Trust Me

Reviewing the debate coverage and watching recordings of some key exchanges, it's really striking how invested Hillary Clinton's campaign is in the idea that there are no important policy differences between the candidates. This is a theme she's struck at previous debates, but her recent do-si-do with Obama about Pakistan is particularly telling in this regard, since she actually does want to be critical of her rivals, but at the same time wants to deny that she's staking out a different position wherein she lets OBL run free and/or drops a nuclear bomb on his head.

All this could be true, but it intersects with the non-specificity of her campaign in suspicious ways. If her campaign contributions from lobbyists don't tell us anything about policy differences between her and her rivals why can't she say she agrees with Bill Richardson that we ought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 90 percent by 2050? Or can she say she agrees with John Edwards that we ought to force insurance companies to compete with a Medicare-like public sector alternative? If her Iraq vote is just about the past, why can't she reassure us that she won't be listening to Ken Pollack, RIchard Holbrooke, and the rest of Team Hawk the next time around?

The idea that all Democrats want the same things and will listen to the same people so all we need to do is find the person who's got the savvy to implement the agenda we all agree upon is tempting. It's tempting and, in principle, it could even be true. But I would want to see actual evidence that it's true, not just a generic reassurance.

Photo by Flickr user Sskennel used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Clinton's "principled" stand against discussing hypotheticals fits in here. No doubt candidates for president should consider the likely effects of what they say in public, but her position seems to rule out answering most good questions in any substantial way.

This "I won't answer hypothicals" idea is one of the stupidest, most corrosive, and nonsensical aspects of our current media culture. Why shouldn't Obama have said what he said about Pakistan and nukes? Because it MIGHT have a negative effect later on. What is that but a hypothetical?

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | August 8, 2007 9:38 AM

I assume she's looking ahead to the general and therefore trying to avoid going on the record in favor of anything too lefty that would come back to haunt her there. So the primary for her is a balancing act between not committing to anything too liberal and trying to dispel the notion that she's the conservative Democratic choice. The strategy to achieve this seems to be to deny the existence of policy differences with other candidates. Note the way that the foreign policy disputes with Obama have been spun by her and her cheerleaders--it wasn't about ideology, it was about Obama's supposed inexperience on the topic.

I don't know how this strategy is going to work in the primary, but she's already got the Krauthammers and Kristols of the world humping her leg, so bully for her.

Posted by Jake H. | August 8, 2007 9:41 AM

Jake H. is right. She isn't going to take any hard and fast positions right now, but rather try to sound sort of progressive to win the primaries. Then she'll f-ck us off by "triangulating" in the general.

Posted by Ronkette | August 8, 2007 9:43 AM

I assume she's looking ahead to the general and therefore trying to avoid going on the record in favor of anything too lefty that would come back to haunt her there.

Actually, she's making the smart gamble that celebrity candidates do best when they let they say nothing at all. That allows reporters and potential voters to fill in all the relevant details themselves. The candidate never needs to take a risky position, gets the credit for ideas they've never stated and can plausibly deny they ever believed in your hair-brained scheme once they take office.

A very similar thing happened when Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for Governor, and on a smaller level we see the same thing with Fred Thompson. Nobody knows what these people really believe in, so everyone assumes their ideal candidate.

Posted by Jinchi | August 8, 2007 9:50 AM

Hillary is running a front runner strategy. She'll deviate from this strategy only if she thinks she has to. Unless an anti-Hillary movement rises and coalesces around a single candidate, she probably won't have to.

Posted by henry evans | August 8, 2007 10:06 AM

The idea that all Democrats want the same things and will listen to the same people so all we need to do is find the person who's got the savvy to implement the agenda we all agree upon is tempting . . . could even be true.

Principle aside, it can't be true and it isn't true. It's painfully reminiscent of the Broderian notion that we'll get the best policy if we ignore our partisan views and have a bunch of pointy-headed and public-spirited elites do things -- in other words, an odd strategy for a Democratic primary. But it's a strong tactical move for Hillary, since the lefties who support her do so more because of who she is rather than the stances she's taken, and it would help her pivot to the center for the general election.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | August 8, 2007 10:16 AM

"...it's really striking how invested Hillary Clinton's campaign is in the idea that there are no important policy differences between the candidates."

