Politics Forever

Eric Martin wonders why if I acknowledge that the greater boldness of the Obama and Edwards campaigns in challenging the conservative meta-narrative about terrorism is driven in part by political considerations that I still consider it an important development.

The biggest reason is that it's wrong to think that politics is something that happens on the campaign trail and then in office the politicians follow their "real" beliefs. If John Edwards campaigns and wins on a strategy of bold economic populism, it's likely he'll govern as someone who believes that bold economic populism is a solid route to a successful presidency. If Barack Obama campaigns as someone who takes on the hawkish Beltway CW on foreign policy, then it's likely he'll govern as someone who believes he has nothing to fear from the Washington Post editorial page. Of course these kind of things can change as somebody governs.

Similarly, even thought I think it was the Clinton campaign's first instinct to offer a timid health care proposal, it was also the Clinton campaign's first instinct to try to neutralize all the key Democratic interest groups, and so a combination of SEIU and Edwards essentially forced Clinton to offer a bold proposal. But now that that proposal is on the table, it doesn't go off the table whether or not it's "real." The proposal will be debated, and if Clinton wins it'll have scored a win. Meanwhile, the people inside Clinton's camp who were advocates of bolder thinking on health care are empowered by the production of a plan and the need to have an argument about it.

At the end of the day, it's not about finding the candidate who "really" has the best views. Instead, insofar as the issues matter to you (and, obviously, there are considerations beyond "the issues" in play) it's about finding the candidate who has the best platform. We can't peer into their souls and we don't really need to.

Comments

If John Edwards campaigns and wins on a strategy of bold economic populism, it's likely he'll govern as someone who believes that bold economic populism is a solid route to a successful presidency.

Yup. I remember when George Bush campaigned on and won on a foreign policy of a "humble" US. Certainly he's governed that way.

Posted by Al | October 24, 2007 5:35 PM

Instead, insofar as the issues matter to you (and, obviously, there are considerations beyond "the issues" in play) it's about finding the candidate who has the best platform. We can't peer into their souls and we don't really need to.

Great point. But isn't this exactly the opposite of what you've been arguing when you declare Romney the least bad Republican?

Posted by Jinchi | October 24, 2007 5:39 PM

Yes, Bush's record of Compassionate Conservatism and humble foreign policy bolsters Matt's claim.

Posted by Patrick | October 24, 2007 5:39 PM

I think that the correct answer is that politicians are somewhat constrained by promises made on the campaign trail....but also, not so much.

Posted by Patrick | October 24, 2007 5:42 PM

a combination of SEIU and Edwards essentially forced Clinton to offer a bold proposal. But now that that proposal is on the table, it doesn't go off the table whether or not it's "real."

What this also shows is that when attacked from the left on healthcare, Clinton's response is to ... move to the left on healthcare. The important thing about a potential President Clinton isn't what's in her heart (who knows) but the way she responds to political pressure.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 24, 2007 5:48 PM

In defense of Matt, Bush campaigned on a "tax cuts so help me, God", on increasing the military budget, on appointing judges "like Thomas and Scalia", on privatizing government services, on abolishing regulations on corporations, on opening up ANWR and ending environmental regulations.

He's been pretty consistent and effective on all those fronts.

His definition of compassionate conservatism was cutting taxes and funding religious charities (see Marvin Olasky):
Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for policies in support of traditional families, welfare reform to promote individual responsibility (cf. workfare), active policing, standards-based schools (cf. No Child Left Behind Act), and assistance (economic or otherwise) to poor countries around the world.

He's been pretty consistent on that point too.

As for his humble foreign policy: George Bush declared that he didn't believe in nation building - and he doesn't. That's why he threw out the State Department's plan for rebuilding Iraq. He believes the Iraqis should rebuild their government and can't understand why they haven't gotten around to it yet.

Posted by Jinchi | October 24, 2007 5:54 PM

Policies and platforms are useful in firming up on a candidate but it shouldn't be the only factor. I would argue that personality, prior history and ability are at least as important. The future is unknown and any President will face perils and challenges that perhaps cannot be adequately gauged today. I'm sure a lot of Independent (and some Republican) voters now probably wish that they had voted for Gore (or even Kerry) even though they may not have agreed with his platform.

The fact that we got the decider is an important lesson in picking the next President. While we don't have to peer into souls, we should pick the most able and competent person running. Who is ......

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | October 24, 2007 6:13 PM

Bush campaigned under false pretenses. There is little reason to doubt that all things being equal Clinton, Edwards and Obama would prefer to govern in a much more radically progressive fashion. Bush on the other hand seized the advantage handed to him by 9/11 to implement a radical fascist program as opposed to a merely Nixonian one.

Despite this Bush only narrowly won in 2004 and there is no reason to beleive that he would not have had his ass handed to him in a basket if e had not been able to wave the shroud of 9/11 at every opportunity.

The campaign matters because it creates political opportunity by increasing the winning candidates political capital and decreasing political cost. Bush did not campaign as a radical rightwinger in 2004, but immediately afterwards he claimed a mandate to phase out social security. The GOP defeat in 2006 is the result.

Posted by PHB | October 24, 2007 6:32 PM

it's about finding the candidate who has the best platform.

