Are "policies" important in 2004?

[theboss]

I'm going to jump into the "what does Clark" stand for fray a bit. Up front, I'm not a Clark "supporter" though he is probably my second pick behind Edwards at the moment. And since Edwards looks like he might finish behind me in the early primaries, Clark will likely be my pick in a few months.

That aside, the debate recently has seem to come down to policies, position papers, and the like. Call me naive, pessimistic, or both, but I don't see how tax policy and health insurance plans are going to matter much since the Republicans are almost definitely going to hold the House and will likely hold the Senate (the numbers just aren't in our favor at the moment).

I seem to remember the last Democratic president running primarily on a massive health care reform plan. And it fizzled out within two years. I also remember him promising to let gays serve openly in the military. That didn't fly. And if I recall correctly, the tax plan he passed was rather different than the tax plan he ran on. And all these changes occurred with the Democrats running both chambers.

And that guy turned out to be a pretty decent president anyway.

My point is: do the nuances of policy really matter at this point? And is something like "medical marijuana" really worthy of being a make or break issue when 95 percent of Democrats in the House would probably vote against it anyway.

The things that matter in this election are going to be basic, I feel. Leadership. Integrity. Adaptibility. The big "issues" are going to be securtiy, terrorism, Iraq, and possibly taxes. The rest is going to be window dressing, I fear.

[StopThief]

1. Of course not. Forget NAFTA and Welfare Reform.

The only thing that matters is to hold the office. (/sarcasm)

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Actually, I think that is the view of most Democrats

The focus is toward putting a Democrat face on the policies as they are, although if the decision is made to select a Democrat my speculation is that there will be some rewording of position papers and press releases to make some things sound a little better, but the reality of impact on the victims will be the same.

[w13rd0]

2. I fear over-simplification...

...and another presidential campaign where neither candidate says a damned word to me. 2000 was all about prescription drugs and...what? Oh, taxes. I think our candidate can be robust. Bush is an empty suit, with NO domestic policy. I think we could do without another dose of that. There are issues I can disagree with a candidate on and still vote for them. There are other issues that I can't show that kind of flexibility with, because they directly impact me.

Support of small businesses
Health care for children
No foreign adventurism based on lies
End media manipulation
Stop the RW from framing the dialogue of the debate
Striving for economic and social justice
Equal rights for all
Preservation of civil liberties

No, medical marijuana isn't a make or break issue, but it paints a complete picture. I need more than a shadow dance when choosing a candidate...

[StephNW4Clark]

3. I agree

I think the general election is going to be defined by national security. Whether we like it or not, international policy has a direct correlation with economic policy, i.e. a weakening dollar caused by a large deficit caused by financing a war in Iraq.

That said, I agree with your thesis that general elections tend to come down to leadership, integrity and adaptability. I would also like to add that I think voters need to measure how each candidate goes about their decision-making process. Like you said, rarely does an election agenda translate into the first year at the White House.

That's why I support General Clark - he knows how to make decisions deliberately, considering all the options. He also knows how to make difficult decisions under pressure. You just need to read his book and examine his involvement in the Dayton Accords. And many people feel that his resume is somehow a detraction because it doesn't "say much." It says a whole lot - it says that he's very intelligent, able to grasp loads of information and process it into a cohesive strategy. It says that while at NATO he had to coordinate between 19 European governments - who incidentally respect him, unlike the current president.

So I don't think policies that are different by percentage points are relevant - in sum, I agree. Thanks for posting a really thought-provoking thesis.

[Creideiki]

4. I think so

If we want to have any chance of getting the House and Senate, we really need to start talking hard policies and numbers and how the Republican agenda is hurting people everywhere in the country (aside from certain country clubs). There's enough good to be had from education, social security, health care, police and fire protection (in combination with terrorism preparedness) that if we could drum these issues loudly and make sure people heard, the Republicans could find themselves with nothing but Gawd to campaign on. They'll still keep a lot of territory, but we should be able to get a lot of it back.

[RichM]

5. First you say that tax policy and health care are just "nuances."

Then you say at the end that OK, maybe tax policy will matter after all? :shrug:

Anyway, to talk about "Leadership. Integrity. Adaptibility" is to put people to sleep. That sounds like a talking head on CNN. Those words don't mean a thing -- it's like Bush talking about "character."

You seem to be saying the campaign will amount to a bunch of empty words like "leadership," plus some accusations & screaming about terrorism. That, I agree, is definitely going to be the case.

But do policies really matter? Yes, they do. Too bad we won't have a campaign which will allow them to be given any real consideration, exposure or debate at all (a vacuousness which Clark's candidacy will help to ensure).

[theboss]

7. Policies excite people?

Two quick points:

1. If leadership puts people to sleep what do you think discussions on capital gains do? The most exciting campaign is still more boring to a lot of people than an episode of "Yes, Dear."

2. The point I was trying to make is that national security is going to be such a huge issue in 2004 that most others will fall aside. And - for right or wrong - Democrats always do poorly when national security takes top-billing.

[Alpharetta]

8. Policies are important

But philosophies are important too.

Philosophical questions I'd like him to answer:
Government's role in protecting its citizens from corporate polluters, corporate wrongdoing, corporate influence on the media and elections.

Federal Government vs. State. What situations should Federal law step in? Is he OK with Ashcroft's "whenever I want" approach?

Guns vs. Butter

Role of the U.N.

Role of international law

Nuclear non-proliferation. Not just his policy statement about the treaty, but his long-term view.

etc.

I wonder if Clark is being coached to reveal as little as needed regarding either philosophy or policy.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi Alpharetta!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Pepperbelly]

10. No Presidential election has EVER turned on policy ...

Policy is far too specific and what passes for "policy" these days are nothing more than collections of relevant platitudes, each of which are intended to appeal to certain blocks of voters. They probably reflect the candidate's broad views but policy? Give me a break.

Presidential elections turn on very broad themes, on emotions, on trust and on herd instinct. Policy is for wonks and every policy I have seen, after translated to real government action proves the futility of getting very excited over policy.