The Yglesias Theory of Change

Ezra has a couple of interesting posts about the Democratic candidates "theories of change" and specifically John Edwards' theory. Brian Beutler also had a post on the subject.

Mainly, though, I think it would be a mistake to take candidates' claims about this sort of thing too seriously. Suppose somebody said "policy outcomes over the long run are mostly determined by structural factors rather than election results; what's more, it's very unlikely that your vote -- or your $250 contribution, or your time volunteering -- can make a difference in the election." Well, I think that'd be a much more accurate "theory of change" than anything I've heard from a presidential candidate, but ceteris paribus I'd still rather vote for someone with appealing rhetoric. That's because a campaign's not a seminar and the candidate's job is to win. The candidates aren't offering theories, they're offering campaign messages. The theory is that a good message wins you the election and then you make your changes.

Scott Lemieux notes, for example, that "Bush in 2000, after all, didn't campaign as a 50%+1 conservative who would increase party polarization in Congress, but that's what he did." I'll just reiterate that on the big domestic policy issues, if you assume a Democratic win in 2008, the big determinant of what happens legislatively is the makeup of the Senate not the "theory" of the president. What's more, insofar as "theory" matters, you can't really infer anything from what people say in the middle of a primary campaign.

Comments

"Well, I think that'd be a much more accurate "theory of change" than anything I've heard from a presidential candidate"

But that's because you're a "politics denier", Matthew.

You don't think politics really exists or matters. And you certainly don't believe that politics explains policy outcomes.

You do think there's some relatively unimportant card-trick level magic trickery in terms of winning elections or not, but you don't see politics as being a crucial element of how the nation is governed.

You're dead wrong, but it's an honest philosophical disagreement.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 5:56 PM

Ralph Nader endorsed on Tweety's show. As Charlie Cook said, "listen to Ralph Nader."

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 5:59 PM

Agreed. I can understand why primary voters (and even Paul Krugman) would choose to evaluate candiates based on their rhetoric since their stated positions are the same, but you never know how things will shake out. FDR, as we know, campaigned as a balanced-budget, limited government Democrat who called Herbert Hoover a socialist.

Ultimately, a message of conciliation and good feelings would probably translate into larger coattails for Obama in the states where it's going to matter--i.e. Maine, Minnesota, and Oregon, where popular GOP Senators might just be vulnerable. Without a strong coattails effect, real change simply isn't possible. Actually, that would be a very strong argument for Obama to use--I know Edwards's supporters have been talking it up for a while.

Posted by Lev | December 17, 2007 6:20 PM

Bob Kerrey's statement today that when he massacred those Vietnamese villager seniors, women, and children that he wished that Barack Obama's father had been among them seemed a bit over the top to me.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 6:33 PM

Bob Kerrey's statement today that when he massacred those Vietnamese villager seniors, women, and children that he wished that Barack Obama's father had been among them seemed a bit over the top to me.

Posted by Petey

True, but it still probably wasn't a great thing for Obama's political campaign that he spent all those years with the Taliban. I'm sure that some hawkish voters will be impressed with his exploits in Kandahar, but others may still have questions about his reported penchant for beheadings.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 6:36 PM

I'm always amazed that people take "I'm a fighter" at face value. It's such a hack line that it's the punchline of a joke in The Royal Tennenbaums (DUSTY: "Is he a fighter? Richie: Yeah. DUSTY: (solemnly) Then that’s the best we’ve got.").

EVERYBODY thinks they are a fighter and even the incredibly weak and ineffective still fight in some respects. It's HOW you fight that matters. The "fighter" fetish is the left's equivalent of the right's "resolve gap". Insufficient resolve is always to blame for every GOP failure. Insufficient "fight" is blamed for every Democratic failure. Krugman thinks there is a "fight" deficit. Ezra agrees. If only Democrats had more "fight" they'd prevail! Smarter fighting is rarely (if ever) mentioned.

Obama gets little credit for being "a fighter" and yet he absolutely flattened Clinton in an instant with his "I'm looking forward to you advising me" line off the top of his head. He showed himself to be patient yet quick and lethal. Picking your targets is the hardest part of fighting. Obama is like a Judo fighter, his first move is an unthreatening embrace. If you go with him, he carries the day. If you go against him, he uses YOUR momentum against you and carries the day. The "fighters" are all full of piss and vinegar and ready to stomp as though the minority GOP in the Senate can't just go into turtle mode and block everything. You can't fight a turtle in it's shell. Obama gets the turtle out of the shell and THEN stomps it. His coaxing gets him called "soft". Edwards "I'll kick the turtle's ass" gets him a stubborn obstructionist turtle who is happy to do absolutely nothing but obstruct.

