The Beef

Reacting this morning to Leon Wieseltier's Obama-skeptical essay, Andrew remarked:

This kind of skepticism is entirely a good thing, I'd say. The one unfair critique is that Obama lacks policy substance. His campaign is laden with policy substance. Oodles of it. More, I wager, than Leon's interest would ever bear.

This is very true. I hear this complaint a lot, and while I think it's very fair to say that Obama's fans sometimes make a policy-free case on his behalf, it's just not true that there's no policy substance to the campaign. From the small-bore (here'ss a safe drinking water plan) to the giant (here's a comprehensive global warming plan) he's chock full o' policies. That's just how Democratic campaigns work -- the left-of-center universe if full of busy bee think tankers who are happy to write up a plan about anything ready to fit just about any specification. Neither the Obama campaign nor the Clinton campaign talk in much detail about policy, because I think ordinary people mostly don't care, but also because I don't think they seriously disagree about very much of this.

Comments

Thanks for noting this. Hillary's been repeating the "no-substance" meme so frequently I was starting to worry it was taking hold.

Posted by John | January 18, 2008 1:23 PM

Thanks for noting this. Hillary's been repeating the "no-substance" meme so frequently I was starting to worry it was taking hold. Just because he's not painfully uninspiring like Hillary doesn't mean he doesn't have detailed policies for the real wonks to chew over.

Posted by John | January 18, 2008 1:24 PM

He doesn't mean wonkery, he means gravitas, which only literary critics like himself are capable of recognizing (last sentence in the essay is a hat-tip towards McCain).

Posted by kth | January 18, 2008 1:27 PM

More Obama policy details, Matt please.

How bout a complete run down with links on everything he is for, with your take on each one?

Posted by patience | January 18, 2008 1:34 PM

It's all about emphasis. Sure, all the candidates put out policies, but you learn something important about each of them by determining which ones seem more comfortable and conversant talking policy, which seem emotionally connected to certain policies, and which seem disinclined to talk about specific policies on the stump. My beef with Obama isn't so much that his campaign doesn't have specific policies that it's promulgated but that, from his speeches on the stump, you'd be hard-pressed to know that he's aware of the specifics of any of them or that he personally gives a shit about the specifics. For all their different faults, you do get sense from Edwards in this campaign that he is personally, emotionally invested in certain policy outcomes, and Hillary at least is quite comfortable talking about her policies, which ones she wants and why. I don't get that from Obama, just his commitment to a kind of nebulous uplift (along with air kisses to Reagan, lately) and a nagging unease about whether he's really committed to anything specific or would be willing to go to the barricades for it. I'm certainly not alone with this feeling, either, and if Obama is in a position to reassure liberals and progressives that it's about more than just "Morning in America" for him, it would probably be helpful for him to do that.

Posted by scott | January 18, 2008 1:46 PM

Furthermore, it is asinine of people like Weiseltier and also, today in the WSJ, Christopher of Kurdistan Hitchens, to suggest that Obama is terra incognita as a politician and a personality. We have benefit of what even some conservatives have hailed as a classic political autobiography of our time in Dreams From My Father. I defy anyone to finish that book, grunt forward out of their easy chair and declare that they have no real idea who this guy is. This meme is intellectual laziness, or cynicism, or both, personified.

Posted by elle loco | January 18, 2008 1:48 PM

Neither the Obama campaign nor the Clinton campaign talk in much detail about policy, because I think ordinary people mostly don't care, but also because I don't think they seriously disagree about very much of this.

That's absolutely correct Matt, and yet Hillary has managed to give people the impression that she does provide a lot of detail, and must therefore know what she's doing, yadda yadda yadda.

Obama's campaign has apparently made the conscious choice not to do this, at least so far. It isn't clear to me that, even if we wonked prophetic in some debate and crushed Hillary in a policy discussion, anyone would notice.

Posted by Jake | January 18, 2008 1:52 PM

On, come on, patience: Why don't you roll on over to Obama's website? It ain't that far a walk.

And scott, Obama's a former community organizer, was against the Iraq war, has Samantha Power, Tony Lake, and Susan Rice on his team in foreign policy (my #1 interest). If you have any further concerns or misgivings about who Obama "is" on any tangent of policy, why don't you hie yourself off to find out?

