The Cynical Brilliance of Hillary Clinton

"The problem with the disengaged and the uninformed is that it is difficult to engage and inform them." -Matthew Yglesias 

Presidential 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?

Escaping the Echo Chamber

You've probably noticed I've been writing a lot about the Republican primary. Why is that? I'm a solid Democrat, and there's no chance I'll vote for a Republican presidential candidate in 2016, so why focus so much on the other side?

Escaping the Echo Chamber

Researchers generally agree that the Internet, combined with a profusion of TV stations tailored to specific political outlooks, has led to increased polarization in our country. When people choose what to read and watch, they tend to choose things they already agree with. Said another way, the Internet allows you to choose your own facts. I worried, especially this early in the race, about retreating into my own partisan hole. The Echo Chamber is the enemy of true clarity. The first few months of the primary season seemed a good time to immerse myself in the Right. 

Judging by my pageviews, I think this blog lives in the middle of this chart. </ennui>

I figured that by reading about Republicans, and about the differing views among their constituents, that I'd better appreciate views different from my own.

I was heartened by the moderate opinions of candidates like John Kasich. I was interested in Jeb Bush's break with party orthodoxy on immigration. I was appreciative of the party's broad embrace of nuclear power, which I feel is an important tool in our fight against climate change.

Ultimately, though, I was disappointed.

My journey into Republican politics coincided with the rise of Donald Trump. My initial plan was to ignore him, or to write about him only for comic relief. The Republican base, though, has made this very difficult. Not only has Trump's support remained steadfast, his success has caused other candidates to fall off of their positions. Bush fumbled immigration. Lindsey Graham wants to monitor mosques. Scott Walker is going to put up a wall along the Canadian border.

This is what a border wall with Canada would look like. Probably.

In short, the primary process was captured by the lunatic fringe, and moderates like me were scared away. This seems to happen every season (remember "Self-Deportation", waffling on universal healthcare, and the 47% from Romney in 2012; remember McCain's embrace of torture in 2008?)

A future post will explore why I believe Trump's (and Ben Carson's) supporters to be "lunatics", and not just "people with whom I disagree". Regardless, this group's dominance over the Republican political dialog, evidenced by Trump's rise and the reluctance of other candidates to oppose him, has reminded me why I'm a Democrat. My journey out of the echo chamber really did expose me to different ideas, but those ideas were repellent.

Unfortunately, this brings me to the next reason why I haven't been writing about Democrats.

Out of the Frying Pan and Into the 'Meh'

There's another reason why I haven't been writing about Democrats: I'm pretty disappointed with the options. While I've never been a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, I was willing to write it off as a branding problem. Clinton is the most experienced candidate around, and she's generally done a good job on policy. She's just 

such.

a terrible.

campaigner.

Benghazi was a fake scandal - a misappropriation of tragedy to score political points. The email thing is more legitimately troubling, though by itself shouldn't be a huge deal. My problem is that Clinton has mishandled the whole thing. Rather than killing the issue early on, she's allowed the scandal to linger and build. Whether she's telling truth or not, she seems like she's lying. That's a big problem, and may continue to be a problem in the General Election. 

Who else is there? 

Bernie Sanders has been on the rise for months, and he obviously engenders enthusiasm from his constituency. I, too, agree with many of his policy positions, but I disagree with him on things like trade and energy policy. Protectionism never seems to work; I'm unconvinced that we can keep "good jobs" in America by restricting free trade. I've never been too sympathetic to unions, though I understand why they were important in the Prohibition era. Sanders is against nuclear power, even though it is the most available, scalable, technology to combat climate change. I can't pretend to understand the problem the Black Lives Matter people have with Sanders, but that's still been going poorly.

Sanders doesn't come off as Presidential, and that does matter. Worse, Sanders is unelectable. I certainly don't care that he's a Socialist, but I bet that many American voters will. The Republican party once succeeded in making "liberal" a dirty word that Democrats ran away from. Imagine the field day they'll have with Socialist. 

Martin O'Malley does look like a President, but his rationale for running has never been clear. He wanted to run to Clinton's left, but Sanders ruined that. He had a good record as Governor of Maryland, but a series of setbacks have reduced his momentum (his Lieutenant Governor losing the election, unrest in Baltimore, increased scrutiny on his policing policy). O'Malley doesn't seem like the next great hope of the Democratic party.

Joe Biden is considering a run too. I like Joe Biden. He used to ride a train to work every day. Biden isn't meaningfully different from Clinton, though. He lacks some of her baggage, but he's got substantially the same policies. Seems like a good emergency option, but I just don't see him adding anything to the race.

