The Difference?

David Leonhardt previews Barack Obama's approach to economic policy. He notes that "Indeed, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton hold similar or identical positions on a host of economic issues, and Democratic economists not aligned with either campaign often speak positively about both." Quite true, I think. He tries to sex things up by observing that "the two candidates offer strikingly different strategies for achieving their economic agendas." To me, though, the argument on that score is pretty unconvincing.

When you control for the fact that it would sound silly for the candidates to just agree that they don't really have clear disagreements on the main issues, I mostly see two campaigns trying to make mountains out of molehills for the sake of having something to talk about. What's more, in practice there's only so much that "strategies for achieving" your legislative agenda can actually do. What matters most is not the strategy but the outcome of the congressional elections.

Comments

But Obama and Clinton have vastly different strategies for achieving a positive outcome of the congressional elections.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 2, 2008 1:14 PM

"What matters most is not the strategy but the outcome of the congressional elections."

Oh no doubt! Just think back to the 2006 elections. If the GOPers had kept control we'd have really awful things like continued rubber stamping of BushCo war funding, malicious FISA stuff, out of control congressional earmarks....

Glad we dodged those bullets!

Posted by kafka | February 2, 2008 1:18 PM

Well, if Congress remains split pretty closely down the middle, it might also matter if you have a history of getting the opposing party to work with you, rather than a history of being vilified by and vilifying them.

Posted by moff | February 2, 2008 1:19 PM

On the subject of molehills, I like Clinton's healthcare plan better because it's closer to Edwards', but the fact is that any differences that are smaller than the changes that will be made once the plans go into the legislative process are effectively noise, so I'm not too concerned about it.

Posted by Redshift | February 2, 2008 1:30 PM

Senator Obama has not put forth an astoundingly stupid proposal such as Senator Clinton's five year freeze in interest rates. Now, I suspect that Senator Clinton doesn't really belive it would be a good policy, and her rhetoric is simply a reflection of the contempt in which she holds her fellow party members, but good grief, will you Democrats please nominate the obviously better candidate? If the Republicans follow their present course, and we end up with a Clinton/ McCain race I don't think we'll have ever had a campaign where the two candidates had less regard for the people whose votes they were seeking.

Posted by Will Allen | February 2, 2008 1:32 PM

"Yes, We Can" Song!
Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHA_ZTvOgUM.
And look at who's in the mix?

Posted by Justin X | February 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Well, on the present economic crisis, Obama and Clinton do have strikingly different positions: Clinton presents an insane and frightfully naive plan to freeze interest rates for five years, while Obama offers a relatively sober and sensible approach. On the big ideological issues, they're quite similar, but here there is a legitimate (and, in my view, important) difference.

Posted by Matt Rognlie | February 2, 2008 1:34 PM

Matt R., do you share my suspicion that Senator Clinton really does grasp how insane her proposal is, and this is merely a populist ploy to grab some votes on Tuesday? I mean, it does give some indication of how she views her fellow party members, but I really can't believe that she is so fundamentally silly.

Posted by Will Allen | February 2, 2008 1:39 PM

Matthew is right. Could he please call up Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein to tell them that? Their recent dispute about Obama's "Harry and Louise" ad is just a fairy tale and is their attempt to make mountains out of molehills so that they can get jobs from Hillary Clinton if she gets into power. I've completely lost respect for them because of this.

Posted by TLM | February 2, 2008 1:41 PM

Getting healthcare, sound environmenal policy, and beginning a withdrawal from Iraq does very much depend on who can bring along the largest number of downticket democrats. My feeling was always that this was clearly going to be John Edwards. The party has eliminated that option at this point. We will just have to see how the eventual candidate does in this respect once we know who it is. Remember, ultimately the policies that will help people are what matters--not whether you're favorite candidate is the nominee.