And of course she's right, what with the same special interests covering their bets by contributing (i.e. investing in) to all of them.

Posted by kafka | August 8, 2007 10:21 AM

The candidate never needs to take a risky position, gets the credit for ideas they've never stated and can plausibly deny they ever believed in your hair-brained scheme once they take office.

And here's an example, just for illustration:

Silly as it was for Hillary Clinton's campaign to criticize Obama for being unwilling to launch a nuclear attack on Pakistan, I'm pretty sure President Clinton won't use nuclear weapons in South Asia either.

Everyone assumes that the dispute between Clinton and Obama is more show than substance. We all assume that fundamentally, both would follow the same diplomatic strategy (opening dialogue with hostile nations) and the same military strategy (precluding the use of nukes against Pakistan). But of course, we know what Obama would do - he's told us. We presume Hillary believes the same thing, and then credit her with being the more responsible leader by not actually telling us.

Obama made the point in the MSNBC debate - Americans have a right to know what foreign policy their leaders will pursue. Clinton, Dodd, Biden and the entire Republican field believe that open democratic discussion is a threat, not an asset during wartime.

Posted by Jinchi | August 8, 2007 10:30 AM

But couldn't the inverse of what Matt writes be true in the cases of Obama and Edwards (but especially Obama); namely, that he uses rhetoric to make himself SOUND like he is some kind of second coming (and, with all of his dangerous faith-based rhetoric, literally so), when, in fact, he really isn't any different from the other candidates?

Looking at it that way, the overreliance on hypotheticals is problematic. It's more fun to use hypotheticals, but does that really provide much insight in what a candidate would actually do when faced with real life situations as President? And, if Obama really is telling the truth in his rhetoric, where is the evidence (as Matt asks) of actual policies that are, in fact, substantively different from what Hillary is offering?

Posted by dan | August 8, 2007 10:43 AM

Face it, she playing it exactly right. It may not fit the preconceived notions of some about democracy and all that (and you're probably correct), but it is Politics 101 for a clear front-runner.

We had a version of it here in MA in the race for governor last year, with Deval Patrick running with a message largely comprised of "Trust Me, I'm a good progressive guy who will do the right thing." And it worked, and from my vantage point he's been a good governor thus far.

Posted by Andruw | August 8, 2007 10:44 AM

It may well be true that there are not major policy differences between the leading candidates. However there are probably very real differences between the candidates in terms of priorities and passions. And that is what really matters here.

Successful presidents are lucky to see the passage of perhaps only 2 or 3 of their major legislative objectives and they will have to prioritize and fight like hell just to accomplish that much. We haven't had a president since FDR who has swept into office and completely restructured government. This is actually a feature not a bug as our system of government just makes it incredibly difficult to implement major changes of any kind.

If you look at the policy positions of the major candidates they all look pretty similar. They all stake out fairly mainstream Democratic positions on Education, the Environment, Health Care, Climate Change, Energy, Poverty, Agriculture, Labor, Trade, etc. etc. The big question we should really be asking of these candidates is what are their order of priorities. This is where their differences are more striking. Richardson, for example, talks more about Energy and climate change than the rest of the candidates combined. I think it is safe to say that one of the top priorities of a Richardson administration would be a major top-to-bottom overhaul of American energy policy. Edwards, on the other hand, talks more about poverty than the rest of the field and has put forward the most extensive anti-poverty proposals of any candidate.

Edwards may agree 100% with Richardson on Energy policy and Richardson may agree 100% with Edwards on anti-poverty policy. That's not the point. The first year of a Richardson Administration would probably look dramatically different from the fist year of an Edwards Administration in terms of which policy initiatives they put forward first and expend the most political capital fighting for.

With respect to Hillary Clinton, the big question is what are her highest priorities. I, for one, am having quite a difficult time sorting that out compared to the other candidates. She is really a cipher. She has this wonderful capacity to say all the right things to all the right people at the right time. But it is really difficult to discern what her top policy priorities would be during the first months of her administration. That is one reason she makes me a little nervous. I really can't tell what she is most passionate about and so I really can't tell what the major themes of her administration would be.

Posted by Kent | August 8, 2007 10:47 AM

> We haven't had a president since FDR who
> has swept into office and completely restructured
> government.

