Sunday, April 27, 2008
Elizabeth Edwards and the liberal's love of "issues"
Elizabeth Edwards, wife of the erstwhile candidate for both American presidencies, John Edwards, has written an extraordinarily tedious op-ed piece in the New York Times lambasting the press for focusing on style and personality more than "the issues". It's title is "Bowling 1, Health Care 0," and, true to type, liberal bloggers love it. And Edwards tosses them a bone, too:
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
There are voters who "take their responsibility to be informed" so seriously that they are going to tease out the nuances in the policy prescriptions of Christopher Dodd (as Edwards suggests they might) but who "do not have access to the Internet"? Edwards must be referring to some third America, because in neither of the two described by her husband are there enough of such people to fill a school bus.
Anyway, Edwards' column puts in stark relief the two big reasons why liberals have not elected a president since Lyndon Johnson thumped Barry Goldwater (Carter ran to the right of the Democratic field in 1976, as amazing as that seems today). First, they believe that if American voters understood "the issues" they would care about "the issues" at the granular level that Edwards wants them to: "Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden's health care plan?" Second, they believe that American voters ought to care about the issues in choosing a President. Neither belief is even remotely realistic (the second is downright stupid), which is ironic coming from "the reality-based community."
Her first point, that Americans would understand subtle differences in policy proposals if only the mainstream media did a better job of reporting them, terribly misapprehends the American voter, and probably the voters of any democracy bigger than Princeton Borough (not that it's a democracy, but you get my point). The only people who understand the details of a health care plan at any level other than the most superficial are activists or professionals. I am a political blogger and an executive in the medical device industry and spend a lot of time reading on the subject, and even I had a hard time remembering the differences between the health care plans of the various candidates. Indeed, I have been trying to figure out whether I prefer Hillary's compulsory system or Obama's voluntary system, and I have failed.
As long as liberal politicians believe that they would be elected if only voters understood their absurdly complex policy prescriptions, they will lose.
Also, they ought to lose, at least the presidency. Why? Because it is silly to evaluate an executive on the basis of policy proposals. In no other context do we do this. I have recruited many executives, including prospective CEOs, and I have never once thought it important to know what new policies or strategies they would propose. Sure, I might ask, but I do not care about the substance of the answer. I care about how the executive thinks through the problem. I care about his or her character, attitude, judgment, decisiveness, and, above all, leadership, but in the hiring of an executive neither I nor anybody else cares about the actual substance of policies to be implemented in the future. I suspect this is also true in other executive contexts, such as in the appointment of commanders in the military.
American voters, in the main, think of presidential candidates in the same way. Yes, they care about their attitude and orientation -- do they care about the health care of poor people, or not, and are they inclined to statist solutions, or not -- but not about the absurdly subtle differences between health care reform proposals among the Democratic candidates (as Edwards wishes they would). This is as it should be, because contrary to the presumption of many liberals, American voters are not stupid. They know that a candidate's health care "plan" is at best the opening bid in a long process of legislative negotiation. Its value, if any, is in measuring the candidate's inclinations. But voters also know that the formal, published proposals of candidates are carefully measured and refined to achieve an electoral result. They are of limited use in assessing the candidate's likely effectiveness as an executive and leader. We therefore look to much more subtle indicators for clues to these ineffable but critical qualities. How does the candidate react to stress and uncertainty? Does he or she reflect our most important values? Does this person share my tastes, and my vision for America? Does he or she like beer, hot dogs, and NASCAR, or Perrier and wind-sailing? Is he or she the type of person we, as Americans, can be proud of? Would I follow this person? Would I take this person's orders? Do I trust this person to appoint capable people? Would I invite this person into my home, or to be alone with my daughter? With whom does the executive choose to associate?
Looked at this way, the mainstream media, checked by blogs and elite punditry, does a reasonably decent job of showing us who these people are. Maybe not in each snapshot, but over the sweep of a long political career we do get a good picture of the person. Indeed, the profit-seeking media corporations that Edwards deplore seem to understand the real needs of the American voter more than Elizabeth Edwards does.
21 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Apr 27, 09:24:00 AM:
"Do I trust this person to appoint capable people?" That item, it seems to me, is simultaneously the most important and the most overlooked aspect of any presidential candidate. More than one president has been undone by his failure to choose capable people, and at least a few have been more successful than they otherwise would have been because of the advisors they chose.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 10:24:00 AM:
Knowing the arcane details of Joe Biden's proposal often assumes that one has faith in Senator Biden's proposal to "fix things." Skepticism that Senator Biden's proposal will "fix things" will cause eyes to glaze over.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 11:33:00 AM:
All the Democrats' policies are essentially identical. You made a distinction between Obama's "voluntary" plan versus Hillary's compulsory plan. Obama's plan is only voluntary if it brings in enough money, otherwise it would become compulsory. The odds are greatly against a voluntary plan bringing in "enough" money.
