I would argue that these two proposals failed for much simpler reasons: People like (a) low taxes, and (b) Social Security.

The fact that things cost money doesn't trouble people when they're voting.

If a candidate doesn't have some specific plans that he wants to implement, he or she shouldn't be a candidate.

I don't think the reason Bush's tax proposal hit the sweet spot was that it was the right balance between detailed and vague, it hit the sweet spot because it was a tax cut, and people like tax cuts. What special interest groups don't like tax cuts?

Nor do I think the reason Bush's social security proposal didn't hit the sweet spot was that it was too vague. It didn't hit the sweet spot because people do like social security.

Dang Kevin, I never could'a figured. Next you're gonna tell me that the sun is hot.

Wow.

That said, I'd like to suggest that the two examples served up here by Steve Benen illustrate this point pretty well. The first is George Bush's tax proposal of 2000, and it was right in the sweet spot: detailed enough to demonstrate he was serious about it but not so detailed that it drew the fire of every special interest group in the country. It got penty of attention and was clearly something that people were actually voting for. Result: a solid mandate and a big tax cut in 2001.

Um, no. Look, even if the level of detail offered and the lack of other critical issues made it legitimate to look at the 2000 election as a referendum on the tax cut plan Bush outlined in the 2000 campaign (a dubious proposition, at best), there is the teensy, weensy point that Bush got less votes than the other guy.

Which means, if there was any mandate, there was a mandate against it.

After the 2000 election, despite rather than because of the will of the majority of the electorate, the Republicans had control of the US government, and the people they were beholden to really cared about the tax cut package, and thus they got it.

After 2004 there was little enthusiasm, even among the corporate sponsors of the Republican Party, for Social Security privatization, so it didn't happen.

Trying to pretend that the passage, or not, of those bills turned on whether they were well enough articulated in the campaign for the election results to be interpreted as the public voting for the proposal is ludicrous.

Kevin, what are you talking about? A candidate doesn't even win the popular vote, he puts out a proposal during the campaign that only the wonks bother reading, and you claim he has "a solid mandate"?

As for Social Security, Congressional Republicans were running away from Bush's "reform" ideas as fast as they could go, because the voters hated it.

kind sorta glad.

I agree with comment above that lots of voters and rich pundits are willing to suspend disbelief about a tax cut. You get some money, and the US can run deficits for a long time... and it sounds good. Only grouches and the economists and wonker's wonks are upset. Who cares about them if you can party on the deficit dime for a few years.

On social security, besides being incomplete, Bush's social security proposal did not have the benefit of including any cushion if something went wrong. So people felt the risk gently falling on themselves like sharp heavy snowflakes out in the cold woods. As shifting and increasingly incoherent details were tried out, yanked back, retooled and tried out again with no increase in coherence, many people decided against it. They could appreciate that they individually were going to bear the risk, most of that risk hitting them when they might be old and maybe decrepit. Therefore the scheme was more critically examined as having some real world consequences that might not be good, even if only for signs of half-bakedness. And it was certainly half-baked. I think it was dishonest, but sensing it being half-baked was enough for most people. So, Bush's social security plan had more problems than a vague introduction.

Nope.

Bush's tax cut proposal "hit the sweet spot" because nobody in the press corps would ask him to reconcile his baldly conflicting claims about it. Some, like Ted Koppel, pretended they just couldn't puzzle out all those big, confusing numbers. In fact, a third-grader could tell you that the simple arithmetic didn't work.

Take it away, Mr. Somerby.

As a matter of fact, when Al Gore called out Bush on the obvious flaws in his tax cut plan, the press corps jumped on Gore for being too much of a wonk.

Bush taunted him with "fuzzy math" and the press corps let it stand.

Sorry, Kevin, you got your recent history wrong. A majority of the public never supported Bush's tax cuts. Check the polls out at the time.
Most people liked the Clinton-Gore proposal for the surplus - Save Social Security first. A plurality of the people liked it so much they voted for Gore.

