The Case for Vaguness

Mark Schmitt makes the case against trying to force candidates to offer detailed health care plans. I feel like both sides of this argument have pretty persuasive points to make. Realistically, it seems to me that this has now gotten too tied-up in the details of the actual presidential campaign to view especially objectively; among the cognoescenti where you don't find Hillary Clinton supporters, "details are good" means "vote for John Edwards" while "details are bad" means "vote for Barack Obama" and even earnest wonky sorts tend, just like the voters, to actually be more emotionally invested in the personae than in their agendas.

It seems to me that comprehensive health care reform is very unlikely to happen in 2009-10 no matter who wins the election or what tactical approach they take to campaigning. My guess is that this means campaigning on a specific plan will lead to a more spectacular failure, in the strictly literal sense of a spectacle, but ultimately it won't make a big difference one way or the other. Perhaps I'll defend these assertions at some later date.

Comments

"It seems to me that comprehensive health care reform is very unlikely to happen in 2009-10 no matter who wins the election or what tactical approach they take to campaigning."

I think you're dead wrong about the politics of this, assuming we can all push Edwards forward to the nomination.

-----

And furthermore, I think the '09-'10 Congress is going to be the best shot we've going to get for enacting a left-leaning health care plan for a long time.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 12:35 PM

"Mark Schmitt makes the case against trying to force candidates to offer detailed health care plans."

I'd actually agree with Mark to this extent:

Both Clinton and Obama aren't planning on passing a health care plan in the '09-'10 Congress, and thus have little 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.

-----

Tangentially, the inability of Clinton and Obama to recognize the fertileness of the '09-'10 moment is one of the best arguments against their candidacies.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 12:42 PM

What I'd like to see a candidate do is not push forwad details as a matter of one principle: that, in terms of domestic policy, Congress ought to be the main policymaker of the federal government. Let Democrats in Congress, whose majorities in both houses are likely to extend in '08, hash out details, knowing that with a Democratic President whatever plan reaches his or her desk, it'll get signed.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | May 21, 2007 12:51 PM

"Let Democrats in Congress, whose majorities in both houses are likely to extend in '08, hash out details, knowing that with a Democratic President whatever plan reaches his or her desk, it'll get signed."

If you think a health care plan is going to get enacted without a President running on it, and then continuing to campaign for it after the election, then you're as oblivious to the political realities here as Matthew.

Only the full and effective usage of the bully pulpit of the Presidency will be able to overcome the entrenched interests standing in the way of left-leaning health care reform.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 12:56 PM

O copy editor, where art thou?

Posted by Ired Jim | May 21, 2007 1:11 PM

"And furthermore, I think the '09-'10 Congress is going to be the best shot we've going to get for enacting a left-leaning health care plan for a long time."

Best shot =/= a very good chance.

The problem is the filibuster, which means that health care reform will need *sixty* Senate votes, instead of fifty-plus-a-tie-breaking-Democratic-vice-president. Proponents of a "left-leaning health care plan" should have used the GOP fuss over judicial filibusters to propose ending the filibuster altogether. The filibuster may help to defeat a few far-right judicial nominees, but overall it helps conservatives far more than progressives.

Posted by David T | May 21, 2007 1:43 PM

"The problem is the filibuster, which means that health care reform will need *sixty* Senate votes"

I'm quite aware of that, and I still think an Edwards Presidency would have a better than even shot at enacting into law something very close to his plan in the '09-'10 Congress.

Assuming Edwards carries a few more Dem Senators into office with him, (as seems likely), and assuming Edwards wins office by enough of a margin to seem politically potent, I think you start getting to 57 or 58 votes for his plan without breaking a sweat.

Getting from there to 60 won't be easy, but it will be possible.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 1:57 PM

O copy editor, where art thou?

Yah, I thought that surely the Atlantic could spring for someone w/ an 8th-grade English background to edit MY's posts.

Posted by Anderson | May 21, 2007 2:00 PM

O copy editor, where art thou?

A misspelling in the body of text is ok from time to time, but surely not in the head.

Matt, its time to get used to using an online dictionary, or compose your posts in something like MS WORD where the spell check is automatic.

And....when you make a mistake (to err is human), please do an update and fix it.

You are in the big leagues now, and folks will notice when you flub a free throw consistently.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 21, 2007 2:09 PM

We don't need 60 affirmative votes, right? We just need a majority, and then need to make 60 Senators too chicken to filibuster. This is a major policy issue where I'd have to imagine that obstructionism looks especially bad. If we can sell the plan right, the pressure on Senators to let the thing through will be tremendous.