If you actually follow people who physically fight (in sports or war) the most basic, easiest to stop technique is the telegraphed frontal assault. That is exactly the kind of "fighter" that gets rewarded with favorable coverage in the media. And the same kind of fighter that gets knocked out.

Posted by joejoejoe | December 17, 2007 6:37 PM

Huh. Bob Kerrey just stated that if college students attempt to caucus for Obama in Iowa, he's going to lead a patrol mission to massacre them because he's afraid they're drug dealing Muslims.

And now Billy Shaheen has demanded that the Clinton campaign distance itself from Kerrey.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 6:39 PM

BREAKING. The Hill-a-copter is being used for close combat air support for Kerrey's commando mission to massacre any Iowans who won't commit to caucusing for Clinton.

Edwards' strength in rural precincts has led Mike Whouey to declare the entire Western half of the state a free-fire zone. The count of the dead is believed to be in the thousands on the outskirts of Sioux City alone.

Bill Clinton first endorsed the massacre, and then 20 minutes claimed he had been a vocal opponent of the killing since the beginning. He went on the blame the widespread deaths of innocent Iowans on Obama's inexperience.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 6:44 PM

Obama gets little credit for being "a fighter" and yet he absolutely flattened Clinton in an instant with his "I'm looking forward to you advising me" line off the top of his head.

And she absolutely flattened him with her "The first thing I'd do after a terrorist attack is retaliate" answer, in a previous debate. Oh boy. Yipee! Obama, like Clinton, can "flatten" people.

Posted by Teddy | December 17, 2007 6:46 PM

True, but it still probably wasn't a great thing for Obama's political campaign that he spent all those years with the Taliban. I'm sure that some hawkish voters will be impressed with his exploits in Kandahar, but others may still have questions about his reported penchant for beheadings.

Wow he is a effective multitasker. All this time I thought was only spending his time selling coke and dope to his white wimmin ho's. But like y'all I thought everyone would give him credit for both being an enterprenurial small business owner and being a traditionalist wrt working women.

Posted by Kolohe | December 17, 2007 7:06 PM

I have an honest question about Edwards because it doesn't seem possible, but I haven't seen in rebutted yet or much discussed. Did he really say he would be willing to have Republicans in his cabinet? If he did, I don't understand how he can be seen as less conciliatory than Obama simply because of fight rhetoric.

Posted by idabw | December 17, 2007 7:12 PM

It seems telling that so many Obama supporters argue for him by saying basically, "He doesn't mean what he's saying." As Yglesias does here. The truth is, through his books, legislative career and his tepid domestic proposals in this campaign, Obama's a born and consistent reconciler. He's very good at finding agreement and common ground with fellow parties of good faith. The problem, as we know, is that doesn't describe the national Republican party, or their K street friends, that Obama doesn't recognize this is a real problem.

Posted by AJ | December 17, 2007 7:19 PM

I would agree with Matt that a candidate's rhetoric in the primary or even the general election is almost irrelevant to how effective a president governs. But politics matters a lot once the president is in office. See, e.g., the failed Clinton healthcare plan.

Posted by Led | December 17, 2007 7:23 PM

Now is probably a bad time to be looking to candidates for any sort of vision. The rhetoric will all change after the primaries as the focus changes from pleasing the parties' bases to winning swing votes.

Posted by Thomas | December 17, 2007 7:37 PM

the big determinant of what happens legislatively is the makeup of the Senate not the "theory" of the president

That is pretty much a tautology, being that the Senate is part of the legislature and the president is not. But the president wields enormous power with the various departments he/she gets to staff and run. Who runs the EPA, Interior Dept., and Forest Service probably has a lot more impact on the environment that any environmental legislation passed by Congress.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 7:47 PM

"the big determinant of what happens legislatively is the makeup of the Senate not the "theory" of the president."

Putting Ted Stevens in the big house would make a significant difference in how the Senate does its business. Which president is going to have the balls to prosecute the corrupt bribe-takers who run the country now?

Posted by Bloix | December 17, 2007 8:24 PM

I think what a lot of Democrats these days are not getting, as in AJ's comment above, is that there still are a substantial number of conservatives who are people of good faith. The Republican party is coming unglued because these people are not on board with where Bush and Rove have taken the party. They may not constitute a majority of the Republican party, but they don't need to. Right now we need to graciously welcome these defectors into the fold. Let the 30 percenters rot. If you can pick off 15-20% of conservatives while having a Democratic majority in congress, that is a heck of a governing coalition that will be able to accomplish a whole lot more than a fire-breathing, no holds barred liberal who alienates everyone who is not already a member of the choir.