If by "we" you mean Democrats, progressives, liberals, or the left I would agree (although Johnson's programs were fairly sweeping). But the Cheney/Norquist team and their agents have done an incredible job of destroying the federal government in irreparable ways since 2001. They may well have exceeded FDR in the magnitude of changes accomplished.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 8, 2007 10:53 AM

But couldn't the inverse of what Matt writes be true in the cases of Obama and Edwards (but especially Obama); namely, that he uses rhetoric to make himself SOUND like he is some kind of second coming (and, with all of his dangerous faith-based rhetoric, literally so), when, in fact, he really isn't any different from the other candidates?

Of course that's always true. You can't make a fundamental measure of a leader until they actually have to make decisions.

Barring that, we need to go on what they say, or what they've done, whether we think it's credible, whether they appear knowledgeable and are able to think on their feet - or have thought about issues of importance already and whether their ideas make sense.

I have no idea why Hillary Clinton wants to be president.

I'd be happy to hear from anyone supporting Hillary what she's accomplished as a Senator or what her views are. Particularly on the war and on civil liberties issues. I'd rather hear it from the candidate herself, though.

Posted by Jinchi | August 8, 2007 11:06 AM

This is a good and fair post.

Posted by Armando | August 8, 2007 11:08 AM

If by "we" you mean Democrats, progressives, liberals, or the left I would agree (although Johnson's programs were fairly sweeping). But the Cheney/Norquist team and their agents have done an incredible job of destroying the federal government in irreparable ways since 2001. They may well have exceeded FDR in the magnitude of changes accomplished.

The Bush/Cheney case is somewhat different. The three biggest legislative initiatives that they managed to ram through Congress were the 2001 tax cuts, the 2002 war with Iraq, and the ongoing consolidation of power in the executive vis-a-vis the Patriot Act, FISA and other similar laws. We can probably add a couple others such as the Medicare Drug Benefit and stacking of the Federal courts, which wasn't a legislative achievement but serious on it own right. They struck out of social security privatization and the dismantling of major environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act.

What Bush/Cheney have done instead, is simply undermine the enforcement and implementation of existing laws through executive orders and the appointment of hundreds of industry lackeys and other ilk into executive agencies throughout the government. While this sort of damage is serious, it is much less permanent than legislative changes. The next president can vacate all of Bush's executive orders with one stroke of the pen and all of his political appointees will also be flushed out like dirty bathwater.

In any event, looking back on the first 7 years of the Bush Administration I think it is quite clear what his policy priorities were, and he was quite successful in achieving them. They can probably be boiled down to four:

1. Tax cuts for the rich.
2. War, war, and more war.
3. Turning the government over to private business
4. Consolidating the power of the executive.

Pretty much everything he's done from Medicare to No Child Left Behind all falls into one of those four major policy objectives.

Posted by Kent | August 8, 2007 11:21 AM

Of course there is a 5th policy objective I forgot to add:

5. Harnessing the power of the Federal government through legal and illegal ways to elect Republicans.

Everything from the US atorney firing scandal to the timing of the Iraq invasion can be seen through this prism as well.

Posted by Kent | August 8, 2007 11:25 AM

> What Bush/Cheney have done instead, is simply
> undermine the enforcement and implementation of
> existing laws through executive orders and the
> appointment of hundreds of industry lackeys and
> other ilk into executive agencies throughout the
> government. While this sort of damage is serious,
> it is much less permanent than legislative
> changes.

What the Cheney/Norquist team have accomplished has very little to do with legislative laws and is based primarily on administrative law (which is not passed by Congress), funding, management, and personnel. Under the radar screens of the entire traditional media and Congress they have gutted dozens if not hundreds of federal agencies, driven out the best and most experienced personnel, and filled them with long-term moles who will continue the undermining process long after 2009. FEMA, FAA, NWS, NIH, NHC... the list of gutted agencies is very long and IMHO the damage is _not_ repairable.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 8, 2007 11:46 AM

Only venality can explain
1. not endorsing an enormously expensive regulatory program
2. not embracing a particular proposal advanced by a political opponent and
3. listening to the advice of Holbrooke and Pollack

This is cynicism heavily awash in reverse naivete. A modicum of imagination might come up with several legitimate--and more plausible-- accounts of these stands by Clinton.