Al Gore is someone I'd be extremely excited about. The environment is among my highest priorities, and there's no candidate I'd trust more than Gore to move us in the right direction on that. There was a brief rumor he was considering a run, but it seemed to die quickly. 

Al Gore will protect us from all threats

Jim Webb and Lincoln Chaffee are also running. I bet this is the first time you've heard their names since they announced their candidacies. You may never hear them again! It's unclear whether they're actively campaigning...the only Google News hit I got on Webb was that he didn't attend a Democratic National Committee gathering. Go get'm, Jim!

I'll get more into the Democratic policy picture in my next post. Ultimately, I'm sure I'll support the nominee, regardless of who that is, since I broadly agree with the whole group on the major planks of their platforms. I worry about my enthusiasm being low, though. If I am not enthusiastic about these people, then who could be?

Republicans are the Party of Ideas, but They All Have the Same Ideas

The dust has cleared from the first Republican debate, and the candidates' polling positions have settled out. Vox echoed many of my thoughts from last Monday, after the insurgent candidates' bumps turned out to be real. We'll see how long the outsider vote remains strong, but in the meantime, let's talk about whether it matters.

From Many, One Opinion

The story so far this season has centered on the triumph of Outsider candidates over the Establishment, but the distinction between Outsider and Establishment seems to be a matter of branding rather than substance. We've all laughed at Donald Trump's shallow incoherence, but his positions aren't very different from those of his rivals. Paul Krugran wrote an excellent column in the New York Times about this recently:

For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party.

It's very early in this primary race, but we've already seen the candidates stake out their ideological territory. Each candidate has a position or two on which he differs from Republican orthodoxy, but the rest of their platforms are the strict party-line. Again, from Krugman:

Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?

Mr. Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.

And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line. (Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything, but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to believe.)

It's hard to see where this race is going, as long as the 16 candidates struggle to differentiate themselves. I once had high hopes for Rand Paul, for instance, but he's abandoned his different-thinking mindset and become a Libertarian In Name Only. He's done this in a crass attempt to court votes from Republicans who oppose abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and who support huge defense spending. "Libertarian who supports government regulation of women's health choices and bedroom activities" may be the definition of cognitive dissonance. 

Priorities and Facts

In another great New York Times column, Timothy Egan summarizes the lowlights of policy positions released by the candidates so far:

Other Republicans think we should be living in a theocracy. “It’s time we recognize the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being,” said Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, testing the latest version of his church-lady demagogy. He wants to ignore the high court on both gay marriage and abortion — breaking the law while waving his Bible.

Huckabee would also use the force of government to intervene with any woman seeking an abortion, claiming a constitutional right, the 14th and 5th Amendments, to protect a zygote. When he mentioned this Brave New World idea in the debate, no one challenged him. Instead, other candidates were equally extreme, refusing to make abortion exceptions even when the life of a woman is at stake. This is junk women’s health care, driven by religious fanaticism.

More empty calories: Scott Walker, the governor whose foreign policy experience is limited to breakfast at the old International House of Pancakes, threatens to start at least two wars upon taking office. He promises to use military action if necessary to coax Iran into doing what he wants it to do. He also wants to pick a fight with Russia, sending weapons to Ukraine and erecting a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Many of these pronouncements earn huge cheers during debates and stump speeches, but they're all based on either magical thinking, deception, or both. Any candidate who calls for an amendment to the Constitution is just spouting unactionable talking points, while most of the illegal immigration blustering is happening on false pretenses.

This summary of common arguments about illegal immigration and border protection is worth reading in full. The context here is that Donald Trump released a position paper on this subject this week, though these arguments have been made by most of the Republican candidates recently. My favorite bit is about the number of illegal immigrants in the US declining in recent years, but please do read the whole thing.

The old formula was for a center-right candidate to throw red meat to the fringe, and ride their support to the nomination. Recently, this approach has pulled the nominee too far, to a point that was ultimately unrecoverable. When misconceptions and magic are the starting point in an ideology, can anything rational result? 

Rick Perry, Lawrence Lessig, and Campaign Finance in 2015

Pictured: Every political candidate

Citizen's United was a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2010. This ruling declared political donations to be considered political "speech", and held that corporations were protected speakers. In essence, limits on corporate political spending were equated to limits on an individual's right to free speech. 

This ruling did affect the 2012 Presidential election, but its effects have become even more profound this year. 

Super PACs

Steven Colbert did a great job explaining the problems associated with Citizens United, back when he ran for "President of the United States of South Carolina" in 2012. This video is a good summary of Colbert's work in this field:

This video emphasized the unlimited sums of money that Super PACs can raise. On its face, this seems strange. Why is an individual limited to donating only $2,700 directly to a federal candidate, and a PAC limited to donating only $5,000, while a Super PAC is unrestricted? 

