Hey! Policy! What?

Mark Steyn writes:

Well, why shouldn't they vote on "character"? Barack Obama has no accomplishments, no legislative record, no nuthin'. So if you don't want to vote on character (ie, his condescension to crackers too boorish to understand how sophisticatedly nuanced it is to have a terrorist pal and a racist pastor), what else is left?

Leaving aside the fact that Barack Obama does, in fact, have accomplishments and a legislative record the other thing one could consider beyond a candidate's record is his or her proposals. You can bore down into detail about these proposals on Obama's website. Alternatively, you can opt for a more general characterization of the McCain/Obama choice where McCain would favor lower taxes, less generous services, and a more business-friendly regulatory environment whereas Obama would favor higher taxes, more generous services, and a regulatory environment that's more influenced by the views of environmental, consumer, and labor organizations. This whole general neighborhood of inquiry really ought to be familiar to someone who writes about politics for a living.

Comments

What accomplishment does McCain have, other than being taken prisoner? Maybe being on both sides of every issue and being the world's biggest panderer?

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 21, 2008 9:14 AM

Well, considering Steyn and his fellow NRO-ers were, just 3 months ago, vehemently decrying McCain's legislative record (McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, immigration, etc.), this just doesn't surprise me.

Posted by stevez | April 21, 2008 9:14 AM

Well, it makes me really, really suspicious that these days even Matt's general summary of the contrasting positions of McCain and Obama doesn't even include a *claim* that Obama will actually pull America out of Iraq.

After all, that's the real difference between "100 years in Iraq" vs. "200 Friedman-Units in Iraq"?...

Posted by RKU | April 21, 2008 9:16 AM

Well, considering Steyn and his fellow NRO-ers were, just 3 months ago, vehemently decrying McCain's legislative record (McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, immigration, etc.), this just doesn't surprise me.

Posted by stevez | April 21, 2008 9:17 AM

Steyn doesn't even attempt to make serious arguments so you really can't argue with him. He's basically a court jester for the right wing, specializing in the snide insult and the broad baseless generalization. He makes 55 year old bitter white guys feel good about themselves, and that's all he does. Steyn makes Jonah Goldberg look nuanced and sophisticated.

Posted by vanya | April 21, 2008 9:23 AM

This is warmed-over bulljive they used back in 04 against Kerry. We're gonna need a shitload of Greenwalds to battle this.

Posted by ed | April 21, 2008 9:25 AM

Cokie Roberts yesterday on ABC's This Week:
=========================
Voters understand the Constitution. They have a very strong sense of that, inchoately. And that is, they know that the president is not going to determine capital gains taxes.

So they don't vote for President on issues, they vote for President on a gut-check.

"I like that guy", or "I like that guy better than the other guy".

And "I think that the decisions that he [or in this case, maybe she] make in the next four years, I'm going to be more comfortable with than I would be with that other person".

Which is why these questions that try to get at "who you are" and "what you care about" matter.
=========================
This "character" issue has reached critical mass.

Posted by Quiddity | April 21, 2008 9:48 AM

Steyn doesn't write about politics for a living. He writes about how whorish white women on the pill are shirking their civilizational burden.

Posted by Marshall | April 21, 2008 9:49 AM

Yes, and you failed to note the National Review's support for Cuban exile terrorists and the magazine's racist founder, William F. Buckley.

People who live in glass houses...

Posted by Garuda | April 21, 2008 9:49 AM

Mark Steyn is an uneducated, racist comic writer. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he's one of the funniest uneducated, racist comic writers going.

Although when he tries to sit at the adult table he has trouble seeing past his bowl of Peanut Butter Crunch.

Posted by The Puzzled Ibex | April 21, 2008 9:54 AM

the other thing one could consider beyond a candidate's record is his or her proposals

As Samantha Power and Austan Goolsbee pointed out, the candidate's proposals made while campaigning are irrelevant.

Posted by Al | April 21, 2008 9:58 AM

Steyn ain't no racist. He's friends with the Blacks.

Posted by canadianGoose | April 21, 2008 10:07 AM

As Samantha Power and Austan Goolsbee pointed out, the candidate's proposals made while campaigning are irrelevant.

The details of said proposals may be irrelevant, but the general direction of those same proposals can indicate something about the mindset of the candidates.

Posted by ChrisWWW | April 21, 2008 10:08 AM

Steyn's right, and thanks to Quiddity for pointing out why.

