Oh Noes Issues!

Frank Rich seems a bit bitter:

Privileged though they are, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama do want to shape policy to help the less well-heeled. Mr. McCain, who had a far more elite upbringing than either of them and whose wife’s estimated fortune exceeds the Clintons’, is not just condescending to working Americans but trying to hoodwink them. Next week, in a replay of the 2000 Bush campaign’s “compassionate conservative” photo ops among black schoolchildren, he will show he’s a “different kind of Republican” by visiting what he calls the “forgotten” America of Alabama’s “black belt” and the old steel town of Youngstown, Ohio. What he wants voters to forget is the inequity of his new economic plan.

That plan’s incoherent smorgasbord of items includes a cut from 35 percent to 25 percent in the corporate tax rate. For noncorporate taxpayers, Mr. McCain offers such thin gruel as a battle against federal pork (the notorious Alaskan “bridge to nowhere,” earmarked for $223 million in federal highway money, costs less than a day of the war in Iraq) and a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax (a saving of some $2.75 per 15-gallon tank). Now there’s a reason for voters to be bitter — assuming bloviators start publicizing and parsing Mr. McCain’s words as relentlessly as they do the Democrats’.

Ultimately, one suspects that it would be really, really, really hard for anyone involved in politics professionally for as long as a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton or even a Barack Obama to be really and truly "in touch" with peoples' lives. Which is what brings us back to policy priorities. McCains are reducing the level of government services in order to pay for an indefinite prolongation of the war in Iraq, the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, a large hike in non-war defense spending, and a series of new tax breaks. Clinton and Obama are both, in somewhat different ways, offering more services paid for by returning to something more like the levels of taxation that so devastated the national economy in the 1990s.

Comments

...one suspects that it would be really, really, really hard for anyone involved in politics professionally for as long as a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton or even a Barack Obama to be really and truly "in touch" with peoples' lives.

I think you're wrong about Obama on this one. This is where the "lack of experience" charge becomes a good thing. As opposed to U.S. Senators and First Ladies, most state legislators are still very much "in touch" with their people, particularly those who represent low/mod income constituencies.

Posted by converse | April 20, 2008 10:30 AM

I think you're wrong about Obama on this one.

Well, obviously. How could a human being so totally perfect in every respect possibly contain even such a single flaw? Wasn't that similar to (Aquinas's?) proof of the existence of God.

Some of the crazy Obama supporters have recently taking to boasting that he succeeded in combining Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle with Einstein's General Relativity to produce a consistent theory of quantum gravitation, which he then applied to legal theory. And anyone who could do THAT, could certainly devote 0.1% of his mental ability to remain fully in touch with ordinary working people.

Posted by RKU | April 20, 2008 10:48 AM

Americans belatedly learned the hard way that the brush-clearing cowboy of the Crawford “ranch” ... was in reality an entitled Andover-Yale-Harvard oil brat whose arrogance has left us where we are now.

Americans ... and Frank "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" Rich!

Posted by strannix | April 20, 2008 11:04 AM

Doesn't the gas tax fund our already shitty highways? McCain wouldn't know about our shitty highways -- he flies everywhere -- but why does he hate commuters so much?

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 20, 2008 11:23 AM

I'm with converse here. Obama was in the Ill Senate as recently as 2004, and while the district was redrawn to include the Gold Coast during his tenure there, I believe that he lived closer to Leroy Brown than Oprah Winfrey.

Obviously the common man on the South Side isn't the same as the common man in rural PA, but HRC lived in an executive mansion in 20 of 22 years between 1979 and 2000, and in Chappaqua (42nd wealthiest place in America, sez the wiki) for the rest.

Posted by Matt B | April 20, 2008 11:47 AM

gack. By "the rest" I meant ever since, not the missing 2 years, of course.

Posted by Matt B | April 20, 2008 11:52 AM

It's hilarious to see people like Matthew complaining about a focus on things he doesn't consider "issues". After all, Matthew was among the many left-wing bloggers who posted about a gajillion times in 2004 on President Bush's TANG service. Issues, baby, issues.

Posted by Al | April 20, 2008 12:35 PM

Of course aspiring presidents of the USA can't be ordnery Joes--that is the whole point. Whose message is resonating with the people? Who understands the mood of the country and has priorities to match? These are the questions.

