Saturday, August 07, 2004
Selling the SizzleBy DAVID BROOKS
We've got 43 million people without health insurance. We're relying on energy sources that are politically dangerous and economically unsustainable. Wage growth is not what it should be, and yesterday's jobs numbers suggest that strong economic growth may not be producing strong job growth. Would it be illegal in these circumstances for at least one presidential candidate to propose policies remotely in proportion to the problems that confront us?
Apparently so. John Kerry and the Democrats spent their convention talking about broad values like unity and military service and almost no time talking about specific proposals. And if you peek in at a Bush campaign event, it's like a traveling road show of proper emotions. Bush will remind the crowd of the feelings we all experienced on Sept. 11. Then there will be several paragraphs on the importance of loving thy neighbor, and several minutes spent reciting the accomplishments of Term 1.
No offense, but where's the beef?
Kerry at least has a reputation for caution. It's not surprising that his policies are orthodox Democratic ideas. Bush's hallmark is boldness, but when it comes to laying out an agenda for the second term, he has been remarkably timid.
He's dropped hints over the past eight months that he is about to unveil a second-term agenda (for those of us waiting, this has been the longest striptease act in human history). But even the ideas that are bandied about are mostly small.
Yes, community colleges should get a little more help. Yes, flextime is a good idea. Yes, high schools should be held accountable. But this is not exactly the New Deal or the New Frontier. It's more like the New Minor Modifications of Existing Programs.
Maybe there is a bold tax reform plan in the offing, but so far I'm able to control my excitement.
I suspect there are several reasons the administration has not yet communicated an exciting second-term agenda. First, many people in the administration are so consumed by the war that domestic policy no longer gets their juices flowing. Second, with the high deficits, there's no money for ambitious programs, and fiscal conservatives don't want to hear about huge new programs anyway.
Third, in an age of polarized parity, a new policy direction is risky. You might alienate a necessary part of your coalition. Finally, the consultants like campaigns that stress "themes" and "visions" because they test so well in focus groups.
But this year that's politically crazy. This year the people who can be won over by visions and values have already decided. Most of the people who are undecided don't care about politics. They don't care about politicians. They're asking, What are you going to do to solve my problems? What are you going to do for me?
The sad thing is that while the candidates have been talking about broad values and modest policies, there are exciting new ideas floating around. For example, people in the health care industry are talking about an essay Michael Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg wrote in the June Harvard Business Review.
Porter and Teisberg argue that the current health care system encourages competition at the wrong level - among health plans, networks and hospital groups - which just leads to zero-sum cost shifting. It should occur at the level of individual treatment, which would encourage not shifting costs, but improving value.
The argument takes awhile to unfold, but here are two people taking a fresh look at a seemingly intractable problem. Similarly, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, recently gave a speech at the National Press Club outlining an ambitious health care reform plan.
Frist set out a clear goal, that "all Americans should have the security of lifelong affordable access to health care." He embraced some guiding principles, that the system should be consumer-driven, etc. Then he laid out six policy proposals, including "Healthy Mae" organizations (which would be like Fannie Mae to share insurance risks) and setting up tax-free health I.R.A.'s for old-age costs.
Frist, Porter and Teisberg remind us that it's possible to envision bold departures from the status quo, a spirit missing so far on the campaign trail.
People used to complain that selling a president was like selling a bar of soap. But when you buy soap, at least you get the soap. In this campaign you just get two guys telling you that they really value cleanliness.
We've got 43 million people without health insurance. We're relying on energy sources that are politically dangerous and economically unsustainable. Wage growth is not what it should be, and yesterday's jobs numbers suggest that strong economic growth may not be producing strong job growth. Would it be illegal in these circumstances for at least one presidential candidate to propose policies remotely in proportion to the problems that confront us?
Apparently so. John Kerry and the Democrats spent their convention talking about broad values like unity and military service and almost no time talking about specific proposals. And if you peek in at a Bush campaign event, it's like a traveling road show of proper emotions. Bush will remind the crowd of the feelings we all experienced on Sept. 11. Then there will be several paragraphs on the importance of loving thy neighbor, and several minutes spent reciting the accomplishments of Term 1.
No offense, but where's the beef?
Kerry at least has a reputation for caution. It's not surprising that his policies are orthodox Democratic ideas. Bush's hallmark is boldness, but when it comes to laying out an agenda for the second term, he has been remarkably timid.
He's dropped hints over the past eight months that he is about to unveil a second-term agenda (for those of us waiting, this has been the longest striptease act in human history). But even the ideas that are bandied about are mostly small.
Yes, community colleges should get a little more help. Yes, flextime is a good idea. Yes, high schools should be held accountable. But this is not exactly the New Deal or the New Frontier. It's more like the New Minor Modifications of Existing Programs.