This is off topic, but I must tell Kevin that, based on his cat-blogging about the faux-sheepskin beds, hubby went out and bought two of them for our felines, Cooper and Casey (little and big, respectively). The result is astonishing: they both sleep in the things almost obsessively, to the extent that we've lost their company most of the time, especially at the dinner hour. They also move them around a bit. I put the beds in my study, to keep the cats away from the computer, but I notice that their configuration changes from time to time.

Simply amazing. But boy, are those two happy cats. What does PetSmart put in them? Catnip? Or worse?

I agree, there's no point in over-wonking during the campaign. I'd even go further and say that I'm highly skeptical of government's ability to deliver more than broad national priorities. Anything else gets either watered down in conference, or suffocated in fine print.

With regards to healthcare, I'd be more excited to hear one of the candidates talk about how, as a society, we've increasingly re-framed the symptoms of poverty as the symptoms of disease. And how in order to reduce our reliance on costly technological responses to disease (and as a consequence, health insurers), we should encourage preventive health measures.

Broad national priorities work better to capture people's imaginations. There's always time to crunch the numbers once the idea gains traction.

Headline Junky: I'm highly skeptical of government's ability to deliver more than broad national priorities.

Government doesn't deliver "broad national priorities". It passes specific laws and implements specific policies. The devil is always in the details.

"Broad national priorities" are warm fuzzies to regurgitate on the stump. They're great when a candidate has nothing real to say and people aren't paying serious attention.

we should encourage preventive health measures

Yes we should. Do you have any concrete proposals are are we still talking warm fuzzies?

There's always time to crunch the numbers once the idea gains traction.

The idea of UHC has already gained traction with people in this country, and according to polls, has broad popular support. Now it's time to put up some crunched numbers or shut up. Otherwise all you'll get is W style bullshit.

Kevin,

I hate to say it, but I think that the conclusion of the above posters is correct: there were a lot of elements going into the success or failure of the respective plans, and the length of the policy proposal had little or nothing to do with it.

Key factors?

First, People like other people giving them money. In 2000, Bush told people he was going to give them back more money, and it helped him get elected. (Not all approved, because some aren't short-sighted, but a lot are.) In 2004, he starting messing about, and people started feeling he might give them less money - that's no good.

Second - a rollover press and rollover Democrats. Bush said his tax cut was perfectly sized, no one questioned him, and when Gore questioned him the pundits didn't bother to pretend to understand the questions - even a lot of Democrats were afraid to say anything bad about tax cuts even when the numbers didn't square. Even the bizarre little accounting frauds didn't bother the press or congress that much, with tax cuts that increased then faded to squeeze things into Bush's prestated 'number'.

In 2005, there was the beginnings of actual questioning, from both the press and congress. There was a blogosphere which was collecting data and processing arguements, so the lazy press corps didn't have to actually do all that hard work themselves. There were Democrats in congress who were so fed up with being beat up that they actually stood up.

Finally, Bush no longer had the benefit of the doubt. He wasn't in the tank like he is today, but he was getting there - he lacked the power to push anything through.

Policy proposal document length? Not sure that was an issue.

Anyone can sell tax cuts no matter how much or little detail is disclosed provided that it is not coupled with spending cuts or other tax increases. Few will oppose a free lunch even if it doesn't make sense rationally.

Fine, fine, but all this nitpicking over the examples Kevin used has not addressed how healthcare should be presented in a campaign - and for that, neither a 100 page white paper nor a blanket statement about our abysmal current systemt would work.

I second Keith G. Dur.

I would argue that Bush did more than push social security reform in passing--he and Cheney told audiences misleading facts, failing to state that the 2/3rds of the bill really won't come due til after 2078. But the good thing was that fact checks showed their 11 trillion deficit figures for social security were likely to mislead Americans on the system's true financial state. Recall Bush was out catapulting the propaganda, as he himself put it. I felt overwhelmed by selling of the plans to change social security. But opposition to their proposals was quick in coming, and it wasn't hard to point out that the Bush budget was what was in terrible shape. Borrowing to offset tax breaks for the rich, and to pay for deficit spending, disguising the truth of it all.

Anyone wishing to have a go at national health care needs to go after the insurance companies. If wingers can eliminate the rights of patients to sue their doctors by demonizing trial lawyers, we should certainly be able to do something everyone would love like national health care by pointing out that the winners of the current system are the insurance companies and the campaign coffers they fill, with the losers being the patients and the practitioners.