And on the more general issue -- how do you have any idea what Barack Obama is going to push for if he doesn't make any major progressive commitments?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 21, 2007 2:19 PM

And on the more general issue -- how do you have any idea what Barack Obama is going to push for if he doesn't make any major progressive commitments?

More or less the same you know what any politician who makes such "commitments" will do: you look at his constituent base.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 21, 2007 2:23 PM

"We don't need 60 affirmative votes, right? We just need a majority, and then need to make 60 Senators too chicken to filibuster."

Meh. We need to have 60 affirmative votes for cloture.

While there certainly could be a couple of Senators who vote for cloture and don't vote for the bill, getting to 60 on cloture is still the hurdle.

"This is a major policy issue where I'd have to imagine that obstructionism looks especially bad. If we can sell the plan right, the pressure on Senators to let the thing through will be tremendous."

Hence the need to run on a plan, and the need for a politically potent President in 2009 who can make Senators outside of solid blue states feel somewhat worried about opposing him on the plan he got elected on.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 2:25 PM

Neil I think you're optimistic. You need 60 affirmative votes. The Kristol memo was obviously the correct analysis at the time, and it still holds today. Every business will either tepidly support it, or fight it tooth and nail. Okay, maybe you don't need 60 affirmative votes, but you need a Congressional GOP that is as cowed into submission as it was during the 1970s.

I think the best legislative strategy for the 111th Congress would be to pass a global warming bill, and use James Inhofe quotes to try to win seats in 2010. Then, if that works, maybe push a health care bill in the 112th Congress.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | May 21, 2007 2:40 PM

My stab at a vagu:

Weird feeling, kind of,
Like that time I was somewhere
Talking to myself.

Posted by matt | May 21, 2007 2:43 PM

"you need a Congressional GOP that is as cowed into submission as it was during the 1970s."

Assuming Edwards brings 3 net Dem Senators with him, and assuming he wins the Presidency with 52% to 53% of the vote, I think we'd be starting off with 57 to 58 votes for his health care bill.

Two things that allowed the GOP to be against the Clinton bill in '93 as a bloc were that Clinton didn't run on any specific bill, and that Clinton didn't seem politically potent in '93, at least partially because he'd only won 43% of the vote.

Neither of those points would be true in '09 under the scenario I outline.

Posted by Petey | May 21, 2007 2:47 PM

You guys are so undeducated. A "vaguness," in medieval England, was a sort of lay nun/librarian committed to both caring for the sick and doing the convent bookkeeping.

So the title, which refers to both the need for healthcare and a concern for specific details, is actually very well chosen, although slightly sexist--Obama and Edwards, being male, should properly be referred to as "vagunors," the masculine version.

Posted by James Gary | May 21, 2007 2:52 PM

Perhaps I'll defend these assertions at some later date.

Perhaps. Or you could just say random shit without actually making "The Case For Vagueness." That's why they pay you the big bucks!

Posted by Christmas | May 21, 2007 3:18 PM

Details of plans announced during the campaign have little relevance to what happens after the new President takes office. They do, however, give us some insights into the candidate: how willing is she to take political risks by going against the insurance industry or calling for higher taxes, what are her priorities, does she know anything about public policy or is she entirely dependent on advisers and pollsters, etc.

Anyway I don't expect the next President to win by a large enough margin to have a convincing mandate for any kind of large health care reform that would even approach a universal system. It's not even clear that Clinton and Obama are interested in trying for that matter. We'll have to wait for the next serious recession before there will be any movement to single payer.

Posted by Ron | May 21, 2007 3:40 PM

Anyone with a 'plan' will be nibbled to death by ducks.

What we need is a candidate who will take the fight to the enemy and declare that we need universal single-payer coverage so we can compete in the world economic arena. Gawd knows the facts to support this argument are there.

Without that, we ain't gonna get diddly.

Posted by serial catowner | May 21, 2007 4:01 PM

Anyone with a 'plan' will be nibbled to death by ducks.

This sounds suspiciously like electability arguments of the form, "Candidate X shouldn't be the nominee because he'll be attacked by Republicans for weakness Y." Experience should have taught us by now that any candidate we put up is going to get attacked, even - and especially - for weaknesses which have been entirely made up. If we run a candidate who runs on a specific plan, Republican will attack that plan; if we run a candidate who runs on the promise of health care without any plan, Republicans will attack that candidate for lacking a plan.