The answer is transparency, or at least the illusion of transparency. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, and they're prohibited from donating money directly to candidates. The Court's rationale was that this disclosure, and the isolation of funds, would preclude "corruption or the appearance of corruption." Sounds great.

Many Super PACs also registered as 501(c)(4) organizations, which were originally intended as "tax exempt organizations dedicated to social welfare." Colbert Super PAC Shh! was an example of a 501(c)(4). The distinction between this type of PAC and a regular Super PAC is that 501(c)(4)s do not need to disclose their donors. Citizen's United removed restrictions on 501(c)(4)s conducting political speech, thus creating a system where unlimited amounts of money, contributed secretly, can be used for political campaigns.

Fortunately, Americans have the Federal Election Commission to protect us from abuse of this system. The FEC describes their duties as the following:

To disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

Guess what? There's a problem here too. The FEC is not a nonpartisan organization; it's a bipartisan organization. Its six-member board is legally prohibited from having more than three members of the same party. This forces three Democrats and three Republicans onto the Commission at all times, leading to frequent deadlock. The FEC ruled in a tie over 200 times between 2008 and 2014, meaning that it rarely actually "enforces any provisions of the law". This leaves campaigns able to break even today's lax rules, with virtually no chance of penalty.

Decisions Have Consequences

You can probably see the effects of Super PAC Proliferation today: tons of political advertising, a longer campaign season with more candidates than ever, an unprecedented political influence from the wealthiest Americans.

Rick Perry's campaign shows evidence of a less-expected outcome.

His traditional campaign is basically out of money, as he's failed to inspire any meaningful popular support for his candidacy this year. His Super PACs, meanwhile, have received huge donations from wealthy backers. The combination of low traditional donations plus high Super PAC donations yields the following chart, compiled by FiveThirtyEight:

Perry leads all major candidates in the % of fundraising contributed by Super PACs, and he's also spending more of his money than any other candidate. Normally, this would be a huge problem. Since candidates aren't allowed to coordinate with their Super PACs, there are certain functions which only the candidate's actual campaign can perform. This year, Perry's Super PACs have pledged to take over some of those duties for him. Illegal? Probably. Punishable? Not by the bipartisan FEC.

If Perry's PACs have been so successful raising money, why is his campaign's traditional fundraising ailing? Traditional fundraising is hard, because of the $2,700 donation cap. To raise millions of dollars, you need thousands of donors willing to contribute the maximum amount. It takes effort and organization to marshal that sort of funding. Super PACs just require some wealthy backers with special interests.

Perry's campaign is probably doomed anyway, but it will be interesting to see what happens until it all ends. He wasn't impressive in the Kids' Table debate, and his campaign has stopped paying its staff. I hope his Super PACs really cross the line, if only to catalyze change in our campaign finance laws.

Catalyzing Change in Our Campaign Finance Laws

That brings us to Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Professor who promises to run for President if he can raise $1 million by Labor Day. Unlike everyone else in the race, Lessig is running as a "referendum candidate". He promises to push an agenda solely of campaign finance reform, and then resign once that's completed. This is probably unrealistic - he'd still need Congress to create the bill and vote for it, and they'll have no real motivation to do this - but it's an exciting idea. Lessig argues that the influence of money has broken our political system, and radical change is the only fix. 

Does his argument interest you? 2016 is already showing us the absurdities of a fully-realized, post-Citizens United world. Maybe an absurd candidacy, from an outsider with a single goal, is the antidote?

Polls had bumps like a Trump, Trump, Trump / I's like what, what what

In my Republican Debate Wrap-Up on Friday, I said the following about Donald Trump's performance:

To quote the New Yorker, Donald Trump was more heinous than previously thought. He defended himself, at all times, by lashing out at others. This made him hugely entertaining, despite the layers of misogyny and incoherence. Republican operative reactions, after the debate, were that he was terrible. I suspect the base loved it. His answers were utterly incoherent. I suspect the base loved that too. [Emphasis added today]

Horrifyingly, that initial reaction has been confirmed by today's polls. To rational observers, Donald Trump had the worst performance of any candidate in the Varsity Debate. His answers were all insulting, mostly non-sequiturs, and generally indecipherable. He actively insulted Megyn Kelly, a popular host on a popular network with Republicans. He refused to commit to support the party's eventual nominee.

Trump's situation seemed to degrade after the debate, when on Friday he continued insulting Kelly, and implied that her tough questioning was motivated by hormones. Just like after "the Mexicans, the rapists", just like after Trump's insults to John McCain and POWs , national pundits speculated that Trump's poor debate performance and misogynistic comments would end his campaign.