That anyone should question Obama for being elitist given his background seems extraordinary--a better exemplar of the American dream it is more difficult to think of (though, to be fair, McCain has an attractive narrative too).

Jonathan Chait has written the last word on this. Any more absurd and lazy attempts by very elite pundits to milk this should be annihilated with ridicule until they stop.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 20, 2008 12:37 PM

Mr. McCain, who had a far more elite upbringing than either of them

Notwithstanding Rich's larger point larger point, of which a have no strong opinion either way, this phrase is simply not true; or at least, not trivially obvious - it depends on which factors have a greater weight as 'elite' ones - and which are 'adverse.'

Both Obama & Clinton went to private high schools; Clinton went to a public, although well regarded suburban one. (Yes, Obama had a scholarship)

Obama & Clinton went to elite private liberal arts colleges and/or universities as undergrads, McCain went to a 'public' university, (granted he might have needed family connections to get into there)

Most importantly, all three were being raised by people at roughly the same socioeconomic position at the time the candidates were 15 years old: McCain by a mid grade (CDR) naval officer, Obama by his bank vice-president grandmother, and Clinton by a textile industry small business (and republican!) entrepreneur.

For the record, I support Obama, and I think 'biographical' factors are the least important thing in any election; it just reeks of dime-store pop psychology. It's just contra Rich the 'upbringing' factor of the three candidates is a wash.

Posted by Kolohe | April 20, 2008 12:44 PM

Kolohe, I agree with your larger point, but there is a bit of difference between going to a public university like a SUNY school and West Point, which is one of the most elite schools in our country. In addition, McCain's family history includes Southern planters / slave owners, which is a bit elite, considering they were the nearest thing we had in this country to a landed gentry or feudal nobility.

Posted by Reality Man | April 20, 2008 1:16 PM

"Clinton and Obama are both, in somewhat different ways, offering more services paid for by returning to something more like the levels of taxation that so devastated the national economy in the 1990s."

Oh have no fear Matt, there's going to be plenty more government "services" as the baby boomers retire and Medicare and Social Security costs go through the roof and break Uncle Sam's back. And no, levels of taxation like those in the 1990s won't even begin to pay for it.

This country doesn't even have a style of political discourse that would allow a coherent discussion of the problems that lay ahead.

Posted by kafka | April 20, 2008 1:17 PM

Medicare and Social Security costs go through the roof and break Uncle Sam's back.

What was he doing up there in the first place?

Posted by James Gary | April 20, 2008 2:02 PM

Have any prominent Democrats compared these McCain trips to Bush's visit to New Orleans after Katrina? I think that's what I would do. Say something sound-bitey like "saying hello to people is not the same as solving their problems" (but, preferably, better) and make that comparison. Turn these photo-ops into a liability.

Posted by Strategery | April 20, 2008 2:16 PM

Sigh. Maybe we could judge the commitment of the candidates to ordinary people by evaluating how much each of them is willing to do in programmatic terms for those people. By any sane yardstick, Obama and Clinton are more willing to do more in terms of health care coverage, mortgage and foreclosure relief, etc. than McCain is. For the rest of the pseudo-authenticity jabber, shut up!

Posted by scottreads | April 20, 2008 3:13 PM

Ultimately, one suspects that it would be really, really, really hard for anyone involved in politics professionally for as long as a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton or even a Barack Obama to be really and truly "in touch" with peoples' lives.

If only there were some policy that limited how long politicians below the presidential level could stay in any one office. Like some kind of limit on their terms.

Posted by matt foley | April 20, 2008 3:25 PM

The weekend Al-bot really isn't up to snuff. Note to 'Al: must hack harder!

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 20, 2008 4:07 PM

And no, levels of taxation like those in the 1990s won't even begin to pay for it

Actually, if we're talking SS, the levels needed aren't much above those in the 1990s. If a compromise like limiting benefit increases to the rate of inflation are adopted, probably no tax increase at all. As for Medicare, If we accept a single payer plan like France or Germany, we'd actually manage a decrease in health cares costs.

