I’ve seen a lot of personal “why I’m now with X” diaries, and now it is my turn. I warn you that the following is boring, dispassionate and noncommittal. So obviously I figured, “this belongs on Daily Kos during primary season.”
I’m judging candidates on the following questions:
- What will you do as president?
- How will you accomplish what you promise to do?
- How well will you do the job?
- Will you win the general election?
That last question of “electability” is way too uncertain for me to address. There has been a lot of arguing about who is truly electable, with compelling points in either direction, so I really can’t make a decision on that basis. Let’s look at the other three.
Ideology
The first question is the ideology question---your agenda is related to where you stand on the issues. But by phrasing it as “what will you do” instead of “where do you stand,” we make it a bit more pragmatic and relevant. We’re not electing a radio host or a pundit, and a president’s job is to accomplish things, not to sit around all day being for or against stuff, or to have a “stance on the issues.” If your stance on the issues was the sole metric for electing you, then you would be no more deserving of the office than some random person on Facebook who gave the same answers to a political quiz.
Furthermore, two candidates may seem farther apart if you judge them by their rhetoric and opinions, even if their actual agendas are very similar. Our two candidates both propose health care reform by different means, and both propose college affordability by different means. One uses very revolutionary rhetoric and one uses very wonkish language, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of policy, you hear a lot of agreement---during the debates, the candidates repeatedly affirmed how much they agree with one another on issues.
On this question, I consider the two candidates similar, although I will give the edge to Sanders because his plans are grander in scope, and he is adamant about addressing financial reform and income inequality.
Realism
The next question is the plan question. What is the plan for getting an agenda passed? Here, Sanders has received a good deal of criticism for articulating an agenda that does not seem politically possible.
There is a separate question of how a plan like Medicare-for-all will be achieved financially, but I actually find that a red herring. I think it’s likely that some variation of each candidate’s plan is at least physically realizable. If we can build an Interstate Highway system, we can probably find a way to dramatically extend Medicare or return to tuition-free public education. The question is not whether it is theoretically or financially possible, but whether it can get passed without significant prior reform, or extreme congressional majorities that are not likely to manifest in the next 8 years.
This feeds back into the previous question, because if you promise something that cannot be accomplished in your term as president, then essentially it isn’t a real item on your agenda---it’s just something you believe in, but not something you’ll do.
On this question, I have to give the edge to Clinton. She has taken a stance on health care that would move forward while carefully defending the ACA, for example, and has crafted her agenda in terms of what can be accomplished.
A brief note on “transforming the Congress”
Some people, in response to the plan question, have given an answer that amounts to dramatically transforming the congress through a full-blown political revolution. Sanders can pass his agenda, all we need to do is elect progressive democrats down-ticket in huge wave elections in 2016 and 2018.
I don’t see this as a credible answer: it essentially amounts to answering how you would achieve an agenda with some other government than the one that exists. Given that kind of congressional opportunity, any democratic president could give us single payer---indeed we’d have it by now. That isn’t a compelling argument for electing any one person in particular.
Furthermore, we know this isn’t an actual plan. If your plan for reform entails a dramatic transformation of congress, you would have put that into action at least a year ago, recruiting and organizing primary candidates for races across the country. Where is the evidence that this happened? We’re talking about a very large and difficult change, not something you can make happen with some viral GIFs and blog posts.
More to the point, if you had such a plan, you would be able to point to those recruitment and organizational efforts as proof that you are really doing it. If there is no such operation in motion today, then this isn’t a real thing.
Qualifications
The third question is essentially one of qualifications: how qualified are you to run the country? Note I’m not talking about ideology, but skill, experience, depth of knowledge of foreign and domestic policy, etc.
Both candidates have been in politics for a long time, although one of them has been in many different roles including a cabinet post. This is not a matchup with any huge difference in qualifications or time in office. I might give a slight edge to Clinton for a combination of executive and legislative experience, but this isn’t an election where one candidate really suffers from a lack of experience.
Summary
All told, my scale is so close to balanced between the two candidates that it is “a virtual tie.” I think I slightly lean Clinton, but only so very slightly that it’s within the margin of error of my decision making process. Maybe I’ll flip an Iowa state coin.
In short, I’m just going to be thrilled with whoever we pick, and I will stand behind whoever We the People choose in the next few months.
What about everything else?
What about:
- How awful the “other side” is behaving? Bad behavior may not be very strategic or helpful, but it doesn’t factor into my decision of who is a better candidate. Unless your candidate has significant support from nasty groups like white nationalists, I don’t see the relevance.
I’ve heard the argument that a candidate is less qualified if he can’t keep his campaign or supporters under control, but in my gut that feels less like a logical argument and more like a rationalization for an already established preference.
It’s also easier for that sort of thing to be exaggerated through the lens of Internet forums anyway. There are a lot of dickbags on the Internet.
- The past votes of candidate X, for the war or for guns or whatever? It’s pretty clear to me that specific votes contribute little to someone’s politics---you are not going to convince me that Bernie Sanders is secretly in bed with the NRA---and that key votes often result from complicated political bargaining and consideration.
Not to mention that each candidate, as senator, represented the interests of his or her state, because that was their job. A lot of their votes can be explained based on the interests of their respective states. I’m giving each candidate a pass on individual votes.
- Candidate X’s shady relationship with unsavory person Y? Relationships are easy to establish and exaggerate, but they are often more tenuous than they appear. What exactly was Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers anyway?
I’ve seen many examples in past elections where such arguments were brought up, and in retrospect they were pointless. Has it mattered even one iota who Obama’s preacher was? No.
- The need to challenge the status quo, start a political revolution, or send a message to Washington?
Here’s my question for you: why do we need to elect a president to do that? Aren’t there a lot of ways to send a message to Washington? Is assigning someone the executive office a necessary condition for starting this revolution? Especially if we admit up front that a revolution really needs to transform the congress rather than the executive branch?
I see the importance of achieving this, but I don’t see how it is an argument for electing any specific person president, over the more conventional reasons of agenda, job qualifications, etc.
There, I said it. Feel free to yawn at each other in the comment thread.