Political Rhetoric and Policy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:44:04 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra discusses a Hillary Clinton quote, via Joe Klein, that describes her views on the relationship between political rhetoric and policy. Like Ezra, I find it persuasive:

Obama has added a fillip of honesty by telling his audiences that [his energy] program might result in higher energy prices. I asked Clinton why she hadn't been similarly honest, and she immediately turned it around: Obama wanted to spend the proceeds of the pollution auction — perhaps as much as $50 billion — on alternative-energy research and development. "I have committed to putting money from that auction into programs to ... cushion the economic impact on working and poor families," she said. And then she added scornfully, "So if you want to go and get some debating point telling people this is going to cost you money, then I don't think you've thought through the policy as carefully as you could ... This is going to be a tough transition. It's got to be done politically. One of the ways to make it politically palatable is to rebut the Republican talking point that ... it's another huge tax increase on Americans. You know what? It isn't."

Politics is more than "straight talk." (I believe it has little to do with straight talk.) It is about presenting your policies in ways that will succeed politically. To govern, you must win. To enact your policies, you must persuade the public.

The strange thing to me is, as I have repeated often, Obama can not only do this, he can probably do it better than anyone. But he chooses not to. It baffles me immensely.

< The Myth of The Straight Talking Pol | A Free Pass To Media Bias >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Political Rhetoric and Policy | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What Hillary Said (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by tonyroma on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:20:47 AM EST

Where is she getting this? This is what Obama's energy proposal actually says:
>>>>>>
"Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development and deployment of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements and address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition and helping lower-income Americans afford their energy bills by expanding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, expanding weatherization grants for low-income individuals to make their homes more energy efficient, and establishing a dedicated fund to assist low-income Americans afford higher electricity and energy bills"
<<<<<<
As best I can tell, Clinton's proposal seems to put slightly less emphasis on cushioning the economic impact for low-income folks...

Posted by: brad plumer | Nov 12, 2007 10:39:49 AM

http://www.typepad.com/t/comments?__mode=red&user_id=19450&id=89625286

The facts are those who continue to force the narrative that Obama is somehow naive or inexperienced need to actually look into his record and realize that he's accomplished more as an elected official getting bills enacted into law than either Hillary or Edwards has. Obama will tell the American people the truth even if its something they do not want to hear. Its a shame Senator Clinton continues to find herself unable to do the very same things for fear of what those evil Republicans might do if she doesn't triangulate.

: My response to Brad (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:29:03 AM EST

in the same thread:
"Interestingly Brad, I think you make BOTH Ezra and Clinton's point.
Why did not Obama EMPHASIZE that and avoid talking about "tax increases?"
He has the material to do it and yet he does not.
Why? As always, the question with Obama is why?"

i'm not baffled at all. (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:03:47 AM EST

you can repeat something as often as you'd like, that doesn't make it so. there comes a point when one must admit, however much one would prefer not, that you're wrong, when the evidence constantly presents itself. this is the case with sen. obama.

the core issue is, i believe, sen. obama's political naivite'. as you correctly point out, in order to govern, you must win. winning requires a politically palatable menu; veggie pie is probably healthier, but chocolate cake will win the pillsbury bake-off every time.

sen. clinton has learned the art of proper presentation, of an inherently tasteless menu.

Can He (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by koshembos on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:31:27 AM EST

Can and does used to be married; they are divorced now. So far, Obama did basically nothing; big promise doesn't help and may be aa mirage. To be mean, I would say that he is the Democrat's Fred Thompson.

I still think (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:58:33 AM EST

that Obama would have trouble selling catnip to fluffy.

I can only think of one modern politician who was really good at this: Bill Clinton--and he lost as much as he won!

" presenting your policies in ways that will (none / 0) (#5)
by Geekesque on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:33:04 AM EST

succeed politically."

This is usually referred to as DLC-style triangulation/centrism in the liberal blogosphere. The party's base does not give one credit for crafting proposals that will appeal to Republicans.

And sometimes portrayed (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:41:18 AM EST

as being a "unifier" and talking about "Democrats taking the bait."

But do you think Obama's appealing to Republicans by talking about "tax increases?"


I don't see much if any upside (none / 0) (#7)
by Geekesque on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:01:30 AM EST

in talking about Social Security in a primary race.


: Except to demonstrate your partisan (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:13:00 AM EST

credentials.

How? (none / 0) (#10)
by Al on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:37:37 AM EST

"cushion the economic impact on working and poor families" sounds nice, but how is she going to do this? The implication seems to be that she would hand out money. How, exactly?

: good question. (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 02:26:47 PM EST

as well, what "alternative energy programs" might obama be refering to? it could be tax credits for renewable energy sourced assets, or direct grants for R & D for the same. it could be a host of things, but he doesn't elaborate.
of course, the problem all democratic candidates face, by actually describing their proposed programs, is that they'll be accused of being boring, not someone you want to have a beer with.

can't fool (none / 0) (#12)
by diogenes on Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 08:12:27 PM EST

You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Hillary talks about $5000 savings bonds for every child, "cushioning the impact", etc with no revenue source. Every time she mentions a giveaway without a tax increase a Republican will look at her in a debate and say "There she goes again".