On candidate specificity

Weighing in on the discussion between Mark and Ezra RE the importance of candidate policy-specificity, let me say that Mark isn't being very convincing when he says:

Here's some news: Candidates don't have "bottom line policy beliefs." They just don't. And it's not because they are evil or deceptive. Very few people -- though Ezra may be one of them -- emerge from the womb with deeply embedded beliefs about community rating, cost control, etc. Sorry. I don't have "bottom line policy beliefs" about those things, so if that's what you want, please, don't vote for me. I understand all these issues, somewhat, but I see them as variables in the huge and complex mess of health care policy and politics, and interdependent with other variables, especially the political."

Well sure. But I think Ezra's point is that politician should know more or less what they think the best endgame scenarios are for issues like health-care (or climate change, or welfare, or whatever), and should also know more or less what they think the best way for the government to approach those issues is. I understand the risk--that releasing big white papers can in many cases set candidates up to look like they've failed. But that risk might disappear if we didn't look at those white papers as if they were campaign promises and started looking at them instead as detailed reports on the directions from which candidates planned to approach those issues.

Let me use climate change as an example. There are at least three candidates in the Democratic field with robust climate change proposals floating around: Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson. Those proposals vary slightly in strength and approach, and I can conclude two things from reading them. First, I can be pretty sure that these proposals announce goals more ambitious than political reality will allow in the near term. Second, and relatedly, it tells me that these candidates have announced ambitious goals.

Clinton and Obama have announced...almost nothing. At least on my pet issue. For the time being, Clinton is asking me to cross my fingers and hope that she takes the matter seriously and Obama is leaving me to draw conclusions from his haphazard record. That's not, I don't think, either a smart or good way to win support from anybody. And I don't see how voters who take big issues seriously can settle for just hoping things work out with their party's candidate in the wash.