Maybe there is a bold tax reform plan in the offing, but so far I'm able to control my excitement.
I suspect there are several reasons the administration has not yet communicated an exciting second-term agenda. First, many people in the administration are so consumed by the war that domestic policy no longer gets their juices flowing. Second, with the high deficits, there's no money for ambitious programs, and fiscal conservatives don't want to hear about huge new programs anyway.
Third, in an age of polarized parity, a new policy direction is risky. You might alienate a necessary part of your coalition. Finally, the consultants like campaigns that stress "themes" and "visions" because they test so well in focus groups.
But this year that's politically crazy. This year the people who can be won over by visions and values have already decided. Most of the people who are undecided don't care about politics. They don't care about politicians. They're asking, What are you going to do to solve my problems? What are you going to do for me?
The sad thing is that while the candidates have been talking about broad values and modest policies, there are exciting new ideas floating around. For example, people in the health care industry are talking about an essay Michael Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg wrote in the June Harvard Business Review.
Porter and Teisberg argue that the current health care system encourages competition at the wrong level - among health plans, networks and hospital groups - which just leads to zero-sum cost shifting. It should occur at the level of individual treatment, which would encourage not shifting costs, but improving value.
The argument takes awhile to unfold, but here are two people taking a fresh look at a seemingly intractable problem. Similarly, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, recently gave a speech at the National Press Club outlining an ambitious health care reform plan.
Frist set out a clear goal, that "all Americans should have the security of lifelong affordable access to health care." He embraced some guiding principles, that the system should be consumer-driven, etc. Then he laid out six policy proposals, including "Healthy Mae" organizations (which would be like Fannie Mae to share insurance risks) and setting up tax-free health I.R.A.'s for old-age costs.
Frist, Porter and Teisberg remind us that it's possible to envision bold departures from the status quo, a spirit missing so far on the campaign trail.
People used to complain that selling a president was like selling a bar of soap. But when you buy soap, at least you get the soap. In this campaign you just get two guys telling you that they really value cleanliness.
Seen from Iraq. Our Arab soul mates call it the way it is, showing how misguided those who say tere is no local leadership in Iraq really are. From Mohammed at Iraq the Model:
Is it not the time yet?!The Iraqi minister of internal affair said that there will be no negotiations with Muqtada Al-Sadr and I salute the Iraqi government for taking this decision.We?ve expected this from the very beginning and we stressed more than once that people like Muqtada are not fit for a peaceful political process and they will refuse all calls for talks because they closed the road to any talk a thousand years ago.It?s time to take serious actions against the militant groups and it?s time to end any truce with them.The ING, supported by the multinational forces must do their job because Iraq?s safety has become an international responsibility after many regional and non-regional powers have interfered to spread chaos in Iraq and to intercept the democratic process.These militant groups have betrayed Iraq by their collaboration with other countries to destabilize the situation in Iraq while the true sons of Iraq are working to build their country. We need discipline and order now more than ever and I believe that who commits a simple traffic violation on purpose is really harming Iraq at this stage, let alone those who carry arms to fight us. Those should not be left free to do more damage.It?s obvious that the new Iraqi government is not sure that it?s strong enough now to face a military revolt carried by Sadr followers while the coalition seemed always worried of how arresting Muqtada or crushing his persistent tries to disturb peace would affect the religious feelings of the common Iraqi She?at. I just want to say that common She?at in Iraq maybe simple but they are not stupid and they know what a fake this guy is and they know what?s good for them and what?s bad. As for the Iraqi government, they should know that dealing with this gang (as that?s what these people are, just a gang) in a soft and hesitated way can only strengthen their (the gangs) position and give them legitimacy. Sooner or later Sadr must be dealt with for good, as it?s obvious to any sane man that this guy and his followers do not belong or believe in democracy and will always cause a threat to Iraq?s future.We?ve warned before of the consequences of negotiating with those thugs because they have no place in tomorrow?s Iraq.We should put these thugs in their right place; traitors and mercinaries who took the opposite side to the majority of Iraqis, helping Iraq's enemies in spreading chaos while we all try to put our country on the right path to peace and democracy. All this for the sake of their personal interests only.Those mercenaries are not going to understand the new world and therefore they won?t be able to adapt to live in it. More over, they?re rejected by the vast majority of Iraqis who really got tired of all that crap that leads only to the worst outcome.The thugs have associated their interests with the crouching evil in some countries but they missed the fact that they?re standing on the losers? side.We have to confront them right now to expose the evil intentions of those betrayers who?re trying to sell Iraq to the enemies of freedom and humanity. I hope we?re not going to see another round of confrontation followed by ?diplomatic efforts? that gives those thugs a time to breath and show them as a legitimate political party.By Mohammed.
