"The problem with the disengaged and the uninformed is that it is difficult to engage and inform them." -Matthew YglesiasPresidential primary season has been going for months, but with the Iowa caucuses only weeks away, the campaign is finally starting to matter. Today I'm going to explore a brilliant, and diabolical, campaign tactic that Hillary Clinton has been using.
Flanking Speed!
Primary campaigns, more so than general elections, are a battle of ideas among basically like-minded people. Primary voters are a subset of the general electorate, and are typically composed of the more passionate (and more strongly partisan) voters in the party.
The combination of these factors means that recent primaries have been exercises in running toward the extremes. This had been truer for Republicans* than for Democrats, at least until Obama beat Hillary Clinton by emphasizing their differing votes on the war in Iraq. Successful primary candidates attempt to appeal to the fringes of their party, and often try to pivot back to the center for the general election.
*Remember John McCain abandoning...basically all of his core values in an effort to look more conservative, or Mitt Romney running away from his health care accomplishments?
Clinton seems to have learned from 2008, and she packaged herself this year as a progressive fighter. Bernie Sanders, though, posed a real problem**: the Democratic Socialist from Vermont is way more liberal than Hillary. How could she appeal to the liberal base, when running against someone who nominally sits to her left?
**Bernie posed an even bigger problem for Martin O'Malley, since O'Malley's plan was to run as the more-liberal alternative to Clinton. Bernie out-flanked him, and preempted any hope his campaign had.
Capitalize on Ignorance!
Beginning in the first Democratic debate, in October, and continuing through recent speeches, Clinton's campaign has been employing sleight of hand that would be admirable if not for its brazen cynicism. This subversion started gradually, beginning with a brilliant (and not actually disingenuous) focus on issues in the first debate: Clinton repeatedly brought up Bernie Sanders' record on gun control. Sanders may be much more liberal than Clinton, but on this one issue he actually shares ground with the Republicans. Hillary hammered his opposition to gun control, and Sanders was left mumbling excuses about hunters in his rural home state. This was spectacular turnabout, especially since Clinton pivoted to this issue to escape other topics on which she's more moderate than Sanders. A casual observer could have come away from that debate thinking that Clinton was more liberal in general, and I bet that was exactly the goal.
Recent developments in the race (Sanders' support in early-voting states, his resilience in national polls, and his consistent grassroots donor support) have forced Clinton to become more underhanded in her attacks. In the most recent debate, and also in stump speeches by her surrogates, Clinton has employed a hilariously brazen accusation: Bernie will ruin our healthcare system. She's claimed that his plan will repeal CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare in general. This is technically true, but a soupçon of critical thinking will show you that it's practically BS. Saying this is like saying that a person buying a new car will not be able to drive to work, because he no longer has his old car.
Much like in the debate, Hillary found a way to seem more liberal than her Socialist opponent. So, what is Bernie really trying to do?
Repeal and Replace
You've probably heard Republicans use that phrase a lot over the last five years, and it's effectively what Sanders is proposing. In short***, he wants to implement a single-payer healthcare system (meaning that government pays all the bills, and our current network of hundreds of private insurers would dissolve). This system would be similar to that of many European countries - countries that have much better health outcomes than the US and that also pay far less money per-capita for healthcare. I fully support a move to a single-payer system, but I'm very receptive to Clinton's specific critiques of Bernie's approach.
***In long(?), it isn't really clear what Sanders' plan would look like, as he has been vague about details.
Unfortunately, Clinton isn't approaching this problem with specific critiques. Instead, she's accusing Sanders of eliminating all of our current healthcare systems, without mentioning his proposed replacement plan. This approach trades on the ignorance of the voters, assuming they can't think clearly enough to understand the trick she's playing. This may very well be true! Voters have believed all kinds of crap before. It's unfortunate, though, that the Clinton campaign is telling a simple lie rather than a nuanced truth. One of her main arguments is that Sanders' approach could result in immediate doom, since it would open the door to non-participation from Republican governors in the same way that they rejected Medicaid expansion**** as part of Obamacare. This, and the legislative impossibility of passing sweeping reform without a congressional supermajority, mean that Sanders' plans are nothing but hot air. This is an argument supported by compelling facts; it's a shame that Clinton's campaign has chosen to advance it instead with deception. Still, this is another case where she managed to make Sanders look less liberal than she is.
****If you are a poor Republican without healthcare, in a state that didn't expand Medicaid, then you should seriously reconsider your voting choices in the 2016 election.
Run to the Left
Between her legitimate focus on gun control, and her recent healthcare bomb, Clinton has been succeeding in out-flanking Bernie on the left. A third vector she's used has been to embrace Obama's record, and to hold herself up as the aegis that will defend his accomplishments.
Returning to a theme she presented in the first debate, "I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive that likes to get things done", Clinton has emphasized that she has both the desire and the ability to uphold Obama's legacy. Instead of Sanders' grandiose dreams, Clinton will pursue concrete objectives and protect existing progress. Her basic argument here, and it's a persuasive one, is that the things she will actually achieve will do more for America than Sanders' doomed promises. This is a third distinct way in which Clinton is posturing herself on the left, and it has the benefit of matching what we've seen from Obama.
Wrapping Up
Hillary's approach here is nothing new in politics. Politicians have always manipulated facts to tell the story they want to tell, relying on the ignorance of the electorate to carry the day. We've got a huge problem with political disengagement, where most Americans (and many voters!) know next to nothing about the issues. This situation is ripe for abuse. Knowledge is your sword, and critical thinking your shield.
What do you think? Are you turned off by some of these tactics, or do you figure that all is fair in politics? With the primaries rolling out over the next few months, where are you leaning?
No comments:
Post a Comment