Good grief, people....

Posted by elle loco | January 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Matt,

You're violating the narrative that's already been developed regarding Obama.

What are you, some kind of troublemaker?

Next you'll be saying that Edwards is justified in his anger, and the rest of us should be ashamed of not being more angry. Or that Clinton is actually charming, but the MSM can't recognize anything but "good ol' boy" charm, nor look past it.

Posted by Ryan Scott | January 18, 2008 1:53 PM

Hillary doesn't talk about policy? Are you kidding me? Isn't the critique that she talks too much about policy?

Posted by nvs | January 18, 2008 2:03 PM

Why is it lately that when questions are asked about Obama and what his real priorities are, his supporters rush forward with many explanations about what he "really means" and point us to different places for those answers when we want those answers from the candidate himself? I already know all the things elle loco just referred to, but I don't find the Iraq war a point of emphasis for Obama, who seems quite content along with Hillary (his avowed rival) to leave residual forces there for the foreseeable future and doesn't seem at all eager to discuss getting out. This is the point, and Matt himself has discussed this when he noted that the personnel Obama employs give him hope for a less hawkish foreign policy but that, from what they actually say and do on the issue, there isn't a lot of daylight between Obama and Clinton. I'm against the war, and for the life of me I don't know why Obama doesn't spend more time whaling on HRC about it (which he can do given his pre-war position). The fact that he doesn't is puzzling and a little disturbing to me, and I'd rather hear him explain it than to have to read the tea leaves like Matt has done or have his supporters tell me about the "real" Obama.

Posted by scott | January 18, 2008 2:07 PM

I agree with scott. Of course Obama has policy positions on just about every issue known to man ... he just doesn't about them on the campaign trail all that much, which is what a lot of people like me want him to do. Listen to a Clinton townhall meeting or stump speech, and you get the distinct impression that she's promoting her policies. Listen to an Obama townhall or speech, and you get the distinct impression that he's promoting himself.

The typical voter doesn't go to websites and search through pages of white papers to cull out an opinion; they hear a candidate on the news or read a headline or overhear conversations in the hallway or something of the sort. I've done my fair share of volunteering, and it's amazing how many Obama supporters know little to nothing about his positions on health care, social security, global warming, or even the war in Iraq. They simply hear someone talking about changing the tone in Washington and are won over, without having any real idea of who they're going to elect.

Posted by Gheby | January 18, 2008 2:31 PM

One thing Weislieter said that really rings true to me is: "And I am a little sick of hope."

I loved Obama's core hope theme when I read his book. I loved it the first several times I heard his speeches. But now, having been recited over and over again, it's just getting really old. I guess I have hope fatigue. And if it's this bad now, what is it going to be like if Obama's still giving the same stump speech in November?

Posted by DemUnity08 | January 18, 2008 2:36 PM

Obama's main goal is not to advance policies, he is running to change the political process to one of bi-partisanship and unity. The Obama team's policy proposals are good overall but Obama doesn't hammer away on them on the stump.(This is partly tactical as his camp didn't think he could beat Hillary in a policy debate election) There is a reason that Obama supporters always direct you to his website to find his policies and not to his speeches or tv appearances or debate answers. When it comes to policy, Obama assumes if you change the system you automatically end up with good results.

Posted by JJ&M | January 18, 2008 2:44 PM

A lot of the charges of "lack of substance" lack substance. What substance do these writers want to see that they have missed? It is one thing to complain that Obama is not running an effective campaign because he does not weave the wonkish stuff more into the inspirational stuff, but it is completely different to claim he actually does not have the substance. I suspect that most of the writers makining the accusation are being lazy.

Posted by blah | January 18, 2008 3:02 PM

Listen to a Clinton townhall meeting or stump speech, and you get the distinct impression that she's promoting her policies. Listen to an Obama townhall or speech, and you get the distinct impression that he's promoting himself.

This is exactly right, and as some here have already noted, it's a conscious choice by his campaign. The NYT did a profile of Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, last spring -- and Axelrod's core philosophy was that you win by selling personality (a/k/a "leadership" and "authenticity") rather than policies. Unfortunately for Obama and Axelrod, the voters may have different ideas.

