Substance
Paul Krugman writes:
Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.
In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.
So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?
Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.
In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.
So what about the Democrats Mr. Krugman? Please click here to read more (at my own blog).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “Substance”
Double entry in your posting, Mike! Check it again.
Michael,
Since, as you say on your own blog, this is pretty much your inaugural examination of the US elections, I will caution you to not let any activist’s commentary tempt you to get caught up in their own delusions of what is actually politically important at this point and what is not.
Consider this math……2.3M viewers tuned into the Dem debate in SC, 3.6M viewers watched Sponge Bob and 5M watched wrestling. Deride the sensibilities of the American public if you will, but don’t let liberal activist Paul Krugman lead you to believe that Edward’s issuing of a position paper on universal healthcare means didly squat to anyone beyond hardly 1% of people who will vote in 2008.
This election campaign was pushed up solely for the sake of lining up big contributors before the other guy did. The media seems largely clueless on this and so is haplessly contenting themselves reporting on all sorts of “issues” that are total yawners to the gargantuan “average voter” bloc.
Krugman writes pieces for an ever-dwindling number of NYT Op-Ed readers. Edward’s campaign, in turn, is currying the favor of an arguably growing, but still proportionately non-determinant voting bloc. Playing to win the favor of those groups too much is likely a pyrrhic victory over the long haul.
HRC is a lot of things, but never dumb relative to political calculation. At this early stage of the game, the likely events that will determine the 2008 election outcome have not even happened yet. Why commit to anything at this juncture? It may hurt more than it helps.
When some candidates discuss policy, it’s pure bull:
sarcasm off
It would be good to have a rational debate, and I think the media’s responsibility is to press (pun intended) for details specific to each proposal. Instead, we have the horserace and the soundbites, the attacks and the feel-good nationalistic posturing.
If you look at Edwards energy program, it reads like something a high school debate team would have prepared. Edwards wants to hire 1 million people (meaning not 900K or 1.1 million but exactly 1 million people to develop alternative fuels.