Wonk If You’re Wary: Candidates, Policy and Answers in Campaign 2008

[As I mentioned previously, a comment posted by ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks started me thinking about a few things, and I decided to explore those ideas in a post, rather than reply by comment. This may not be the blog norm, but I thought I'd try it out. Several hours later, I find myself with this extremely long result. -JN]

The public debate in the 2008 election cycle is putting a great deal of weight on “THE ANSWERS” to major policy questions. While I’m certainly not going to suggest that we ought to be nostalgic for a politics driven by intangible, subjective and manufactured notions of mythic personality traits, I do think that ridingottwnds’ comment begins with some apt illustrations of how askew our framework for practical discussion has become.

From the comment:

1. Terrorism: BY DOING XY and Z WE'LL CATCH ALL TERRORISTS AND NEVER GET ATTACKED AGAIN.

2. Economy: BY DOING AB and C OUR ECONOMY WILL EVER EXPAND.

3. Healthcare: BY DOING EF and G WE CAN BE SURE NO ONE IS WITHOUT IT. THIS WILL NOT HURT GOOD COMPANIES, NOR WILL IT AFFECT YOUR TAXES.

ditto for environment, immigration, etc...

What ridingottwnds identifies in these examples is greater than the absurdity of candidates proposing, or voters expecting, a three-step solution to complex challenges; it is also the way that focusing on the means steers attention away from considering the validity of the goals. These three lines really capture the unequivocal ends that we seem to demand in policy discussions outside of universities and think tanks – and even within them. Policy statements are often couched in absolutes that defy reason.

There is no way to guarantee that we won’t be attacked again, nor that we could possibly catch all terrorists. (Has no one watched Spartacus in the last twenty years? You don’t stop a movement by apprehending one man.) Our economy cannot possibly continue an indefinite expansion, but we’re afraid that considering an alternative will bring immediate chaos upon us. In the healthcare debate, we focus on dubious assertions about pain-free solutions to insure all, but too often neglect the uneven and declining state of care delivery to those already insured.

The frame in which answers are offered feels to me like: 1) a reaction to years of broadcast media coverage that fueled sound-bite-driven campaigns; and 2) an extension of the left’s drift since the so-called collapse of communism. The first point drives the idea that new media offers us a different sort of access to candidates (e.g., the branded debates and streaming meetings). It also creates the vague expectation that we might explore policy positions in unprecedented detail -- i.e., with minimal publishing and distribution costs, can’t they all map out every step they’ll take in the White House on their websites?

The second point, meanwhile, puts constraints around the sort of debate that we allow ourselves. By disavowing ideology as an area of contention in mainstream politics, we sacrifice what Webster’s online lists as the word's first definition: visionary theorizing.

This can result in a lack of innovation and too much focus on details of policy proposals that are unlikely to be meaningful once a candidate reaches office. All the top-tier contenders seem to be playing by the same rules, so I’ve adjusted my expectations and chosen what to tune out.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I'll now offer a few direct responses to questions posed in ridingonthetrainwithnodoughsucks' comment.

1. To what degree will/are the candidates play(ing) their hands close to their chests? Because, if they truly DO have an answer, do they want to give it away?

I genuinely don’t believe that candidates are holding out on us when it comes to policy solutions. There are few perfect answers, and generally good policy ideas need more than their own merit to succeed; they need strong advocates and networks of support.

I agree with Barack Obama's assertion that there are many things that we know how to achieve, but have lacked political consensus to accomplish. Many of the obstacles to good policy becoming law can be linked to the ascendancy of industry money in Washington, and the failure of politicians to agree on ways to support one another when making unpopular decisions.

Based on this belief, I’m looking for a candidate who consistently convinces me that their motivations for seeking the highest office have less to do with personal satisfaction than a commitment to help people have better lives. A commitment to progress over ego goes a long way toward allowing opponents to save face at crucial moments for the sake of achieving the best policy solution.

2. To what degree are ALL candidates lying about the answers they have?

I wouldn’t describe candidates as lying about the answers they have. In my understanding, the lies involved in campaigns (on matters of policy, at least) have more to do with failure to challenge shared assumptions. There is also a suspension of disbelief required of politicians, promising to achieve reforms when details of implementation are still hazy, and the political landscape awaiting them is unknown.

One outstanding example of this for me comes from the healthcare debate. I always wince when I hear public figures talk about the importance of computerized medical records to healthcare reform. It’s not that I don’t believe it, but it’s often referred to as an easily accomplished step forward that will cut costs system-wide. There is nothing simple about that sort of transition. Not only will the process be complex and time-consuming, there will be a real human toll as records are lost and misplaced at crucial times in individuals’ lives.

I’d like to hear someone talk seriously about this as a major public infrastructure challenge. Channeling this data safely and effectively should be right up there with past work on great dams and bridges. I’m waiting for someone to talk about the importance of ethical standards in technology development of this sort, and the crucial role of government in mandating accountability during this kind of transition.

I’m also ready to hear a politician challenge the idea that consumerism is an avenue without end, leading to the dream (invoked above) of endless economic expansion. The general absence of this sort of candor, though, doesn’t qualify for me as lying.

Campaigns are a time when inspirational rhetoric can inspire people to believe real improvements can take place in their lives. Visionary statements are best, of course, when firmly rooted in reality and calling for sacrifice and shared responsibility for one another’s destinies, but people should be allowed some unrestrained optimism once in a while, too.

3. If these answers are formed by various experts, how much have the candidates addressed who these experts are and which ones they'll fire that are currently in goverment?

I find myself more and more interested in transparency on the campaign trail. This is something that the current state of Internet technology really can facilitate with a minimum of effort required.

Candidates rely on policy teams to generate ideas and to translate their principles into plans of action, even at a high level. I would love to see more accessible information about who’s working on these teams, and what sources of information they’re using when proposing solutions. Occasionally, specific think tanks are cited in candidates’ literature, but it would be great to see more references incorporated into position statements.

Demonstrating openness about the sources of policy ideas during a campaign sets a good precedent for the same sort of openness in office. I think that rather than focusing on who they might rely on once elected, candidates can demonstrate a good faith approach to governance by disclosing as much as possible who they’re relying on for advice during the campaign.

4. What should we as voters be looking for? Answers? Ideals? Objectives?

I’m focusing my attention mostly on how candidates rank issues and manage their own campaigns. I think it’s also useful to remember that our three top Democrats are U.S. Senators, so the choices they make about how they serve their constituents during their run are also important indicators.

There are a few words that I’ve had written down on a yellow pad for the last week. I thought I’d devote a separate post to them (and probably should’ve, judging by the length of this one), but I’ll offer them here as an alternative starting point for answering this question.

• Transparency
• Honesty
• Integrity
• Accountability
• Innovation
• Organization

These are qualities that I’m looking for in a candidate and a campaign. I’m looking at how well campaigns put these principles into practice. I’m unapologetically making analogies between governance and campaigning.

So far, I’m still with Barack.