The Obama team's policy proposals are good overall but Obama doesn't hammer away on them on the stump.(This is partly tactical as his camp didn't think he could beat Hillary in a policy debate election).

That's as stupid as Hillary initially conceding the "change" argument because her strength was experience.

Democratic voters want change -- but they want specific changes, with a reasonably convincing case by the candidate for how they'll make those changes happen. Obama ignores the latter part of that sentence at his peril.

Posted by Swopa | January 18, 2008 3:03 PM

I loved Obama's core hope theme when I read his book. I loved it the first several times I heard his speeches. But now, having been recited over and over again, it's just getting really old. I guess I have hope fatigue. And if it's this bad now, what is it going to be like if Obama's still giving the same stump speech in November?

Here is the problem with your complaint - most of the potential voting population aren't listening to his speeches over and over again. They are the target of those speeches; not the folks who inhabit the comment sections of blogs like Matt's.

Posted by SKI | January 18, 2008 3:11 PM

"My beef with Obama isn't so much that his campaign doesn't have specific policies that it's promulgated but that, from his speeches on the stump, you'd be hard-pressed to know that he's aware of the specifics of any of them or that he personally gives a shit about the specifics."

Except that isn't what drive voting behavior. Wonks forget that people don't vote on policy specifics, but more on personality and vaguely defined ideas like "leadership," "competence," etc. The average voter didn't pay attention in 2000 to policy details to the point that a majority of Americans thought Gore was the pro-life candidate and Bush the pro-choice one. The segment of the population that wants the speeches to be bullet point presentations about policy specifics that are available online is actually rather small. We forget that we are the nerds for being interested in this stuff.

Posted by Reality Man | January 18, 2008 3:19 PM

I wonder how much of this mild backlash against Obama for being inadequately substantive is based on the need of intellectual voters to feel more informed than others.

'Those Obama volunteers are just young and looking for a hero. I'm the REAL supporter because I not only respond to and admire his rhetoric, I read all his policy positions! Sure, I asked Matt Yglesias to summarize them for me, but I still read them!'

Posted by tinisoli | January 18, 2008 3:23 PM

Wonks forget that people don't vote on policy specifics, but more on personality and vaguely defined ideas like "leadership," "competence," etc.

Generally speaking, I'd agree with you, but this election might be a little different.

Put it this way: If you're in good health and just plan to get an annual checkup, a lot of personal characteristics may go into your choice of a doctor.

If you've got a clearly serious problem -- e.g., sharp and persistent pain, or a swollen purple/black lump somewhere -- you might be a little more fussy about specific expertise.

Posted by Swopa | January 18, 2008 3:49 PM

So hmmm, this election features a guy who wrote a book about hope, another guy who bickered with his running mate about 'hope', a guy whose top google hit promises hope, a guy who is the last conservative hope, a guy from a town called Hope, and the wife of a guy from said town called Hope.

Shit.

Posted by nbt | January 18, 2008 3:50 PM

So what Obama supporters are saying is Obama doesn't give a give a shit about appealing to policy driven voters because he is campaigning to reach the masses with an eye on the general election now. Interestingly enough, these same supporters also enjoy pointing out how Obama wins both the high informaiton voters and the highly educated and affluent segments. Apparently rich, white liberals are bored dilettantes.

Posted by couch | January 18, 2008 4:17 PM

The funny thing about this debate is that in all the exit poll splits, Obama is the one winning the most educated voters. At the end of the day, he's doing perfectly fine amongst the policy wonk types. His problem seems to be with the non-college educated voters and older voters.

Posted by Joe | January 18, 2008 5:37 PM

If "hope" is all you need, why didn't we elect Anthony Robbins President years ago, since he has "hope" and a specific methodology to get it (or so he claims)?

And this constant repetition of "voters don't pay attention to anything but personality" really rather eliminates the notion of "democracy" being an effective method of running the world.

I mean, Hitler had "personality".

And based on this, you think Obama - or Hillary, or whoever - is an "agent of change"?

Morons.

Less hope. More plan. And by "plan", I mean details, not hand waving which most of the candidates so-called "plans" are.

None of the candidates have a "plan" for Iraq, or a "plan" for Pakistan, or a "plan" for Iran. What they all have is a general concept of continuing to screw up because they're clueless about underlying reality.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 18, 2008 8:48 PM