Why do candidates have to have a "plan" for everything?

It's beginning to seem like a hazing ritual. In order to be treated seriously as a presidential candidate, one must come up with detailed "plans" on any number of issues, particularly health care: Clark Proposes Health Care Coverage for All U.S. Children (washingtonpost.com)

The hazing of Clark has been particularly harsh, because with his late entry and lack of electoral experience, he was less prepared to produce such plans. So, of course, the press felt entitled to demand them. But now that he's got a plan, like every other plan it will have one of two effects: Either it will be marred by some telltale flaw that allow the press or opponents to rip the candidate to shreds. Or, it will be ignored, by the very same reporters who had written sentences like, "nonetheless, X has not yet offered detailed proposals on Y."

That's it. There are no other possibilities. The plan will not become law, and almost certainly won't even resemble the legislation that the candidate eventually sends to Congress if he or she becomes president. And thank goodness for that: I'd much rather have a health proposal that's written by HHS staffers and senior Office of Management and Budget staff, along with some politically savvy people thinking about what can pass, than one written by a few confident recent Harvard graduates and McKinsey types pulling an all-nighter, which is, roughly speaking, how all campaign plans get produced!

The budget numbers are also complete back-of-the-envelope guesses. Would Clark's plan cost "$695 billion over 10 years," as reported? Or $770 billion, which seems to be the estimate he obtained from Emory University expert Kenneth Thorpe? It could be roughly in that range, or it could cost twice as much or half as much. There are all sorts of variables, such as how many people would actually take advantage of expanded COBRA coverage, that could swing this number in either direction and no one -- not even the legendary Mr. Thorpe, who I believe has "scored" most of the Democrats' plans at this point -- can even begin to produce a proper cost estimate in the few days available to him. (Thorpe might have even more credibility if he would occasionally admit that.)

Such plans, in their specifics, also won't attract votes in either the primary or the general election. Voters are smart enough to know that voting for that candidate doesn't mean they would get that plan; it takes a lot of time and attention to understand the distinctions between the Dean, Gephardt and Edwards plans; and voters really just want to hear that the candidates care about an issue and intend to do something about it.

I'd like to see a candidate have the guts to just set some goals, such as to insure all children and reduce the number of uninsured adults by, say, 20 million within five years. And then identify some plans or ideas that have been developed by others, such as the New America Foundation or the Progressive Policy Institute that show how that the goal is achievable. And perhaps some general hints about the candidate's instincts are necessary, such as the degree to which they want to use private sector competition, and their willingness to propose mandatory insurance coverage for kids (kudos to Clark and also to Edwards on this one). An advantage of referring to plans or ideas developed by outside groups is that it gives the candidate a defense against the inevitable potential problems in the plan -- he doesn't own it, it's not his problem.

The rest of the plans are just, as I say, a hazing ritual. The details are either unnecessary or cause problems, and the cost estimate is typically about as realistic as the Laffer Curve. And candidates for president and their staffs have so many better things to do with their time. Let's bring this game to an end.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I also think this is another area where there is a double standard in the media between Democrats and Repubs. Democrats fall into a trap that's unnecessary by detailing everything.

Somewhere I read an account (possibly American Prospect article) about how voters think things like: Bush is for Education but Gore is for the environment. Simply talking about the issue gives you the credibility among the voters even if the press gives you a harder time.

Posted by: Lerxst | 10/29/2003 at 01:15 PM

Nichtraucher
rauchen
raucher
raucher entwoehnung
entwoehnung
nikotin
Nichtraucher
endlich nichtraucher allan carr
kettenraucher
nichtraucher-forum
rauchen-url
abstinenz-nikotin
raucher-url
nicht-rauchen-url
nichrauchen
nichtraucher
zigarette
raucherlunge
raucherbein
passivrauchen
entzug
nikotinkaugummi
lungenkrebs
zigarettenrauch
raucherhusten
nichtraucher werden
hypnose
endlich-nichtraucher
nichtraucher-hypnose
hypnose-raucherentwoehnung
bilder-raucherlunge
wie-werde-ich-nichtraucher
nichtraucher de