Is it not the time yet?!The Iraqi minister of internal affair said that there will be no negotiations with Muqtada Al-Sadr and I salute the Iraqi government for taking this decision.We?ve expected this from the very beginning and we stressed more than once that people like Muqtada are not fit for a peaceful political process and they will refuse all calls for talks because they closed the road to any talk a thousand years ago.It?s time to take serious actions against the militant groups and it?s time to end any truce with them.The ING, supported by the multinational forces must do their job because Iraq?s safety has become an international responsibility after many regional and non-regional powers have interfered to spread chaos in Iraq and to intercept the democratic process.These militant groups have betrayed Iraq by their collaboration with other countries to destabilize the situation in Iraq while the true sons of Iraq are working to build their country. We need discipline and order now more than ever and I believe that who commits a simple traffic violation on purpose is really harming Iraq at this stage, let alone those who carry arms to fight us. Those should not be left free to do more damage.It?s obvious that the new Iraqi government is not sure that it?s strong enough now to face a military revolt carried by Sadr followers while the coalition seemed always worried of how arresting Muqtada or crushing his persistent tries to disturb peace would affect the religious feelings of the common Iraqi She?at. I just want to say that common She?at in Iraq maybe simple but they are not stupid and they know what a fake this guy is and they know what?s good for them and what?s bad. As for the Iraqi government, they should know that dealing with this gang (as that?s what these people are, just a gang) in a soft and hesitated way can only strengthen their (the gangs) position and give them legitimacy. Sooner or later Sadr must be dealt with for good, as it?s obvious to any sane man that this guy and his followers do not belong or believe in democracy and will always cause a threat to Iraq?s future.We?ve warned before of the consequences of negotiating with those thugs because they have no place in tomorrow?s Iraq.We should put these thugs in their right place; traitors and mercinaries who took the opposite side to the majority of Iraqis, helping Iraq's enemies in spreading chaos while we all try to put our country on the right path to peace and democracy. All this for the sake of their personal interests only.Those mercenaries are not going to understand the new world and therefore they won?t be able to adapt to live in it. More over, they?re rejected by the vast majority of Iraqis who really got tired of all that crap that leads only to the worst outcome.The thugs have associated their interests with the crouching evil in some countries but they missed the fact that they?re standing on the losers? side.We have to confront them right now to expose the evil intentions of those betrayers who?re trying to sell Iraq to the enemies of freedom and humanity. I hope we?re not going to see another round of confrontation followed by ?diplomatic efforts? that gives those thugs a time to breath and show them as a legitimate political party.By Mohammed.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Firehouse Rot
John Kerry's cheapest shot.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Friday, July 30, 2004, at 10:15 AM PT
Allowance made for choreography, stagecraft, and all the rest of it, there need be no doubt that the Democrats in Boston sincerely wish to "project" the idea of compassion for the underdog, inclusiveness in general, and perhaps above all a degree of care and measure in foreign policy. The AIDS victim in South Africa, or the Bangladeshi woman hoping for a new well: These are sufferers and strugglers who would get genuine applause whether it was Barack Obama mentioning them or not. Of course we understand that our future is bound up with theirs.
But in the last few weeks I have been registering one of the sourest and nastiest and cheapest notes to have been struck for some time. In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, often made up of campaigners from the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU—one of the country's largest labor unions—the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis. (He obviously doesn't remember the line of his city's most famous columnist, the late Herb Caen, who referred to San Francisco as "Baghdad by the Bay.") These are only two public instances of what's become quite a general whispering campaign. And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America." Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of "making us safer": Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren't spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?
There is something absolutely charmless and self-regarding about this pitch, and I wish I could hear a senior Democrat disowning it. It is no better, in point of its domestic tone and appeal, than the rumor of the welfare mother stopping her Cadillac to get vodka on food stamps. In point of its international implications, it also suggests the most vulgar form of isolationism, not to say insularity.
And there's something more. It reveals a real element of bad faith on the part of many liberals and leftists. Think of the programs that many of them regard as wasteful and extravagant: the missile-defense system, for example (less than useless in the battle against terrorism) or the so-called "war on drugs" (ditto). But the mention of either of these would involve an argument over principle, and the risk of controversy. So, why not just say that the Republicans are squandering "our" money on a bunch of foreigners?
The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery? Would we not prosper ourselves—if the question has to be stated in this way—if the Iraqi economy recuperated to the point where it could become a serious trading partner?
This common-sense or self-interested objection doesn't exhaust the argument. A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.
This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right? Whatever you think about the twists and turns of U.S. policy toward Baghdad in the last three decades, there can be no doubt of any kind that we have collectively incurred a huge responsibility there, much of it political but a good deal of it purely humanitarian. To demand that American funds be cut off or diverted, just as the country is fighting to rebuild and struggling toward a form of elections, is unconscionable from any standpoint.
