The Past And Future Election
Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:26:36 AM PDT
American Presidential elections are about the future, and not the past. It's for that reason that the contrast between the junior senator from Illinois and the senior senator from Arizona is so fascinating.
The Republican National Committee is planning a $19.5 million advertising campaign to portray Mr. Obama, 46, as out of touch with the country and too inexperienced to be commander in chief, seeking to put him on the defensive before he can use his financial advantage against Mr. McCain, 71, party officials said.
"In 1984, Ronald Reagan said, ‘I’m not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,’ " said Frank Donatelli, the deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee. "Well, we are going to exploit Obama’s youth and inexperience."
On the Democratic side, Mr. Obama’s aides this week put finishing touches on advertisements intended to tether Mr. McCain to Mr. Bush and chip away at his image as a maverick, an identity that the aides said they found remained strong with voters.
"By November, every voter will know that McCain is offering a third Bush term," said Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe.
It isn't the age stuff (McCain at 72 would be the oldest President ever inaugurated, and as he put it himself, he's a man of "the twentieth century, my century"; Obama would be a year older than Bill Clinton was when Clinton took office.) It isn't character (McCain made it to the top the Republican way: he cheated on his first wife and married a Sugar Momma, who still finances his political ambitions; see McCain campaign violates own travel policy and the issue of Cindy McCain's tax returns.) No, it's none of that. It's the important stuff, issues in the real world that affect all of us. As David Gergen put it:
"The next president will inherit the most difficult agenda since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt," he warned.
Gergen stressed that a continuation of current policies would likely result in the decline of America while Japan, China and India may become superpowers within the next few decades. Whether the U.S. will remain one is questionable, he said, especially if our policies remain static.
According to Gergen, America not only needs to change its policies, but revolutionize them. In addition, problems including two extensive wars, the education system and job growth require solving, not "sugar-coating."
It is in this regard that the contrast is so striking. So, let's look at the three issues Americans have identified as "most important" to them.
Iraq (statements from Foreign Affairs):
Obama:
To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place. We have now lost over 3,300 American lives, and thousands more suffer wounds both seen and unseen.
McCain:
Whether success grows closer or more distant over the coming months, it is clear that Iraq will be a central issue for the next U.S. president. Democratic candidates have promised to withdraw U.S. troops and "end the war" by fiat, regardless of the consequences. To make such decisions based on the political winds at home, rather than on the realities in the theater, is to court disaster. The war in Iraq cannot be wished away, and it is a miscalculation of historic magnitude to believe that the consequences of failure will be limited to one administration or one party. This is an American war, and its outcome will touch every one of our citizens for years to come.
That is why I support our continuing efforts to win in Iraq. It is also why I oppose a preemptive withdrawal strategy that has no Plan B for the aftermath of its inevitable failure and the greater problems that would ensue.
So who's right? Hint: not John McCain. Writing this month in Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon notes in The Price of the Surge (bolded mine):
Unfortunately, such claims misconstrue the causes of the recent fall in violence and, more important, ignore a fatal flaw in the strategy. The surge has changed the situation not by itself but only in conjunction with several other developments: the grim successes of ethnic cleansing, the tactical quiescence of the Shiite militias, and a series of deals between U.S. forces and Sunni tribes that constitute a new bottom-up approach to pacifying Iraq. The problem is that this strategy to reduce violence is not linked to any sustainable plan for building a viable Iraqi state. If anything, it has made such an outcome less likely, by stoking the revanchist fantasies of Sunni Arab tribes and pitting them against the central government and against one another. In other words, the recent short-term gains have come at the expense of the long-term goal of a stable, unitary Iraq.
Despite the current lull in violence, Washington needs to shift from a unilateral bottom-up surge strategy to a policy that promotes, rather than undermines, Iraq's cohesion. That means establishing an effective multilateral process to spur top-down political reconciliation among the major Iraqi factions. And that, in turn, means stating firmly and clearly that most U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Iraq within two or three years. Otherwise, a strategy adopted for near-term advantage by a frustrated administration will only increase the likelihood of long-term debacle.
Of course, McCain (the so-called military expert) hasn't been pinned down for a response about this, which qualifies as an example of Gergen's "sugar coating":
"So the Pentagon would maintain a team of 'military analysts' who reliably 'carry their water' -- yet who were presented as independent analysts by the television and cable networks. By feeding only those pro-Government sources key information and giving them access -- even before responding to the press -- only those handpicked analysts would be valuable to the networks, and that, in turn, would ensure that only pro-Government sources were heard from.
Hmmm... well, let's turn to another topic of import: health reform.
Health reform (analysis from Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review)
For another review of McCain's health care policy see this post. For today, let's start with a real headline:
McCain camp working out healthcare details
Aides struggle to sort out his promises
Ouch. Okay, let's get some non-partisan review from respected analyst Bob Laszewski:
McCain:
However, the real question is, will McCain's plan give people enough to be able to afford health insurance? With the average cost of employer-provided family health insurance at $12,000 a year, a $5,000 tax credit will often come up way short—especially for higher age people and those who don't have the benefit of an employer contribution. High deductibles and HSA plans will help but families who don't have employer contributions should be prepared to pay at least a few thousand extra dollars...
If McCain were to be successful in moving the system from the employer to the individual with his individual tax credit proposals, the employer arguably would have a smaller incentive to continue providing these benefits. Many employers might simply say, "Here's the money I was paying—go find your own coverage." It may just be easier for the employer to drop the coverage and give the employee the cash value of the health benefits.