JLW III
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 11:51:00 AM:
"Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden's health care plan?"
Well, yes, I knew the fact that it was Biden's plan. What more information could one possibly want in order to reject it as anti-American, unworkable and worthless?
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 11:51:00 AM:
I have recruited many executives, including prospective CEOs, and I have never once thought it important to know what new policies or strategies they would propose. Sure, I might ask, but I do not care about the substance of the answer. I care about how the executive thinks through the problem. I care about his or her character, attitude, judgment, decisiveness, and, above all, leadership, but in the hiring of an executive neither I nor anybody else cares about the actual substance of policies to be implemented in the future.
Sometimes you say smart things here, but the quoted paragraph seems like an open confession of negligence and recklessness bordering on stupidity.
They are of limited use in assessing the candidate's likely effectiveness as an executive and leader. We therefore look to much more subtle indicators for clues to these ineffable but critical qualities.
There are two kinds of people in the world. The first kind uses mumbo-jumbo and random variance in trivia to make self-delusional judgements about "character". These kinds of people hire executives because they like their power tie. These people are idiots.
The rest of us examine performance in a manner as functional as possible. That's why, in the modern business world, the boss doesn't just look you up and down, decide if he likes the cut of your jib, and then grades you accordingly.
You seem to be declaring fealty to the first group here, but I suspect you're just being irritating. If you actually operated like this in your job, you wouldn't have one.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sun Apr 27, 12:26:00 PM:
Anonymous 11:51 -
What was it that I wrote conforms to your characterization of what I wrote?
I operate exactly as I said, and have an outstanding group of executives working for me. I never once asked a prospective hire for their "plan" to do this or that. Do you?
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 12:39:00 PM:
TH, that might be the case in the corporate world, but for executive positions in the academic world, you always need to have a plan, or a "vision", or something along those lines to get the job. I didn't understand this for many years and thought that I would get the job on my demonstrated abilities. I was generally passed over for others who could articulate a plan for new initiatives and programs. Finally, I got the idea and figured out that I needed a plan, too.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 12:49:00 PM:
"There are two kinds of people in the world."
Those who attack a blogger anonymously and those who don't.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Apr 27, 01:00:00 PM:
Anonymous 12:39 -
I know nothing about academic administrative hiring. Your description of the process may explain why educational institutions are so much less dynamic than businesses. Indeed, other than governmental services, the business of teaching (to the extent that it is not also a governmental service, which it is the vast majority of the time) seems to have changed less in the last generation than the rest of the economy. It is probably because schools hire people with a "plan" instead of a proven ability and propensity to decide and lead. (Come to think of it, this probably explains the poor track record that universities have managing under stress, from the student activism of the 1960s to the Duke lacrosse case to the faux crises (e.g., president Summers at Harvard) of the last few years.
By Escort81, at
Sun Apr 27, 03:16:00 PM:
I have to weigh in on TH's side in this spat. The question seems to be what granularity of detail is required in a job interview.
In the same way that no battle plan survives first contact in war (at least with any exactitude), the precise plan that, say, a recruited VP HR may have in hand so as to implement 360 degree reviews or establish a new set of employee benefits will undoubtedly change after the hire is actually made. Real life business working environments are not a video game that follows a set program.
I guess I can imagine a scenario a decade or so ago (the web has largely rendered this moot) where you have 3 or 4 large key vendors and customers that run a specific hardware and software package, and you are hiring a CTO, he'd better have implementation experience in those platforms and in an interview be able to outline what the challenges will be for your company to get to a good end point. If your key 3 or 4 customers comprise 70% of your sales and have given you a deadline to marry up with them from an billing and information exchange standpoint, it's a bet-the-ranch decision on your CTO, and he ought to have a thick 3 ring binder playbook in hand. Even then, count on some surprises. There is no parallel to this in any kind of political arena, where everything is always subject to compromise.
Anon is perhaps correct that all senior level candidates should be able to speak about a vision of what they can accomplish within the meets and bounds of their position. I don't think TH would disagree with that; he just doesn't care about drilling down to the nth level of detail during the interview process. Plenty of time for that later!
By davod, at
Sun Apr 27, 03:31:00 PM:
"you always need to have a plan, or a "vision", or something along those lines to get the job."