The worst thing about John Kerry's parochial line on the firehouses was the applause it got, with cameras even focusing on firefighter union jackets adorned with Kerry-Edwards buttons. The great thing about firefighters is usually their solidarity: They will send impressive delegations to the funerals of their fellows not just in other cities but in other countries, too. Solidarity and internationalism, indeed, used to be the cement of the democratic Left. So, do we understand the nominee correctly? Is he telling us that Iraqi firefighters are parasites sucking on the American tit, and that they don't deserve the supportive brotherhood that used to be the proudest signature of the labor movement? And why is Kerry so keen on attracting our "allies" to share the burden in Iraq—or to "reduce the cost to American taxpayers," as he inelegantly put it—if not to help put out the fire that might otherwise consume more than a point in the budget?Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2104549/
if (window.print) { window.print() } else alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');
John Kerry's cheapest shot.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Friday, July 30, 2004, at 10:15 AM PT
Allowance made for choreography, stagecraft, and all the rest of it, there need be no doubt that the Democrats in Boston sincerely wish to "project" the idea of compassion for the underdog, inclusiveness in general, and perhaps above all a degree of care and measure in foreign policy. The AIDS victim in South Africa, or the Bangladeshi woman hoping for a new well: These are sufferers and strugglers who would get genuine applause whether it was Barack Obama mentioning them or not. Of course we understand that our future is bound up with theirs.
But in the last few weeks I have been registering one of the sourest and nastiest and cheapest notes to have been struck for some time. In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, often made up of campaigners from the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU—one of the country's largest labor unions—the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis. (He obviously doesn't remember the line of his city's most famous columnist, the late Herb Caen, who referred to San Francisco as "Baghdad by the Bay.") These are only two public instances of what's become quite a general whispering campaign. And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between "opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America." Talk about a false alternative. To borrow the current sappy language of "making us safer": Who would feel more secure if they knew that we weren't spending any tax dollars on Iraqi firehouses?
There is something absolutely charmless and self-regarding about this pitch, and I wish I could hear a senior Democrat disowning it. It is no better, in point of its domestic tone and appeal, than the rumor of the welfare mother stopping her Cadillac to get vodka on food stamps. In point of its international implications, it also suggests the most vulgar form of isolationism, not to say insularity.
And there's something more. It reveals a real element of bad faith on the part of many liberals and leftists. Think of the programs that many of them regard as wasteful and extravagant: the missile-defense system, for example (less than useless in the battle against terrorism) or the so-called "war on drugs" (ditto). But the mention of either of these would involve an argument over principle, and the risk of controversy. So, why not just say that the Republicans are squandering "our" money on a bunch of foreigners?
The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers. Could anything be more short-sighted than that? Have we not learned that failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery? Would we not prosper ourselves—if the question has to be stated in this way—if the Iraqi economy recuperated to the point where it could become a serious trading partner?
This common-sense or self-interested objection doesn't exhaust the argument. A few years ago, many of the same liberals and leftists were quoting improbable if not impossible numbers of dead Iraqi children, murdered by the international sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. Even at its most propagandistic, this contained an important moral point: Iraqi civilians were suffering for the sins of their dictatorship (and from the lavish corruption of the U.N. supervision of the "oil-for-food" program). OK, then, we'll remove the regime and lift the sanctions. Happy now? Not at all! It turns out that 1) the Saddam regime was only a threat invented by neo-cons and that 2) we don't owe the Iraqi people a thing. Also, we could use the money ourselves.
This would mean that all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show. Surely that can't be right? Whatever you think about the twists and turns of U.S. policy toward Baghdad in the last three decades, there can be no doubt of any kind that we have collectively incurred a huge responsibility there, much of it political but a good deal of it purely humanitarian. To demand that American funds be cut off or diverted, just as the country is fighting to rebuild and struggling toward a form of elections, is unconscionable from any standpoint.
The worst thing about John Kerry's parochial line on the firehouses was the applause it got, with cameras even focusing on firefighter union jackets adorned with Kerry-Edwards buttons. The great thing about firefighters is usually their solidarity: They will send impressive delegations to the funerals of their fellows not just in other cities but in other countries, too. Solidarity and internationalism, indeed, used to be the cement of the democratic Left. So, do we understand the nominee correctly? Is he telling us that Iraqi firefighters are parasites sucking on the American tit, and that they don't deserve the supportive brotherhood that used to be the proudest signature of the labor movement? And why is Kerry so keen on attracting our "allies" to share the burden in Iraq—or to "reduce the cost to American taxpayers," as he inelegantly put it—if not to help put out the fire that might otherwise consume more than a point in the budget?Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2104549/
if (window.print) { window.print() } else alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');