Hello?

Let's start with what actually is on the table now.

Democrats are pushing legislation that requires the government to negotiate for lower drug prices in the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.

The people overwhelmingly favor it.

A recent national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 85 percent of Americans favored government negotiations, including 65 percent who strongly support them. That backing crosses all political lines, with 92 percent support among Democrats, 85 percent among independents and 74 percent among Republicans. (McClatchy).

Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly oppose it.

Bush got a solid mandate in 2000? Where was I?

Obviously, the idea of cutting taxes is always going to be more popular than taking away benefits (even though the two go together).

Dumbya barely mentioned SS in 2004 because his handlers knew that it would cost him votes. You might remember that when Kerry said that Bush wanted to privatize SS Bush's people screamed that it was a lie. So, Bush mentioned it a few times, was re-elected, then tried to implement. Funny thing is, people want SS.

I disagree. As much as reporters and pundits demand to see "plans," it's way more important for a politician to have a goal than it is for him (or her) to put emphasis on a plan of any sort. E.g., with health care, the goal should be 100% coverage. That's what marks the candidate as a visionary; that's what people will be voting on; and that's what drives discourse.

Instead of asking "who has the better health care plan?" the press will then be asking "do we really need 100% coverage?" The people who say "no" will then have to explain why having uninsured people benefits the economy. And if the conservatives complain that the money isn't there, then all anyone needs to say is "if the money is there for an open-ended war halfway across the world, then the money is there for taxpayer health insurance."

End of story.

As much as reporters and pundits demand to see "plans," it's way more important for a politician to have a goal than it is for him (or her) to put emphasis on a plan of any sort.

The problem with goals without plans is it doesn't tell people what you are willing to pay to get to your goals. Goals are easy and cheap. The real work of policymaking lies in how you balance competing goals, and that's what plans tell you about candidates that goals alone won't.

Also, with vague goals like "100% coverage", its quite easy to embrace the goal while subverting the idea behind support for that goal, as with the right-wing ideas that envision universally available high-deductible plans that would leave people exposed for the first several thousand dollars of expenses annually which they would be expected to pay out of tax-sheltered savings accounts set up for that purpose; not so good for practical access, but still a form of "100% coverage".

There are valid reasons why voters, not just pundits, often demand more details, and often regret it when they do not.

During a campaign, nobody cares about 100-page white papers. That's not going to stop them from being produced (all those policy aides have to do something, after all), but they won't buy you a single vote. They might lose you a few votes, though, so you're probably better off not bothering.

Kevin, a Sensible Liberal like you knows that The best way to reach Americans is through ponderous essays in obscure political journals!

Kevin, I don't disagree with your basic premise, namely that candidates for high office need to keep their campaign proposals fairly vague, but for a different reason - most Americans are too stupid or intellectually lazy to understand them. Just look at the knuckle-draggers that show up in the Comments section on your blog, like Al, egbert and American Hawk. They can't count to eleven without taking their shoes off.

However, the two examples you cite - Bush's tax cuts and privatizing Social Security succeeded and failed for different reasons than you postulate. Bush's tax cuts succeeded because Bush exploited 9-11 to demand a tax cut and the Dems rolled over in their usual craven fashion, fearing being called "weak on defense". Privatizing Social Security failed because a large and growing share of the population looks at Social Security as their retirement plan. The only thing Americans hate worse than a government program is the government taking away a program they have come to depend on. Besides Bush sounded like a complete retard trying to explain privatization, since he has never even balanced his own checkbook in his pathetic life.

Kevin, I don't disagree with your basic premise, namely that candidates for high office need to keep their campaign proposals fairly vague, but for a different reason - most Americans are too stupid or intellectually lazy to understand them.

Even granting for a moment that's true, that doesn't mean the proposal has to be vague, it means that it must be presented in appropriate media in sketch form; that doesn't mean that a more detailed version can't be communicated as well.

tax cuts succeeded because Bush exploited 9-11 to demand a tax cut

Bush's tax cuts passed, in large part, in the Spring of 2001, well before 9/11.