I'm an Obama supporter, voter, and contributor because I think he's got the character to eschew turning over policy on taxes, "services", and regulations to a bunch of losers from "environmental, consumer, and labor organizations".

And, of course, because he recognizes our responsibilities in Iraq.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 21, 2008 10:17 AM

Leaving aside the fact that Barack Obama does, in fact, have accomplishments and a legislative record the other thing one could consider beyond a candidate's record is his or her proposals.

It seems like you're not seeing the forest for the trees, or whatever the appropriate pithy metaphor is. Focusing on personality and manufactured controversy is what everyone in the media does. (Except anyone in the media who is complaining about it at any given moment.) In that, Steyn is not much worse than anyone else.

But in the quoted post, he's not just focused on the trivial, he's also bullshitting furiously, shamelessly and feebly. That seems to be the biggest problem here. Was he trying to see how many dishonest, hackish smears he could fit in two sentences? I guess calling Obama unpatriotic because he doesn't always wear a flag pin would have broken up the rhythm of the sentence or something.

Posted by Cyrus | April 21, 2008 10:17 AM

This whole general neighborhood of inquiry really ought to be familiar to someone who writes about politics for a living.

Mark Steyn writes about politics for a living in the same manner that Pravda's reporters used to. It's nothing more than the production of pre-scripted propaganda in favor of the ruling party.

Posted by Stefan | April 21, 2008 10:19 AM

Mark Steyn writes - and you read. Why?

Posted by Ray | April 21, 2008 10:24 AM

There is a real issue here, which is something like this: the President will not be in complete control of his or her agenda, and indeed will be forced to deal with issues not currently considered prominent, and sometimes not currently foreseen. So, picking a President in part based not so much on what the candidate is currently saying about policy, but rather on whether you trust that person to handle those future issues reasonably well, makes a lot of sense.

But I'm not sure "character" is a good term for this notion. It really comes down to a host of related questions, including how you think the candidates will respond to political pressure, how they will work with the other people relevant to any given issue, how they will go about the process of making a decision, what general rules, principles, and worldview they will apply to the issue, and so on.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 10:32 AM

No accomplishments?! Who are these people kidding? You can start at the beginning-- accepted into and graduated from one of the nation's top two law schools; graduated magna cum laude; and elected president of its law review, one of the most prestigious such journals in the country. You can add that he authored two bestselling books-- the first of which was critically acclaimed at a time when no one knew who he was. He earned a teaching position at another one of the nation's top law schools (Chicago), where he taught constitutional law for over a decade. He won a seat in the Illinois state legislature and, of course, the United States Senate. He has even won a couple of Grammys, for Pete's sake. This is an extraordinary set of accomplishments, made even more so by the fact that he didn't enjoy a lot of advantages other than his own talents and abilities. Since when is getting elected United States Senator not an accomplishment?!?

These are significant accomplishments not to be dismissed or given short shrift, but the comment was likely intended to get at Obama's legislative accomplishments, which actually do exist. Obama played an important role as a state legislator in spearheading health care and ethics reforms, as well as welfare reform. In the U.S. Senate, he again played a key role in implementing ethics reforms, and he introduced a couple of significant bills that bear his name with respect to cooperative threat reduction and transparency in government. These are merely highlights, not an exhaustive list of his legislative accomplishments. Anyone who is interested to know more can consult his website, or even just read the Wikipedia entry about him. This guy would be really impressive if he had never given a speech in his life.

What exactly has Mark Steyn accomplished?

Let them make it about character, because Barack Obama has the strongest character of anyone in this race (Keating Five).

Posted by Brian | April 21, 2008 10:36 AM

Thank you Cokie Roberts for telling voters that we don't vote on issues. Really? Where's your data? Can Cokie then explain why the majority of the voters who watched the ABC debate debacle were outraged because the moderators took 50 minutes to get around to asking questions on issues? Can she explain, if voters don't vote on issues, why the candidates even discuss policies and proposals during their campaigns? Gee, what a big waste of time then. We could just have a one month character and popularity contest, ask questions like "what kind of ice cream do you like" and "do you love America more than your mother" and "how big is your flag lapel pin?" The answer to those questions will tell us voters who we like and ultimately who to vote for.

But seriously, Cokie and the right-wing media pundits are the ones who don't want to delve into the issues because the issues require them to work. After all, who really wants to find out what McCain's 100 years in Iraq really means - it's too hard and if we dig too deep we might find out that it doesn't make any sense and is bad for our country and for the world. But "gut-check" popularity contests and gossip analysis is easy and provides a cover for right-wing policies and proposals that don't make sense.