Posted by Naif | August 8, 2007 11:52 AM

Looking at it that way, the overreliance on hypotheticals is problematic. It's more fun to use hypotheticals, but does that really provide much insight in what a candidate would actually do when faced with real life situations as President? And, if Obama really is telling the truth in his rhetoric, where is the evidence (as Matt asks) of actual policies that are, in fact, substantively different from what Hillary is offering?

Huh? You don't have to look at the hypotheticals to know what Obama would do. Why not just read, like, the rest of his 8-page speech? And maybe the 6-page piece he wrote in Foreign Affairs.

We dont' know if that's different from what Hillary's "offering" because Hillary hasn't offered anything

Posted by mrl | August 8, 2007 12:03 PM

Congress they have gutted dozens if not hundreds of federal agencies, driven out the best and most experienced personnel, and filled them with long-term moles who will continue the undermining process long after 2009. FEMA, FAA, NWS, NIH, NHC... the list of gutted agencies is very long and IMHO the damage is _not_ repairable.

Having worked for two Federal environmental agencies from Bush I, through Clinton, and into Bush II, I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are. Yes there are probably lots of "moles" (i.e. political appointees who are converted to civil service and burrowed into Federal agencies) but that really doesn't mean all that much if the Administration changes. The Federal government is very large and those sorts of people will have no power or influence in any new administration. The number of people who actually make policy in any agency are very few. If the grownups are put back in charge the moles you are talking about will quickly be cut out of the decision-making process and be shuffled off to meaningless dead-end positions, or else change their spots and do their jobs as they are told. Even in a thoroughly politicized agency like the Justice Department this really won't be that difficult to accomplish.

It is far far more difficult to reverse legislation. Had social security been privatized, for example, it would have been all but impossible to put that back in the bottle.

Posted by Kent | August 8, 2007 12:15 PM

I still don't know who I'm actually for, but I can say very clearly I am totally against Hilary for President. And I will not likely be voting for a Republican, because all the candidates they've put up so far have huge issues. I like McCain, despite disagreeing with him on a lot of issues, but I still believe he's a good man and qualified, despite the fact that it now looks like he has no chance.

But another Clinton in the White House? It will be beyond awful. We might as well elect Jeb Bush.

I hope that the country is with me on this one, because I am sick and tired of the Clintons and Bushes and believe America needs a fresh start. Why in the world would we as citizens vote to put ourselves through all this garbage again? It baffles me....and a part of me still believes when it comes down to it people will NOT vote for Hilary, because they too want a fresh start...

We can only hope.

Posted by The CarpetMuncher | August 8, 2007 2:55 PM

I wonder if the kewl mayor type is running with Scratchy.

Posted by Linus | August 8, 2007 3:48 PM

Hillary is too slick for me, too slick at the triangulation routine, slicker even than her man “Slick Willy” was claimed to be. This leads to serious doubt about where she stands on any substantive issue from health care to lobbying to residual forces in Iraq to the Palestine-Israel debacle.

In fact her strategy pursued so far in the primaries, of having her PR flacks like Wolfson arrogantly dismiss and discredit any effort by her opponents to get her to answer to questions on her substantive policy positions, seems deliberately designed to provide cover for what could later turn out to be a dangerous shift to the right. And the plaudits she’s been receiving from right-wing pundits would seem to confirm this potential danger.

In short, she is simply not to be trusted.

Posted by Justin X | August 8, 2007 4:07 PM

It is so strange you should be commenting on how untrustworthy Hillary Clinton is. Compared to whom? George Bush and his Administration is the worst in history and you are talking about someone that you don't even know how she will do? You probably pushed for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and are letting this bunch in Washington get away with awarding the Medal of Freedom to their henchmen crooks.

Posted by Earl Umfleet | August 11, 2007 5:14 PM

The only conceivable reason for preferring Clinton over the other mainstream candidates is that you think soft Republicans might vote for a Republican. However, I think the theory that there is a convertible "centre", which could vote either way in an election is a lot less convincing than the theory that the country is split in half and it's a question of getting your vote out.

I think that this means Clinton is the worst choice of candidate for the Dems, not because Republicans hate her but because progressives do. And while they're not going to vote for a Republican, they might well stay at home, allowing a close result, which in turn allows the Republicans to steal the election again (curiously, most progressive bloggers seem underconcerned about having an unauditable election).

Posted by Dr Zen | August 13, 2007 2:01 AM