With respect to joejoejoe's judo comment, which does have some merit, it's not really about tricking people out of their shell so much as seeing that there are a lot of traditional Republican voters who can be made to realize that at this moment they have far more in common with Democrats than with the modern Republican party. Obama has a natural talent for making people see the common ground that exists between them, and seems uniquely well-suited for this task.

Over the past couple decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have failed to pass major policy proposals (health care, immigration, etc.) despite holding both the White House and Congress. Now that the Bushies have destroyed the Republican party we have an opportunity to build a large enough coalition to do these things (e.g. health care, global warming, government reform, foreign policy) if we don't squander it. It seems the most likely way we'll blow this opportunity is to see big tent coalition-building as capitulation.

Posted by J.B. | December 17, 2007 8:45 PM

Thanks for stating the rationale for Mitt Romney's campaign so clearly.

Posted by mkl | December 17, 2007 9:47 PM

Bi-partisan governance worked when Dems had large majorities and the Repbulicans had pragmatic leaders. Both ceased in 1994.

Elect Edwards, capture 60 Senate seats, usher in a 20 year period of progressive government.

added bonus, do all of the above while somehow fucking Joe Lieberman

Posted by realist | December 17, 2007 10:00 PM

Elect Edwards, capture 60 Senate seats, usher in a 20 year period of progressive government.

And Edwards will be greeted with flowers.

Posted by Led | December 17, 2007 10:19 PM

Color me cynical but I'd like it better if I got at least a free toaster from the government at Christmas.

You write them letters. You send them money. You put up signs in the yard. You feed the chickens organic corn.

And they keep making suckers out of you.

This wouldn't be so bad if you - a perennial complainer - didn't get stuff when you complained about the peeling paint on your coffee maker, the wobbly legs on your IKEA table, the strange, almost hallucinogenic designs on your Levis cargo pants after you washed them.

But life is full of contradictions. Corporations are nasty - legendarily nasty - but if you keep on their case they usually give you stuff for free.

I think it's time the government gave me special things, nice things for all my complaining.

Posted by Linus | December 17, 2007 10:21 PM

You're being overly literal Matt. What Ezra is discussing is not really some collection of global theories of social change put forward by the candidates. What he is talking about would more accurately be called "proposed strategies for change during my upcoming administration". And certainly these proposed strategies are somewhat important because they do tell us something about how the candidates are intending to approach the challenge of passing their proposed legislation.

I think Ezra gets Obama only half right, and that Obama is also suggesting the approach Ezra attributes to Edwards. Ezra says:

Obama, as far as I can tell, is hoping that his immense personal charisma and persuasive capabilities will help him gather the stakeholders and power players in a room, dazzle them with smart restatements of their positions, and then elicit agreement on his priorities.

He is indeed looking forward to applying his persuasive powers to the key players, but he is also suggesting that his personal charisma and persuasive capabilities will enable him use the presidential bully pulpit to sustain the political pressure necessary to fight off the sharks and get Congress to enact his agenda. Surely this is implied in the message both he and Edwards have used against Clinton: that she is a bit too much of an insider, a bit too friendly with the major players and a bit too inclined to rely an insider approach of hammering out a deal among the key kingpins.

My impression is that Edwards thinks about these challenges like a lawyer taking on a big class action suit. You have The System - the big corporations and their army of lawyers on the other side, prepared to spare no expense to stand in the way of justice for the little guy, and then you have the plucky lawyer and brave, aggrieved plaintiffs taking The System on. The problem is that in the courtroom you rely on the end on "twelve good men and true", who play the limited role of sitting in judgment. In the legislative arena, the target of the effort is the US Congress, which is neither twelve, nor good, nor true. The Congress is not a jury, but a mixed bag of further contestants in the game Some of them actually work for the plaintiffs; some work for the defendants; some work for a bunch of people outside the courtroom who are following the case in the paper with varying degrees of attention. They are not neutrals.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 17, 2007 11:25 PM

Let the 30 percenters rot. If you can pick off 15-20% of conservatives while having a Democratic majority in congress, that is a heck of a governing coalition that will be able to accomplish a whole lot more than a fire-breathing, no holds barred liberal who alienates everyone who is not already a member of the choir.

As an Obama supporter, and an early supporter of Clinton in '92 (I was 18) this makes me nervous. I was sure all that DLC talk was a bunch of smoke being blown up peoples backside. I didn't realize there is big money in that sort of talk and maybe the smoke being blown was going in the wrong direction.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 17, 2007 11:28 PM

GWB campaigned, memorably in South Carolina, as a "Reformer With Results."