Posted by SN | April 21, 2008 10:39 AM

There is something to the idea of using character, worldviews and judgment as rough metrics to determine foreign policy thinking. However, it doesn't make sense that much on domestic policy. If you are pro-choice and that matters to you, what's the point of voting for the pro-life candidate just because he possesses some abstract characteristic called "character?" In addition, one can discern a foreign policy worldview from listening to the proposals that candidates put forth. However, McCain's foreign policy and economic policy proposals are unpopular, so he depends on people voting on abstract ideas and completely ignoring policy.

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 10:42 AM

"But seriously, Cokie and the right-wing media pundits are the ones who don't want to delve into the issues because the issues require them to work. After all, who really wants to find out what McCain's 100 years in Iraq really means - it's too hard and if we dig too deep we might find out that it doesn't make any sense and is bad for our country and for the world. But "gut-check" popularity contests and gossip analysis is easy and provides a cover for right-wing policies and proposals that don't make sense.

Posted by SN | April 21, 2008 10:39 AM"

That's the problem with having so many journalists with journalism degrees instead of a background in economics, political science or international history (instead of stuff quite unrelated to today's politics like Dolly Madison's political skills). How are people supposed to vote on issues when the media doesn't talk about it? Even when someone is obsessed with an issue, like Lou Dobbs, does he talk a lot about the nature of black markets or how maybe we could stem illegal immigration by stopping the subsidization of our agricultural exports to allow Mexican farmers to make enough money that they would rather stay in Mexico? Of course not. We've completely lost touch of why we have a media in the first place: it's not to enforce patriotism, it's not to entertain with pictures of Paris Hilton's dog's butt and it's not to keep flag graphic designers employed. The whole fucking point is to inform. Our Founding Fathers believed a free media was necessary for checking government overstretch and keeping the electorate and public at large informed. Instead, we get bullshit about flag pins while a bunch of nepotist faux populists shovel bullshit with a smile. The media has become one giant circle jerk.

That's the problem with FoxNews: its opium for political junkies who don't care about policy, but need their daily faux outrage fix (OMG a Jewish guy got mad when someone said "Merry Christmas!"). It would be one thing if it was a televised version of Chicago's economics department or had shows hosted by thoughtful conservatives with intelligent things to say like Drezner and Fukuyama, but instead it's a bunch of crypto-fascist wankers jerking each other off.

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 10:56 AM

Posted by ChrisWWW... The details of said proposals may be irrelevant, but the general direction of those same proposals can indicate something about the mindset of the candidates.

Abso-friggin-lutely.

In 2000, anybody who could do basic math and understood that the economy actually has cycles could not help but predict that George W. Bush was going to drive the gov't into large deficit spending. McCain is saying the same types of things. Basic math says that McCain will be a driver of large deficits.

If you want to be in Iraq for a minimum of 4 or 8 years, vote McCain. Same for Hillary. Once the right-wing attacks over any plans for withdrawal (and they will ... in spades), you can totally expect Hillary to fold. She voted for the war in the first place because she didn't want to be viewed as a wimp. If she feels the GOP is scoring political points on the issue, she'll do a 180 so fast that you're head will spin.

Posted by LFC | April 21, 2008 11:08 AM

The idea that voters don't vote on the issues is really about the media not writing on the issues. If Cokie Roberts et. al. had to do that for a living, they'd have to display some expertise. They'd have to work, and figure out boring statistics. On the other hand, if it is all about character, then they can happily write about politics in a vein that is no deeper and no better researched than a People article about Britney Spears.

In other words, the media sees itself as being in the business of cretinization. Cretinize the populace, and you advance to the plum positions - inform the populace, and you become Bill Moyers, a man without a tv network.

Posted by roger | April 21, 2008 11:11 AM

Reality Man,

I agree the case for the more speculative criteria is strongest in foreign policy, since it is a big, complicated, and difficult-to-predict world. But I don't think domestic policy is completely isolated from such considerations. For example, our economy is also pretty big, pretty complicated, and pretty difficult to predict. Moreover, it is tied into the world economy, and affected by world events. So, the next President will likely have to deal with economic circumstances and issues not currently known, and hence the speculative criteria still have their place.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 11:33 AM

Sure, the media don't like to discuss issues and the right would rather avoid them, lest it emphasize that most people don't agree. (But then, in the debate, the media did eventually get to issues, and the press's derision of the moderators chooses to avoid asking how the questions then had a right-wing spin on thie issues.) But also, how about a legitimate concept of character?