What we need is a candidate who will take the fight to the enemy and declare that we need universal single-payer coverage so we can compete in the world economic arena. Gawd knows the facts to support this argument are there.

And Republicans are just going to accept these facts? No, they're going to make up their own - or spin existing data like they always have. How many times have we heard that we can't afford a big, European-style welfare state because it will lead to the terrible, terrible economic stagnation of Europe? Never mind that the health care systems of France, Sweden, Canada, etc. are significantly cheaper than our own; if you're counting on the media to educate the public on the details of various national health care systems, you're being more than a touch naive.

Ultimately, electability has less to do with the details of a candidate's policy positions and far more to do with how well he argues for them in front of an audience. So electability isn't the issue here. The issue, shockingly enough, comes down to whether or not a given candidate's position is actually good. If I don't know anything about Clinton's health care plan, how do I know I'm going to like her ideas, much less prefer them to her rivals?

Posted by Christmas | May 21, 2007 4:38 PM

If I don't know anything about Clinton's health care plan, how do I know I'm going to like her ideas, much less prefer them to her rivals?

I think you are overrating the Executive's ability to railroad a plan through even an aligned Congress, just as HRC did the first time around. The plan will, inevitably, be made of a series of compromises based around the series of bills that will be offered if whoever wins does commit to healthcare reform.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 21, 2007 4:43 PM

The plan will, inevitably, be made of a series of compromises based around the series of bills that will be offered if whoever wins does commit to healthcare reform.

Sure, but the plans they campaign on give me an idea about where they're starting from, and what kind of commitment they have to the issue. If a candidate comes out with a plan that's mostly tax credits, for example, I know they're not terribly serious. If they start talking about HSAs, I know to run for the hills.

Posted by Christmas | May 21, 2007 5:33 PM

What has happened in this campaign to the issue of healthcare reform is representative of what has happened to many other issues. It is obvious that the structure of the election process is lacking any real substance. The candidates are campaigning on a general image they have created for themselves. There is essentially no way of finding out where candidates stand on important issues which may not be mainstream talking points.

For example it would be nice to know where candidates stand on the issue of fighting global poverty. An issue of utmost importance, but which has received tragically little attention in the United States political arena.

Support for the fight against global poverty is gaining momentum in countries outside the US, and has become one of the primary issues which is gaining international attention, as demonstrated by the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

There is room in the campaign for the candidates to address issues such as these which are of critical importance but may be ignored in favor of issues which the candidates believe are more attention grabbing, such as the war and immigration.

Posted by Andrea | May 21, 2007 5:49 PM

All will have a health care plan. To make it very detailed is wasted time. By the time it gets to the congress and senate, gets worked over, it will not be the same plan you spent so much time doing the little details.
Most people are interested in the basic plan for health care with some detail but, not a bunch. Many right now are talking this way, I think, in order to look like they are wonky and a sort of Look at me! Trying to seem hyper serious. I'd like to know how many who scream for tons of details and such actually read and understand the whole white paper.
Please. It's not impressive.
About the only candidate I'd like to know alot of the health care plan is from Hillary. I think she will make hers so corporate friendly and a totally give away to them that it will be a disaster for us.

Posted by vwcat | May 21, 2007 8:41 PM

I don't think Edwards would be able to enact anything if by some freak accident he becomes president. I honestly do not think Edwards has what it takes to be a very effective president.
For all his vaunted plans, how much was written by someone else and he just put his name to it. How much involvement did he have.
Edwards, by example of his campaign, shows he is very mistake prone and seems to be the live version of his two americas. this will end up rendering him ineffective.

Posted by vwcat | May 21, 2007 8:47 PM

How did the lack of plan work for Obama at the SEIU conference in Las Vegas? Further, you are castigating Edwards plan as being written by someone else, but I believe Obama was planning on convening some sort of focus group to study healthcare and tell him what to propose when he gets around to it. How will we know which part of the plan came from Obama himself vs. that of the focus group(someone else's idea)? Realistically, don't all the candidates consult experts to help create and guide their positions on various issues?

Posted by kingstongirl | May 21, 2007 10:22 PM

blpad ktifqo fubem cvaurzkgh dcsafw hmpnjaxzv shwt

Posted by idwvrf xetu | June 11, 2007 6:11 PM

dxvubnkij bfzxpi hfbunp efalyjhd rcwlzpy aobjlhtek aozyjtrn http://www.aforp.iukjnv.com

Posted by qufonkv xfzuwco | June 11, 2007 6:12 PM