Thereby blunting the McCain "reform" message (the story about the illegitimate dark-skinned child didn't hurt either).

Appropriate another candidate's words. Tried and true.

Posted by Andrew | December 17, 2007 11:59 PM

Must enrage Matt that somebody believes Ron Paul's rhetoric since he just raised $6 million on Sunday alone, with 30,000 donations averaging $50.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 18, 2007 2:04 AM

Yes, Matt is right, which is why my support for Obama is based on my impression that he has brains, integrity, and an ability to work well with others to get tangible results. Because you never know what's going to come down the pike when they get elected. Look how Bill Clinton caved on a dime, at the first pushback, with gays in the military for example. I care about issues generally - pro-torture is a deal killer, ok - but am I scrutinizing the differences between the health care plans? Not so much.

Posted by Phoebe | December 18, 2007 5:09 AM

J.B. - You're right that Obama isn't mostly about luring Republicans out of their shell and stomping them, he's about luring Republicans (and Democrats) of bad faith out of their shell and stomping THEM.

The mistake the left makes when viewing the right and making determinations like "you can only work with 20% of the GOP caucus" is viewing it as 20% of the INDIVIDUALS in the GOP caucus. Let's say you can work with Tom Coburn 90% of the time on 5% of the issues. You can work with Susan Collins 50% on 90% of the issues. The left sees Collins as a more reliable negotiating partner but she fails to deliver half the time! It's far better to negotiate with Coburn in good faith on the 5% of the issues that you have common ground (open government) than to work with Collins on everything under the sun only to have her disappoint in the end. You don't abandon working with Collins on the issue but Coburn is a better legislating partner. There are many examples of this kind of reliable good faith partner in the GOP caucus (Domenici on mental health issues and immigration, Lugar on arms control, Dan Burton on autism, etc.). Obama found the 5% in Coburn that overlapped his own beliefs and passed Obama-Coburn open government bill creating a public searchable database of every unclassified piece of spending. That bill was passed over the objections of "turtles" in both parties (Stevens, Byrd) who had to be coaxed out of their anonymous holds and stomped. Obama made something with 90% stubborn Coburn. Most of the caucus is busy making nice with 50% unreliable Susan Collins. That's why I believe Obama when he says he's better at bridging divides than other candidates -- because he fundamentally understands that the divide is over individual issues and repeated again and again -- it's not wholly a partisan divide. I say good for Obama and Tom Coburn for getting that work done.

Obviously something needs to be done about the individual holds and "60 votes test" (Gang of 14 = worst gang ever) but Obama has demonstrated he grasps governing better to me than Edwards or Clinton. And Krugman and Klein.

Posted by joejoejoe | December 18, 2007 5:16 AM

Here's what I think about Obama's "trick": This is not triangulation 2.0. If people were actually paying attention, they'd see this is something fundamentally different(and yes, that's Obama's signature phrase, but here's how it applies).

A good example is SS. Krugman and others bash Obama for using "right-wing talking points" because he actually acknowledges that there is a problem. This is wrong. It speaks to unhealthy and paralyzing orthodoxy. It's so paralyzing, in fact, it misses the point that Obama's position is even more progressive than Edwards or Hillary--raise the cap. That's not right-wing. That's distinctly left-wing. And because he's co-opted the language and logic of Republicans to come off even further progressive than Edwards and Hillary, he has suddenly moved the ground the entire debate is sitting on to a more liberal position.

That's the "trick". Co-opt your opponent's terminology and talking points, then turn those talking points upside-down on them, forcing them to move over to your ground. It's a classic pull-the-rug-out-from-under-them maneuver.

Another example I saw on C-span: He's asked about immigration. He's starts out by talking TOUGH on border security. Real tough. Like a Republican. Then, in one fell swoop, he mocks the Republican position and makes them into clowns and uses the same terminology to come up with a very liberal position. Same with energy: He doesn't start with global warming. He starts with oil and national security, with the creation of new jobs, with money savings from energy conservation. He takes a liberal issue, turns it into Red Meat, then uses that to segway into global warming. To top it all off, he takes a convincing "integrity" posture by turning electric bills into "sacrifice" and repeating his line about "telling people what they NEED to hear."

Obama is a true progressive, but I think what will make him more effective is he understands that it's not what you say, it's how you say it, that's determines whether people support it.