Posted by edwardian | February 2, 2008 2:13 PM

Getting healthcare, sound environmenal policy, and beginning a withdrawal from Iraq does very much depend on who can bring along the largest number of downticket democrats. My feeling was always that this was clearly going to be John Edwards. The party has eliminated that option at this point. We will just have to see how the eventual candidate does in this respect once we know who it is. Remember, ultimately the policies that will help people are what matters--not whether your favorite candidate is the nominee.

Posted by edwardian | February 2, 2008 2:14 PM

If the movement catches fire among the country like it shows signs of doing by Super Tuesday, Congress could very well have the first veto-proof muscle in a long, long time.

That Yes We Can song is exciting and moving...damn it, how hungry, tired and sad are we after all the mayhem, all the stupidity, all the lack of humanity at the government level of our journey as a nation?

Anybody who doesn't get on this bandwagon - and Obama's right, it's not just about him, it's about us, about our desire and need to roll our sleeves up, stand shoulder to shoulder with all our brothers and sisters, and remember that we can dream again,
we can believe again,
we can have a world in which every man knows he is father to every child,
and every woman knows she is mother to every child,
and all that that implies for a better world, in which we see not just friends and enemies, but sicker or healthier, richer or poorer versions of...ourselves.

I'm a 62 year old white male. This is anything but just a young or black or male phenomenon. This is our heart and soul, crying out to live large again in the best way that humans can be.

Gobama!

Posted by James Lawrence | February 2, 2008 2:19 PM

Watching Clinton's rally from CSULA and Villaraigosa has just brought out "the dream team," one by one like an NBA starting lineup:

Magic Johnson
Maxine Waters
Ron Dellums
Fabio Nunez
Diane Watson
Gloria Molina [who gets some booos]
Laura Richardson

Can you think of a less inspiring group of Dems than this? Can you think of a menagerie of politicians that better exemplifies why the Democratic Party is so impoverished for talent? I mean, where's Gray Davis and Phil Angelides?

Posted by Scott T | February 2, 2008 2:49 PM

"Can you think of a less inspiring group of Dems than this? Can you think of a menagerie of politicians that better exemplifies why the Democratic Party is so impoverished for talent? I mean, where's Gray Davis and Phil Angelides?

Posted by Scott T | February 2, 2008 2:49 PM"

To be fair, Magic may have some dumb ideas on taxes, but he's still Magic Fucking Johnson, the man who kicked both the Celtics and HIV's ass.

Will Allen, were you the one a little while ago on Ezra's blog who pointed out that Clinton didn't know the relationship between inflation and interest rates? Because that simply floors me that such econ 101 is not in her grasp. That's like when the NYT gets confused about why American exports rose and the trade deficit shrank when the dollar fell.

Posted by Reality Man | February 2, 2008 2:56 PM

Most of the comments so far are only tangentially related to the substance of Matt's point, but I actually disagree with the substance of this post or, at least, had a different read of the Leonhardt article. It seemed to me that Obama actually did articulate policies that would seek to reduce economic inequality, which was only exacerbated during the last Clinton administration. I haven't seen Hillary Clinton make any similar arguments. Have I missed them somewhere?

Posted by I HATE That | February 2, 2008 3:06 PM

The fact that Leonhardt thinks Obama's announced policies are to the left of Clinton's pretty much tells you he has no clue.

Posted by Rob | February 2, 2008 3:09 PM

I liked the last couple of sentences. This would be a great team, and the sentiment is exactly right:

“I want an Alan Blinder, and I want a Jacob Hacker, and I want a Bob Rubin, and I want a Robert Reich,” he said, referring to a mix of centrist and more liberal Democratic economic advisers. “And I want a good robust argument about
where we need to go.”

Posted by David | February 2, 2008 3:12 PM

Reality Man, that wasn't me, but I have to say I simply don't find it possible that she can be as stupid as this proposal would seem to indicate. I mean, John McCain is John Maynard Freakin' Keynes compared to this order of numbskullery. The only possible alternative is that she holds her fellow party members, and her supporters in particular, in utter and complete contempt, thinking she can say absolutely anything to them, and they will simply nod their skulls up and down like bobblehead dolls.