The employer would also have the new advantage of having the difference in wages go up each year by the wage rate while the employee saw his health care costs rise at the rate of health care inflation—which has averaged two to three times more.
McCain does not have a mandate to buy insurance for individuals or employers. So, people can still opt to go without coverage.
Again, the big question is how does McCain see his individual health insurance market working. How will he deal with age rating, medical underwriting, and pre-existing conditions? If McCain does not develop an individual health insurance market everyone can access, no matter how old or how sick they are, his plan will fall way short. He needs to detail his "risk adjustment bonus" scheme for older and higher cost families.
Obama:
Will Obama be able to cut the typical family’s health care costs by $2,500 a year?
Well, yes and no.
All of the candidates, Republican and Democratic, are calling for most of what is on the Obama cost containment list; expanding health information technology, improving prevention and better management of chronic conditions, and a more vibrant health insurance market.
Obama is unique in calling for catastrophic reinsurance coverage in order to reduce the cost of family health insurance. Really, this is not a cost reduction but a cost shift. This idea, first proposed by Senator Kerry in his failed bid for the presidency, would have the federal government absorb a large portion of the highest cost claims thereby taking these costs out of the price of health insurance. That would reduce the price of family health insurance but would also increase federal spending by the same amount. It would also water down the incentive for insurers and employers to manage these claims since most of these costs would be transferred to the government.
Obama’s assertion that covering more people would reduce the overall cost of insurance is likely correct because it would mean less uncompensated care that would have to be shifted onto the rest of the system. Hillary Clinton would cover at least as many people as he would so there is no advantage for Obama here. Since the McCain health plan emphasizes making the insurance system affordable before ensuring widespread coverage as the first priority, one could argue that both Obama and Clinton would make gains toward near universal care well before McCain.
There are flaws in the Democratic proposals as well (a little fuzzy on cost), but I'll (indirectly) let Ezra have the last word here.
Ezra Klein of "The American Prospect" sums up the McCain plan as being "like if I tried to make food cheaper by encouraging you to diet." Like most of McCain's domestic platform, it's difficult to tell if he doesn't understand the issue or if he just doesn't care.
Double ouch.
Economy (contrast from Business Week)
In addition to this post on the LA Times/Bloomberg poll from yesterday, here's Bloomberg's assessment:
Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama get higher marks than Republican John McCain from voters on handling the U.S. economy, which Americans now consider the nation's top issue.
A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times survey shows Clinton is favored by 32 percent of registered voters as the presidential candidate best equipped to manage the economy, followed by Obama at 26 percent and McCain with 23 percent. Even among those making more than $100,000 a year, Clinton has a slight lead over McCain.
Overall, 56 percent of registered voters choose the economy as the biggest problem facing the candidates. Voters across all income levels, age groups and party affiliations agree it is more pressing than the war in Iraq, health care, illegal immigration and other issues.
"This is a warning shot for McCain that he really needs to step up his game on talking about the economy," says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director. ``The economy is more than just a national concern, it is affecting people's pocketbooks, and when that happens there is a sea change.''
Want more?
Jane Sasseen breaks down each candidate's central positions: Clinton has focused on helping the unemployed and working class, Obama has argued for more regulation, and McCain has dismissed expanding the government's role. [Business Week]
From Business Week:
Obama:
Much of Obama's emphasis was on the measures needed to shore up the regulatory structure surrounding financial markets. In his New York speech, Obama called for new standards for transparency and improved oversight of the financial sector to prevent the sort of crisis now roiling the markets. He argued that the deregulatory emphasis of the last decade has left the economy vulnerable to bubbles and special interests that have shaped the economy for their own benefit.
McCain:
The real difference that is becoming increasingly obvious, says Mathias, is between the two Democratic candidates on one side, and McCain, the Bush Administration, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on the other. In his Mar. 25 speech, McCain argued against an expansive role for the government in responding to the crisis. And in a statement on Mar. 27, he added he believed "the role of the government is to help the truly needy, prevent systemic economic risk, and enact reforms that prevent the kind of crisis we are currently experiencing from ever happening again."
McCain derided the Democrats' proposals as little more than multibillion-dollar bailouts for big banks and speculators. "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face," he said.
That McCain sure sounds like George W. Bush...
On the one hand, Treasury officials say they are convinced that today’s regulatory system is fragmented and out of date. The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., has talked about the need to re-examine capital requirements for financial institutions.
But both President Bush and Mr. Paulson, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, remain philosophically opposed to restrictions and requirements that might hamper economic activity.
...but we'll let him get the last word here:
But Issenberg quoted McCain as telling reporters on December 17 in New Hampshire: "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
The funny thing is, it's not very funny.
So what's it to be, folks? Are we looking out the windshield or the rear view mirror? Gergen is right. Barack Obama represents a break from Bushism. John McCain will reflect George W. Bush on issue after issue, trying to both run to and run from Republicanism.
These issues, along with others from the Supreme Court (McCain wants to appoint judges like Bush) to science policy (McCain hasn't made a break with Bush, except rhetorically on global warming – NYT says it’s "central" to his campaign. Since when? – and hasn't denounced the political minders Bush has placed everywhere) to the facts about AIDS and condoms will matter a hell of a lot more than the crap "issues" the networks asked about in the debates. And as Frank Rich puts it (in a terrific column):
The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known.
And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable, countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.
This November, there'll be a contrast. Obama represents the future, McCain represents the past. Let's make sure we understand what's going on.
