24/7), and what they vote for, (more Trump and Sanders than any politician predicted.)
Voters are more interested in personality than policy, and they are fascinated by Trump. He is the top of every TV news show.
3 comments:
In your paragraph that begins, "Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side," you give the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that Hillary talked policy while Sanders was creating excitement by talking about a revolution. not policy. Actually, he framed the call to revolution in terms of specific policies--single payer universal health care coverage as a right, free college education, overturning Citizens United as the means to get big money out of politics, breaking up the big Wall Street banks, raising the federal hourly minimum wage to $15, and several others. He and Hillary had substantial interchanges on policies during their debates. Bottom line--it is possible to generate excitement and talk policy. Her problem is not that she talks policy, but that the policies she recommends are affirmations of a status quo with which there is widespread dissatisfaction.
Bernie Sanders does, indeed, talk policy. His detractors on the right think it is hopeless pie in the sky. His detractors on the left, I think, feel it is simply more than is possible given the political and budget constraints we have witnessed these past 7 years. The excitement Bernie creates may be setting up progressives for disappointment if what we have is mere modest success rather than dramatic revolutionary success. Hillary assumes the status quo, I agree, but I don't think she affirms it. She wants to push it left--a heavy lift. Obama lacked 60 yes votes in the Senate. Sanders, Hillary or Trump will all also lack 60 votes. Obama was close but some of his votes were not really there for him--Nelson in Nebraska, sick Kennedy, Other fragile red state conservatives. Bernie is selling the goal, but not the legislative means to the goal. He has not created the progressive legislative majorities--only the goals they should adopt as ends. The midpoint are grinds. Trump has no interest in policy and Bernie has not--yet--developed the means to legislatively achieve his policies. Hillary fails by being too means-oriented, alas. But she affirms the process to achieve those means and end goals. Peter Sage
Sanders has acknowledged that, were he to get elected, it wouldn't guarantee enactment of his policy proposals. But Hillary's insistence that she is realistic and he isn't strikes me as a mistaken argument for advocating the tepid changes to the status quo that she proposes. As you rightly say, she will have the same difficulty getting any of her proposals adopted that he will (and Obama has). So we must ask, does setting an agenda of major change diminish or enhance chances of success? For example, if Obama has begun his quest for health care reform by proposing single payer, as he said he would during the 2008 campaign, would the end result after the give-and-take of legislative negotiations be no a more or a less progressive change than the Affordable Care Act? The usual way to negotiate is to stake out a strong position and then compromise, not begin with a compromised proposal. Beyond the matter of legislative strategy is the mobilizing of public understanding and support. One reason the Bill & Hillary Clinton health care proposal failed was that no one could understand it, so complex had it become through their initial compromises. Once a message is simple--e.g. health care is a human right, the minimum wage should be a living wage--good things happen. Sanders' proposals might not pass right away in the form he wants, but to have a President continually articulating them and rallying public opinion for them is one important way change happens. Sanders isn't stupidly idealistic.
Post a Comment