So Academia is to blame for this. I recall in the late 90s getting a rash of resumes all containing the applicants vision for what were basic jobs. I though at the time that it was just another fad to be weathered.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Apr 27, 03:55:00 PM:
I was thinking 'what an arrogant prick' at about the time I got to "You seem to be declaring fealty to the first group here, but I suspect you're just being irritating. If you actually operated like this in your job, you wouldn't have one."
But coming from academia, eh? But deigning to make derisive comments about another discipline altogether? All is made clear, then.
Continue, professor.
*rolls eyes*
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 04:11:00 PM:
You wrote: Anyway, Edwards' column puts in stark relief the two big reasons why liberals have not elected a president since Lyndon Johnson thumped Barry Goldwater (Carter ran to the right of the Democratic field in 1976, as amazing as that seems today).
Bill Clinton ran as a classic liberal, and his very first issue was gays in the miltary. Family and Medical Leave. Brady Bill. Tax increases. His wife almost rammed Canadian style health care through. But they overreached, we got divided government in the 1994 election, and only then did Bill Clinton start talking about welfare reform and v-chips and started governing from the middle.
By , at
Sun Apr 27, 04:15:00 PM:
I disagree TH. Dems offer broadly (Clinton the exception) higher taxes and more Affirmative Action that hurt the white middle/working class. Along with soft-on-crime aka the home-value decrease program.
Voters choose broadly over economic issues. It's generally very clear.
By Escort81, at
Sun Apr 27, 05:55:00 PM:
Now that I've actually sat down and read the print version of the op-ed piece, it's basically a rag on the MSM, and the power that she thinks a handful of editors have to bless or ignore particular candidates.
I don't happen to agree with that analysis. Looking back 4 years, Gov. Dean's initial traction was very much grass-roots generated -- in a way, he was the first internet presidential candidate. That he was ultimately unsuccessful had more to do with Kerry being perceived as more electable.
By , at
Mon Apr 28, 08:58:00 AM:
I think the answer for Ms. Edwards is simpler. The electorate has taken a good long look at Johnny Hairdo, and decided they neither like him, or trust him. And they've taken a look at Elizabeth and decided they don't like her either. And they've parsed his rhetoric against his 28600 foot house on 100 acres, and decided he's just another politician.
Remember, this was the same woman who said "we can't make John a woman or black". Well, he's the sissiest of the male candidates, so he had that going for him.
I believe most of us know that the idea of healthcare 'reform' means that if you work for health benefits (part of your overall comp package) your coverage is going down. And, if the government wades deeper into it, the price is going to skyrocket, and the quality is going to plummet.
The bottom line is we all want great healthcare when we're sick, and lower taxes. You can't provide it to everyone cheap, just like you can't build a 2000 foot house for every family on the planet. In the former, there aren't enough high caliber docs spread out across the country. In the latter, there aren't enough building materials.
And, until you manage the flood of those who need it 'free', whether by clamping down on immigration (legal and otherwise) or tossing out those who're here illegally, there will simply be places that are just overstressed in need vs. supply.
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Apr 28, 10:17:00 AM:
So which one is the Presidency, Academic or Business?
If it is an Academic position, we should be looking for a CEO type who has a detailed point-by-point plan and a declared Vision (workability optional) that meshes well with the Theory Of The Moment (Teaching Theories change ever 4 years, in order to sell textbooks and your Masters Thesis).
If it is a Business position, we should be looking for a CEO type who has experience in an Executive position, gets along well with others, and has good character, judgment, decisiveness, and leadership.(TH)
Substantial arguments can be made that none of the three existing presidential candidates qualify under either specification. i.e. none of them has ever held an Executive position, and many of their theories date back to Socialism.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Apr 28, 11:43:00 AM:
I agree, Georgfelis. That we are certain to elect a sitting Senator is a bug, not a feature.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 28, 09:10:00 PM:
Quibble: Unit command in the military is most certainly an executive position. If you haven't been in, you don't really understand just how much potential control the CO has over his soldiers. Lives and careers are spared or ended by his words, and he is ultimately responsible for all results.
By Ray, at
Wed Apr 30, 08:13:00 PM:
Bravo, TH. I might add, however, that there is a third way to select leadership, frequently used in the civil service: the most senior person not frantically trying to duck the thankless job of sitting in stupid committees and spending hours filling out forms specifying that the Paperwork Reduction Act has been satisfied in the forms they've filled out.
Often, management selection is by lottery: the most luckless bastard gets the job.
By Georg Felis, at
Fri May 09, 11:10:00 AM:
Ok, Quibble Correction: "None of them has held an Executive Position since Man has walked on the moon..."