As a matter of fact, when Al Gore called out Bush on the obvious flaws in his tax cut plan, the press corps jumped on Gore for being too much of a wonk.
Bush taunted him with "fuzzy math" and the press corps let it stand.
Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on February 6, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

... and when Gore pressed the issue in one of the last debates that the cuts went primarily to the rich, bush lost his temper and snapped "... of course the cuts go to the rich ... "
The press never replayed THAT rich soundbite, nor, unfortunately, did the Gore campaign.

Posted by: aj on February 6, 2007 at 11:47 PM:

Democrats are pushing legislation that requires the government to negotiate for lower drug prices in the Medicare prescription-drug benefit.
The people overwhelmingly favor it.
A recent national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 85 percent of Americans favored government negotiations, including 65 percent who strongly support them. That backing crosses all political lines, with 92 percent support among Democrats, 85 percent among independents and 74 percent among Republicans. (McClatchy).

Let's try this survey again in a few weeks ... the insurance lobbies have started to run TV commercials to "educate" us that price negotiations are BAD for seniors.

I agree with Kevin that the middle ground is the place to be. But I also think there is something to be said for working up a plan to get you off that middle ground, especially once the nomination is secure. Because it's hard to hit the ground running in January without a well-developed plan. And hitting the ground running early in the administration, when the president (and his/her ideas) is at his/her most popular.

The problem with goals without plans is it doesn't tell people what you are willing to pay to get to your goals. Goals are easy and cheap. The real work of policymaking lies in how you balance competing goals, and that's what plans tell you about candidates that goals alone won't.

Policymaking? I thought we were talking about campaigning for office. But if you're asking how we're going to "pay" for the health care, then it's really an easy answer. I.e., we're already paying more for healthcare than we need to, and we're not getting our money's worth, and that's not counting the hundreds of billions--and soon to be trillions--of dollars spent on the Iraq war and its aftermath. The money is there, and all this talk about making tough decisions is just a misplaced and phony "realism" designed to make the candidate look smart.

Look, I think it's fine for a candidate to present a plan as an example of how a vision is achievable. But plans are never implemented as laid out during a political campaign, so committing to a "plan" is admitting defeat before even getting started.

As a political movement, Democrats need to layout a vision (if "goal" is too bland a term) for where the country needs to go. That's what voters want, not an admission out of the gate that policy plans have a 100-1 shot of being implemented.

Policymaking? I thought we were talking about campaigning for office.

A person who cannot convince me that he can do the former is—as far as winning contributions, support, or votes from me is concerned—failing at the latter.

But if you're asking how we're going to "pay" for the health care, then it's really an easy answer. .e., we're already paying more for healthcare than we need to, and we're not getting our money's worth, and that's not counting the hundreds of billions--and soon to be trillions--of dollars spent on the Iraq war and its aftermath.

I'm not asking where there is money available, I'm asking what kind of coverage is going to be provided, to whom, and how. How it is funded is part of that, sure, but not necessarily the most important part. I'm well aware there is more than enough money available, but how you tap into that, how the costs and benefits are distributed, makes a big difference.

Look, I think it's fine for a candidate to present a plan as an example of how a vision is achievable.

Maybe; I think its more important for a candidate to present a plan because it demonstrates a vision more concrete than abstract platitudes that everyone can read into what they want.

But plans are never implemented as laid out during a political campaign, so committing to a "plan" is admitting defeat before even getting started.

Proposing a plan isn't committing inflexibly to it. And, frankly, I don't need a plan as much as a concrete set of priorities that goes beyond vague platitudes, but you rarely get that without at least an outline of a plan.

As a political movement, Democrats need to layout a vision (if "goal" is too bland a term) for where the country needs to go.

The issue isn't the term, its the content; while I will agree that, strictly speaking, a detailed plan is not necessary, a clear vision that goes beyond merely "100% coverage" to provide some detail of what is meant by "coverage", and the priorities that will guide how it is provided, is needed.

Because the Republicans, in many cases, have already resigned themselves to the publics demand for something universal, and are already presenting a vision of how to acheive that: and its a bad vision, but if they are the only one offering a route from where we are to the vague goal of "100% coverage", it will be the center of the dialogue.