Bush, a narrow-minded idiot who avoided combat and mostly likely even his own guard duty, won on character first against someone who now appears a national leader and then against a war hero, because we all know Bush was a compassionate conservative but also a man of courage and conviction, while his opponents were eyebrow raisers, elitists, flip-floppers, and traitors to their Swift Boat comrades.

Now imagine a real discussion of Obama's character. He could be the man who overcame a broken home and racism to become a law professor and political leader. Oh, but we all know he's a Muslim in disguise and an effete intellectual. He could be the guy who stuck with his community, as organizer and churchgoer. Oh, but we all know he either demeans religious Americans or backs a radical black Christian cleric. (Whatever.)

He could be someone who refuses to accept lobbyist money while McCain lets lobbyists run his campaign. Oh, but we know who the straight shooter and reformer is. He could be someone who won't stoop to attacks. Oh, but we know that means his debate performance is woosy. He could be someone who is willing to talk class and express empathy with white working-class needs even in a groundbreaking speech on race. Oh, but we know he just wants us to beat race into the ground. He could be someone with the oratorical skills to unite concrete policy proposals into a vision of hope. Oh, but we know it's just words. And heck, McCain will be there to straighten everything out for us.

Posted by John Haber | April 21, 2008 11:43 AM

Mark Steyn: “The war is over. … it's the Anglo-Aussie-American side who are the geniuses. Rumsfeld's view …has been vindicated…”

Why do we pay attention to these people?

Posted by Steve | April 21, 2008 11:43 AM

Big difference between writing about politics for a living and actually thinking about it.

Posted by chichi2 | April 21, 2008 11:46 AM

Character would be a fine basis on which to vote, if only American voters weren't such terrible judges of it.

Posted by kth | April 21, 2008 11:55 AM

The disingenuousness of people who make arguments like Steyn is here astounds me. If Obama had McCain's policy proposals, and McCain had Obama's, does anyone think that Steyn (or anyone writing for NRO, for that matter) would give a crap which candidate has the most "experience" or a scary black preacher?

Posted by Phaedrus | April 21, 2008 12:29 PM

When Mark Steyn and Bill Kristol go after Obama for being a condescending elitist, it really is self-mockery at it's most blind.

Posted by Bullsmith | April 21, 2008 12:35 PM

are you sure that Mark Steyn gets paid for writing this stuff? the quote you provided shows that he doesn't know how to do basic research.
wingnut welfare, i guess

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 21, 2008 12:47 PM

You can bore down into detail about these proposals on Obama's website.

MattY would probably have fit right in to the Soviet Union.

For instance, I've taken a look at Obama's proposals and found several major problems with them. I've pointed that out in various posts, such as this one.

Now what? I've discovered major flaws in what Obama supports. How do I get him to respond to those flaws?

No one in the MSM is going to ask him about those flaws because a) they don't know anything and b) they're completely corrupt. Obama hacks like MattY certainly have no interest in having a grown-up converation about those flaws. McCain and Clinton aren't going to discuss those flaws because they share them in general.

Every Soviet leader had proposals too, and they also had minor functionaries around to promote them and prevent discussion of the flaws in those proposals.

Posted by TLB | April 21, 2008 12:56 PM

"I agree the case for the more speculative criteria is strongest in foreign policy, since it is a big, complicated, and difficult-to-predict world. But I don't think domestic policy is completely isolated from such considerations. For example, our economy is also pretty big, pretty complicated, and pretty difficult to predict. Moreover, it is tied into the world economy, and affected by world events. So, the next President will likely have to deal with economic circumstances and issues not currently known, and hence the speculative criteria still have their place.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 11:33 AM"

I agree with you to some extent, so we're basically just negotiating on price here, but each election the basic facts that a candidate should know (how interest rates and exchange rates work, what the Fed is, etc.) stay rather constant while many of the facts about foreign affairs a candidate has to know changes with each election (who knows, in 2012 we may be deciding on who has the best policy to deal with Russia's attempts to integrate parts of Georgia into it as our main concern). The president also has less direct control over the economy than our foreign policy vis-a-vis the other branches.

TLB Translated: I'm a self-described expert because I'm not a brown Mexican. Listen to me cuz I whore my blog! OH NOES A PINATA RUN!