Gawd, that's sad. How old are you?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 24, 2007 7:25 PM

Matt,

The problem I have with this post is it treats Hill and Bills past as if it didn't happen. By the time Bill & Hill got around to putting forth their health plan they had squandered their legislative advantage to stuff like NAFTA which helped many Democrats lose their seats [54 seats were lost in '94 to "triangulation"]. Did the Republicans return the love that Bill & Hill showered them with? Um....No. Talk about looking for love in all the wrong places.

In my mind Hill & Bill have a credibility problem, what they say in the campaign has nothing to do with what they'll do in office. People would not remember Bill & Hill so fondly were it not for the fact that their time in the Whitehouse was sandwiched between two of the most incompetent administration this country has ever seen.

Posted by S Brennan | October 24, 2007 8:45 PM

"Yup. I remember when George Bush campaigned on and won on a foreign policy of a "humble" US. Certainly he's governed that way."

Alternatively we could work with the assumption that the Democratic nominees aren’t as dishonest and despicable as Bush.
God only has so much bad foreign policy advice to dispense to U.S. presidents and he probably wouldn’t waste it on Democrats.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | October 24, 2007 9:05 PM

I think Matt has it exactly backwards. You need to find the candidate (i) whose principles and values line up with yours as closely as possible; (ii) has the ability (political acumen, political connections, charisma, willingness to go to the mat, etc.) under the foreseeable circumstances to adopt policies consistent with those principles; and (iii) has the judgment to make decisions that are consistent with those principles under unanticipated circumstances. Platforms are useful to the extent they help evaluate candidates on those criteria, but if the platform was only adopted out of political expediency it doesn't help very much.

Posted by Led | October 24, 2007 10:29 PM

Yes, yes. I've been saying this fopr a year. Finally someone important picks it up.

Posted by David Weman | October 25, 2007 2:14 AM

Uh, Matt, do you recall that Bush ran his first presidential election he as a man opposed to nation-building?

Posted by John Stephen Lewis | October 25, 2007 5:55 AM

OT, but interesting:

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel

By Gidi Weitz and Na'ama Lanski, Haaretz Correspondents

[Israeli] Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.

Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran...

Posted by El Cid | October 25, 2007 6:32 AM

I don't know if a candidate, an individual, can have a platform. If s/he can, it certainly isn't worth much (especially considering that s/he is a politician), because this personal platform might change in a second.

Parties should have platforms, deliberate definitions of their intents, methods, ideology, philosophy. People should read these party platforms, find the one they like, and vote for that party. Voting for an individual is stupid and helpless.

Posted by abb1 | October 25, 2007 6:53 AM

It would be nice if some folks relied more on history than on mythology for their political insights. "Triangulation" S. Brennan et al, started after the Democrats lost the Congress. And why did this happen. Here an extract from the Britannica's article on Bill Clinton:

"The renewal of the Whitewater investigation under Starr, the continuing rancorous debate in Congress over Clinton's health care initiative, and the liberal character of some of Clinton's policies—which alienated significant numbers of mainstream American voters—all contributed to Republican electoral victories in November 1994, when the party gained a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. A chastened Clinton subsequently tempered some of his policies and accommodated some Republican proposals, eventually embracing a more aggressive deficit-reduction plan and a massive overhaul of the country's welfare system while continuing to oppose Republican efforts to slow the growth of government spending on social programs. Ultimately, mainstream American voters found themselves more alienated by the uncompromising and confrontational behaviour of the new Republicans in Congress than they had been by Clinton, who won considerable public sympathy for his more moderate approach."

The article doesn't consider that Democratic Congressional majority's incompetence and corruption were also significant factors in the 1994 defeat.
Finally, allow me to point out that prior to the Clinton Administration the Democratic presidential party had an electoral lock on basically the District of Columbia and Minnesota. That the Democrats are now highly competitive in presidential elections may, just may, have some connection with the Clinton Administration.

Posted by Reference Librarian | October 25, 2007 10:25 PM

I would be nice if somebody calling themselves Reference Librarian could get some dates correct:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/votes/

NAFTA and Democracy

In November 1993, Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite widespread popular opposition. Several weeks before the 1993 vote, opponents of NAFTA had gathered a slim majority of the votes. Yet NAFTA ultimately passed. At the time numerous press reports documented deals -- many unrelated to NAFTA -- that the Clinton Administration had made with individual Members of Congress and groups of Members to obtain their votes to pass NAFTA.

The legacy of broken promises on NAFTA performance: NAFTA threatened the safety of the nation's food supply, undermined the nation's environmental regulations, and subverted American democracy while it cost the U.S. good jobs.

Public Citizen has monitored the promises President Clinton made to congressional Representatives to push NAFTA passage to determine whether those promises were kept and whether the concerns underlying the deals were in fact addressed.

Many of the commitments that the Clinton Administration made in 1993 in order to get NAFTA passed were never fulfilled. Many of the actions that the Clinton Administration did take proved worthless for the parties they were supposed to help.

But hey why tell the truth if you are a Hill & Bill hack...they never did.

Posted by S Brennan | October 26, 2007 1:11 AM