These pundits misunderestimated* Trump's appeal to his base.

Trump's style of snappy, irrelevant come-backs may be appealing to an audience that isn't critically thinking about the debate. He lacks any cogent policy position, but he knows how to insult Rosie O'Donnell! 

*Ok, "misunderestimate" isn't actually in that video, but it contains too many classics to avoid sharing it.

Other Movers

Look closely at the plot of polling numbers, in the link at the top. Most candidates' numbers stayed flat, or decreased, over the time period depicted. The biggest gainer, other than Trump, is Ben Carson. Carson was among the most Googled candidates during the debate, and he began the night with nearly the lowest Name ID (John Kasich was lower). I thought that Carson had a bad showing at the debate, offering quiet, non-specific answers to questions. He had a memorable closing statement, but otherwise I figured he'd be eclipsed by some of the serious candidates on-stage. The exposure Carson gained, here, must have outweighed his middling performance. Like Trump, he's an outsider with a populist message. While it's hard to characterize Trump according to the Four Faces, Carson is obviously in the Very Conservative, Evangelical camp. These outsider/populist candidates may be creating sub-factions of each of the classical Republican groups, where each group has an Establishment candidate and a Populist candidate. 

If that theme holds, then Carly Fiorina will be the Populist-Very Conservative, Secular candidate. She was the other candidate to gain a measurable amount of support after the debate. She was clearly the best at the Kid's Table, and was more impressive than several of the Varsity debaters. Just like Trump and Carson, Fiorina has no political experience. 

Jeb Bush has been consistently fading, though by only 1 point per week. Scott Walker lost a bit more than Bush, and the rest of the field remained pretty flat. Trump's Bump seems to have been pulled pretty equally from across the primary.

What's Important

We'll continue tracking this potential theme of splitting the Four Faces into eight, with Establishment and Populist candidates for each. There is obviously a (large) segment of the Republican party that is represented in these polls, but ignored among the chattering class. It's meaningful that virtually all of the increases in support, after the debate, went to these Populist candidates. 44% of the vote, in that poll, belongs to the combo of Trump, Carson, and Fiorina. With three of the four "Faces" covered, it seems like there'd be an opportunity for a Populist-Liberal candidate.

Oh, wait, that's Bernie Sanders.

Introduction, and the Paradox of Choice

The first couple of posts on this blog have been a bit of a cold-open, but now it's time for an actual introduction. This blog isn't about me, so we won't dwell there, though it is motivated by my interest in politics and rational thinking. Lots of people disengage from the political process because it's confusing, they don't know where to start, or there seems to be too much to know. Aside from that, many are turned off by partisan vitriol. The anger that often attends political discourse is what makes politics one of the seven things you should never discuss.

We can do better than that, on both counts.

On this blog, I'll attempt to demystify political news by focusing on what's important, while ignoring trivia. I read a lot, but I'll share only articles that I find particularly illuminating. This will all make more sense if you read those articles too, and I genuinely hope you choose to comment.

I'll avoid article-dumps, posts with links to dozens of articles, because I think this is counterproductive. You may have heard of the Paradox of Choice, which posits consumers are impeded by an overabundance of choices. Decision paralysis results from staring at a shelf full of 27 different types of toothpaste. I wager this same principle applies to the reams of political opinions available online, so I'll try to sidestep it by presenting a curated few in each post.

I hope that we can think rationally through your priorities, and use those priorities to point you towards the candidates who best represent your interests. This is particularly important in a year with so many candidates running. The Republicans are offering 17 different people for your consideration; the Democrats technically have five, but there are only two worth noting. There are meaningful differences between each of the candidates, but it's interesting to contrast how each Primary field fares regarding the Paradox of Choice. Republicans will say that a sea of choices is superior to a "coronation", but picking a favorite from their lineup may be tough. 

Yesterday, I categorized the Republican candidates. There was some overlap between the categories, but chances are good (if you're a Republican) that you can decide which of those categories you fit into yourself. Focus your attention this way: which type of candidate do I want? Within that type, which of the 4 or 5 candidates do I like best? The field will inevitably shrink. Once it does, your list of choices will come into even sharper focus.

I mentioned priorities above, and this is an area where I think Americans need to improve. Swaths of the American electorate consistently vote against their own self-interest, usually due to some convenient wedge issue or fear-mongering from the candidates. Guard against this. I'll attempt to highlight instances of the candidates doing this, so that you can sift through it. 

So, again, join the conversation! Jump into the comments below the articles, and share them with your friends, if you enjoyed them. Avoid ambiguous participles, like I just failed to do. ("If you enjoyed your friends", or "If you enjoyed the articles"? The world will never know.)

-Eric