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 1:21 PM

Reality Man,

I also agree with your point about Presidents having limited control over the economy, and indeed I would suggest that in general the President faces a lot more constraints when it comes to making domestic policy than when it comes to making foreign policy. But that cuts both ways: a President has a lot more ability to more or less unilaterally carry out any foreign policies he or she announces in advance, but in domestic policy many issues will require working with the other branches of government (mostly Congress, but sometimes also the courts). And that means those other branches of government can become an independent source of unforeseen--or otherwise off-agenda--domestic policy issues for Presidents to deal with.

Finally, I agree we are more just fleshing out the issues rather than arguing to a definitive conclusion, but I see no harm in that.

Posted by DTM | April 21, 2008 1:49 PM

How do I get him to respond to those flaws?

You mean that blogwhoring your piece o'shit monomaniacal white-supremacist hangout while afraid to crawl out from under your bed hasn't propelled you into the upper tier of political influence?

Obviously, it's all a grand conspiracy by Teh Brown Menace. And Lou Dobbs.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 21, 2008 2:55 PM

TLB is right about one thing: Obama's foreign policy has HUGE flaws in it that Matt won't discuss - because Matt believes in those same flaws.

It's also true that Clinton and McCain share those flaws.

And when Bush and Cheney start the Iran war before the election this year, you're going to see those flaws hang Obama in the election, giving McCain the victory.

And when McCain takes office, you're REALLY going to see those flaws in action.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 21, 2008 6:03 PM

RSH: I'm right about most things, you just don't know it yet.

The only way we're going to resolve these issues and bring some small degree of honesty back to politics is for regular citizens to do what I've been trying to push since November, 2006:

1. Go to campaign appearances.
2. Ask the questions the MSM (and hacks like MattY) won't ask.
3. Upload the response to Youtube and other sites, and promote it via Digg, etc.

If enough people do things like that it will be more difficult for politicians to lie and more difficult for them to make half-baked proposals. It will also show up the MSM. Unfortunately, due to something similar to MAD many people aren't willing to do that or even promote it: they realize that asking real questions of the other side could result in real questions being asked of their side, so to them it's best not to ask real questions at all.

Posted by TLB | April 21, 2008 6:34 PM

Steyn doesn't write about politics for a living. He's a bombthrower and a provocateur. A hack of the lowest order.

Posted by Gus | April 21, 2008 9:30 PM

Matt, if I were an ordinary voter not obsessed with policy issues, I wouldn't consider a candidate's policy positions worth the energy it takes to display the pixels if I didn't think the guy was trustworthy. Anyone who's been around the block a few times politically knows that politicians reverse themselves routinely once in office, and not necessarily for bad reasons. The question is, will this guy make the choices with you in mind, or will he say one thing to get elected and ignore it when he's in office? That's one of the things that ordinary voters mean when they say "character." There's also the problem that policy questions are really, really complicated, and what seems on the surface to be an attractive policy argument can easily be smoke and mirrors. People who aren't wonks or blatant partisans have little to make their judgments on except their sense of the *person* behind the statements. Republicans know that, and that's why they've long specialized in character assassination. Democrats like yourself never seem to learn it--which is why a lot of us are increasingly fearful that we're about to become roadkill yet again.

Posted by David in Nashville | April 21, 2008 10:07 PM

"Anyone who's been around the block a few times politically knows that politicians reverse themselves routinely once in office, and not necessarily for bad reasons. The question is, will this guy make the choices with you in mind, or will he say one thing to get elected and ignore it when he's in office? That's one of the things that ordinary voters mean when they say "character.""

Does this ever work though? Since we only see "character" through the media narratives the media chooses for us (especially if you aren't a politics geek who looks up this stuff for yourself), such a voter only ends up judging the forms of character that the media pre-screens. Voters were caught by surprise that Bush focused his second term on things like privatizing Social Security, but that shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone paying attention, which seems not to have included a lot of his base.

Posted by Reality Man | April 21, 2008 10:15 PM

The really funny thing about applying the "no substance" tag to Obama is that it proves that the the person using it, and not Obama, is a lightweight. If you are a "serious", disciplined policy wonk, don't you check a candidate's website before you go calling that candidate "just a speech"? Only a lightweight (or a liar) would fail to see what is obvious to anyone who has read Obama's proposals - he's a details guy! Sure, his speeches don't go there but that is one of the main reason for his well deserved reputation as an orator. So, the next time you hear someone criticise Obama as offering only vague hope, know this... The person speaking is a lightweight and a hypocrite.

Posted by Bill Keane | April 22, 2008 2:31 AM