If you say "Boo", they will jump.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 20, 2008 5:20 PM

"McCains are reducing the level of government services in order to pay for an indefinite prolongation of the war in Iraq, the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, a large hike in non-war defense spending, and a series of new tax breaks."

When did McCain say he wanted to actually pay for the war in Iraq. Despite his alleged concern for the growth of government and fiscal discipline, McCain does not care at all that we are using borrowed money (from China) to pay for our middle eastern adventure to save democracy from Terrah.

Posted by m shew | April 20, 2008 6:04 PM

"McCains are reducing the level of government services in order to pay for an indefinite prolongation of the war in Iraq, the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, a large hike in non-war defense spending, and a series of new tax breaks."

When did McCain say he wanted to actually pay for the war in Iraq. Despite his alleged concern for the growth of government and fiscal discipline, McCain does not care at all that we are using borrowed money (from China) to pay for our middle eastern adventure to save democracy from Terrah.

Posted by m shew | April 20, 2008 6:05 PM

"McCains are reducing the level of government services in order to pay for an indefinite prolongation of the war in Iraq, the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, a large hike in non-war defense spending, and a series of new tax breaks."

When did McCain say he wanted to actually pay for the war in Iraq? Despite McCain's alleged concern for the growth of government and fiscal discipline, McCain does not care at all that we are using borrowed money (from China) to pay for our middle eastern adventure to save democracy from Terrah.

Posted by m shew | April 20, 2008 6:07 PM

"McCains are reducing the level of government services in order to pay for an indefinite prolongation of the war in Iraq, the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, a large hike in non-war defense spending, and a series of new tax breaks."

When did McCain say he wanted to actually pay for the war in Iraq. Despite his alleged concern for the growth of government and fiscal discipline, McCain does not care at all that we are using borrowed money (from China) to pay for our middle eastern adventure to save democracy from Terrah.

Posted by m shew | April 20, 2008 6:07 PM

"McCains are reducing the level of government services in order to pay for an indefinite prolongation of the war in Iraq, the extension of Bush's tax cuts for the highest-income Americans, a large hike in non-war defense spending, and a series of new tax breaks."

When did McCain say he wanted to actually pay for the war in Iraq? Despite McCain's alleged concern for the growth of government and fiscal discipline, McCain does not care at all that we are using borrowed money (from China) to pay for our middle eastern adventure to save democracy from Terrah.

Posted by m shew | April 20, 2008 6:08 PM

er, please forgive the multiple posts. my internet connection is having issues.

Posted by m shew | April 20, 2008 6:13 PM

""in touch" with peoples' lives."

But MY should point out that this is a really trivial point, or a false one. A lot of ordinary working class people would find it strange that they're out of touch with the American people--after all they are the people!--but that assumption rests on the idea that the American people are an undifferentiated mass except for elites like rich people, politicians, and academics. In actual fact there are a lot of people in America in many different situations and with many different kinds of challenges, and smart elected officials like Hillary and Obama frequently know more about this variety that your average Joe.

Yes, it's elitist to say this, but it's true. Working for 9-5 at a regular job does not really give you special access to much of the kind of knowledge that is needed to formulate good public policy. It's true what Machiavelli says that the prince knows the people better than the people know the people.

Posted by Colatina | April 20, 2008 6:21 PM

The misinformation in these comments needs to be corrected:

Naval officers come from the Naval Academy not the prestigious US Military Academy commonly known as West Point. West Point is an elite university with academics on par with top 20 universities whereas the academy in Annapolis is more akin to a second rate state college Really, how smart can you be if you want to live with 5,000 other guys on a boat.

Posted by black knight | April 21, 2008 4:27 AM

"...the levels of taxation that so devastated the national economy in the 1990s."

Setting aside whether any devastation was performed in the 1990s, I thought it was the easy money via low interest rates that caused the housing problems that followed.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | April 21, 2008 12:33 PM

I just love the way Frank Rich refers to the "bloviators" who focus so relentlessly on finding fault with the Democratic candidates as "they" . . . oh, well, when it comes to the punditocracy, accountability is out of the question. So I'll just hope Frank doesn't forget that there *is* a difference between ________ Dem candidate TK) and McCain.

Posted by mary | April 21, 2008 12:55 PM