Good grief, combine this with her stance on the war, and it is astounding to think that the Democrats may choose her over Obama. I mean, I believe it was better to fight this war than to leave the Baathists in power for many decades, but I'm not a Democrat. Why the hell would a Democrat support Senator Clinton over Senator Obama?

Posted by Will Allen | February 2, 2008 3:51 PM

Paul “Making a Mountain out of a Molehill” Krugman has really lost it. His latest effort to “prove” how wrong Obama is, really is proof positive of his own political naivete and obsession with abstractions.

Anyone who has ever done the type of policy simulation studies that he quotes from (I’ve spent many years doing just that) knows how extremely sensitive the results are to the underlying behavioral assumptions and parameter values. Moreover, they can never capture the actual dynamics of the adjustment process involved in any policy change. And, most importantly, they say nothing about the political process itself that makes it possible to successfully achieve any policy change. Therefore, the results of the Gruber analysis prove nothing except for the truism of this particular model.

Yet Krugman seeks to hang on this purely technocratic result a blanket rejection of Obama’s healthcare proposals (and hence, perhaps, the whole rationale of his candidacy). It’s as if a candidate for President of the US is some sort of clothes hanger on which to drape the minutiae of policy differences according to one’s personal taste and number crunching technique.

That may be a satisfying approach for some wonker caught up in the weeds of such minutiae. But it displays a fundamentally shallow and narrow understanding of the politics of the moment as well as of the policy-making process that it takes to enact legislation.

Posted by Justin X | February 2, 2008 4:19 PM

which is all the more reason why Obama should be touting his appeal to indies & repubs. Why to puprle and red state senators/govs endorse him.
That, and the last time a Clinton was in the WH the dems lost the house in the subsequent mid-term.

Posted by gnostic19 | February 3, 2008 1:10 AM

which is all the more reason why Obama should be touting his appeal to indies & repubs. Why to puprle and red state senators/govs endorse him.
That, and the last time a Clinton was in the WH the dems lost the house in the subsequent mid-term.

Posted by gnostic19 | February 3, 2008 1:11 AM

why does Hillary continue to say she'll freeze rates for 5 years? this has been roundly criticizes as the worst possible thing you could do to the economy. she said it yesterday at her rally in LA. just astounding.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 3, 2008 5:31 AM

Well Republican trolls certainly approve of Obama's economic team and plans.

Posted by J J & M | February 3, 2008 6:07 AM

Some of Krugman's best work is on the positive effects of inflation and why it is necessary. He has also done a good job showing why Japan pretty much freezing interest rates near 0% for a decade was self-defeating. Ironic.

Posted by Reality Man | February 3, 2008 9:00 AM

Can you think of a less inspiring group of Dems than this? Can you think of a menagerie of politicians that better exemplifies why the Democratic Party is so impoverished for talent? I mean, where's Gray Davis and Phil Angelides?

LOL Scott. Sad but true.

But back to the original point, I agree. And it shows Krugman for the partisan hack he really is.

Note to Krugman - you're to "liberal" for the Clintons to ever give you a cabinet position, so stop embarrassing yourself!

Posted by Julie | February 3, 2008 11:20 AM

Policies only take you so far. Matt, you mentioned before that there's really only so much a President can do to enact his/her campaign-trail promises and policy platforms into actual legislative results. The make up of congress not to mention real-life changes to domestic or foreign circumstances profoundly affect what actually happens in a presidency, vs. "my plan for healthcare is X, my plan for the falling dollar is Y."
Since there's not much daylight between BO and HC's policies, isn't the real distinction, and the reason to choose one over the other, "softer" qualities like leadership, temperament, vision, negotiation skills, etc. It drives me up the wall that the Democratic Primary discussion centers on policy differences when in reality there aren't many. The real differences lie in the qualities of leadership between the two candidates, and that's where our Primary discussion should lie.
Of course, come the general election, policy differences become paramount.

Posted by stan | February 3, 2008 4:16 PM