I also think the blogosphere is being ridiculous in casting Obama as a centrist, DLC appeaser. Please. Obama has far better progressive bona-fides in his record than Edwards or Clinton. We're talking about someone who took a crappy job at $12,000/year in an awful ghetto merely to pursue the progressive agenda by helping people. Edwards and Clinton's progressive bona-fides don't come close.

Posted by Abe | December 18, 2007 7:11 AM

Here's what I think about Obama's "trick": This is not triangulation 2.0. If people were actually paying attention, they'd see this is something fundamentally different(and yes, that's Obama's signature phrase, but here's how it applies).

A good example is SS. Krugman and others bash Obama for using "right-wing talking points" because he actually acknowledges that there is a problem. This is wrong. It speaks to unhealthy and paralyzing orthodoxy. It's so paralyzing, in fact, it misses the point that Obama's position is even more progressive than Edwards or Hillary--raise the cap. That's not right-wing. That's distinctly left-wing. And because he's co-opted the language and logic of Republicans to come off even further progressive than Edwards and Hillary, he has suddenly moved the ground the entire debate is sitting on to a more liberal position.

That's the "trick". Co-opt your opponent's terminology and talking points, then turn those talking points upside-down on them, forcing them to move over to your ground. It's a classic pull-the-rug-out-from-under-them maneuver.

Another example I saw on C-span: He's asked about immigration. He's starts out by talking TOUGH on border security. Real tough. Like a Republican. Then, in one fell swoop, he mocks the Republican position and makes them into clowns and uses the same terminology to come up with a very liberal position. Same with energy: He doesn't start with global warming. He starts with oil and national security, with the creation of new jobs, with money savings from energy conservation. He takes a liberal issue, turns it into Red Meat, then uses that to segway into global warming. To top it all off, he takes a convincing "integrity" posture by turning electric bills into "sacrifice" and repeating his line about "telling people what they NEED to hear."

Obama is a true progressive, but I think what will make him more effective is he understands that it's not what you say, it's how you say it, that's determines whether people support it.

I also think the blogosphere is being ridiculous in casting Obama as a centrist, DLC appeaser. Please. Obama has far better progressive bona-fides in his record than Edwards or Clinton. We're talking about someone who took a crappy job at $12,000/year in an awful ghetto merely to pursue the progressive agenda by helping people. Edwards and Clinton's progressive bona-fides don't come close.

Posted by Abe | December 18, 2007 7:11 AM

Whoops. Doubles. My bad.

Posted by Abe | December 18, 2007 7:13 AM

Some of our bloggers appear to be unaware of the basic elements of successful negotiations.

In any negotiation, the whole idea is to make a negotiated agreement on terms you find favorable a better option for your counterpart than opposition to such an agreement. Note this is not the same thing as simply being willing to compromise until an agreement is reached--rather, the idea is to make sure the negotiation process ends in an agreement that is actually favorable by your standards.

Accordingly, a President with good political skills can do at least two things to make that happen as he negotiates with the people in Congress he will need to push forward his policy agenda. First, the President can make a failure to reach a negotiated agreement look less attractive to his counterparts by credibly threatening to punish them for opposing his agenda. The more popular the President and his agenda, the more credible this threat.

Second, the President can make reaching a negotiated agreement on terms favorable to his agenda look more attractive to his counterparts by helping them frame such an agreement as a "win-win" solution, one consistent with their values and principles, as opposed to a capitulation. That is why what some people are describing as Obama's "trick" is really just an obvious first step toward a successful negotiated outcome.

Now of course sometimes negotiations fail, and the outcome will be determined by whichever group of like-minded people has the power to achieve their way. But for good or ill, our Constitution is designed to heavily favor the status quo whenever such a situations arises.

So if change is what you want, you really need to make sure your nominee for President understands the basic elements of successful negotiations. And just as important, you need your nominee for President to have the political skills necessary to make reaching a favorable negotiated agreement a better option for most members of Congress than opposition to that person's agenda.

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 7:50 AM

I amazed that more people do not realize what a great opportunity Dems have in 2008. This is a once in a generation chance to remake the Senate landscape. There is an unpopular war, a toxic Republican president and a housing market about to fall into the abyss. You have Republican retirements in CO, NM and VA plus Collins (Allen), Coleman (Franken), Sununu (Shaheen) and Smith (Merkley) are all beatable. Win those seven seats and Dems control 58 seats. Sure winning two more seats is unlikely but better to shoot for 60 than to be satisfied with 51. Idaho, Nebraska, maybe Wyoming if Freudenthal runs are not completely out of the question.

Dems need to win big in 2008 and pass progressive legislation early since the 2012 Senate elections will have them defending 23 Senate seats.

Posted by think big | December 18, 2007 8:15 PM