Comments on Wishin', and Hopin'... and Behavioral Economics

Who earlier said we need a new FDR? Well guess what; WE GOT HIM!!! Go Obama!! Finally a candidate who is not afraid to use big words to express big ideas!!!

well, if nothing else, hope sure is inspiring.

So in other words, you're voting for Obama.

KTHX, movie review girl

I really, er, hope he breaks ahead of this three way tie.

If Obama wins in a state that's 2.5% black, can we just call the race over?

I'm confused. This discussion of the presidential candidates involves basic principles of policy, and not physical features, clothing, genitalia, or campaign strategy. Who are you, and what have you done with the Stranger staff?

Seriously, interesting read, although it seems to me that the notion that people don't always respond rationally to incentives, and can't always make choices with near-perfect knowledge, would be fundamental to liberal principles. For me, it's the basic reason to not be a conservative.

I like Barry O. A lot.

The thing is, it won't make a bit of difference.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards; all want more war, more Patriot Act, more domestic surveilance; i.e., more of the same.
Shit your pants while you try to whip up a frenzy for your candidate of choice, it makes NO DIFFERENCE.

People are not rational or smart by nature. Period.

Academics have this romantic fucking notion that people are all just really smart on the inside and can be taught, or rationalized with, etc.

This is a FUCKING JOKE. The only reason you "hope" or "think" that is because you have not spent enough time outside of city centers, with rural america, with racists, with low educated people, etc.

People are (generally) selfish, dumb, and are normally too lazy to really research into things.

Therefore, appealing fiscally to them with the easiest thing ("no fucktard, you can't opt out of healthcare just cause you are 18 and healthy...") will by far work better.

I honestly don't understand the appeal of Obama other than he is really pretty and a a great speaker. 2 important things, but don't get all fucking stoked about "hope" and "behavioral economics" with your average person.

/end rant.

its so boring already.

11.5 months to go?

to think that any of these people are going to be better than the other is ridiculous. they will all be liars, cheaters, thieves and manipulators before their term is up. every single person cheering for one candidate over the other will hate their candidate after a couple years in office.

Democracy is a losing situation.

As a layperson who has read The Myth of the Rational Voter by economist Bryan Caplan, I'm familiar with economists trying to identify when people don't respond "efficiently" to financial incentives. That said, I don't recall the term "behavioral economics." And it sounds like, on the face of it, behavioral economics more often complements, rather than contradicts, traditional economics.

This said, there isn't all that much difference between Obama's and Clinton's and Edwards's health-care plans. I'm one to harp on issues, issues, issues, and yet, I hate to say it, I've become a passionate Obama supporter not so much because of bullet points of programs but because of philosophy, intellect, character, judgment.

The quotes Annie excerpts just go to show what should be painfully, plainly obvious. Hillary Clinton is a person of mediocre, pedestrian intellect and character. And Barack Obama?

When I listen to and read Barack Obama, I feel like I'm witnessing an Al Gore with charisma. But more important, for years now I've thought, "America is beyond the era of great leaders. There's no way another Abraham Lincoln could get elected president today." And yet, the more I hear and read Obama, the more I'm hearkened back to a time in American history when we did produce great political leaders.

Forgive me for neglecting John Edwards and the rest of the field, but I see the choice between Obama and Clinton a bit like a choice between Abraham Lincoln and Chris Gregoire. OK, in case that sounds a bit sexist, how about a choice between Lincoln and James Buchanan? For the Democratic Party to have another Abraham Lincoln in its midst an still choose a comfortable, well-branded mediocrity—I feel then there isn't much hope for the Democratic Party, or America for that matter.

@11, (Representative) democracy might be a losing situation, but the alternatives are no democracy at all, or direct democracy whereby each person takes the time, energy, and responsibility of governing the affairs in their own community.

So unless you're willing to start a revolution that will end with lots of meetings for you to attend, be glad that you have the option and muster some enthusiasm for the candidate who is marginally more representative of your interests than the others.

The NYT article goes on to say the Clintonian policy approach works -- like the earned income tax credit.

Having a prior track record is like FDR, too.

I looked up Wikipedia on behavioral economics and this seems to be the part of that field that says "people don't save even when it is rational."

Doesn't that suggest mandates are the better way to go? People won't buy the insurance even though rationally they need it and can afford it, the same way they don't save for retirement.

So the view that Obama has an underlying set of principles (behavioral economics) in his policy prescriptions seems unsupported.

Agree that Obama is off the charts on inspiration and hope. That's great.

But not all.

sceptic @8:

The thing is, it won't make a bit of difference.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards; all want more war, more Patriot Act, more domestic surveilance; i.e., more of the same.
Shit your pants while you try to whip up a frenzy for your candidate of choice, it makes NO DIFFERENCE.

hot tipper @11:

to think that any of these people are going to be better than the other is ridiculous. they will all be liars, cheaters, thieves and manipulators before their term is up. every single person cheering for one candidate over the other will hate their candidate after a couple years in office.

Are you folks just trolling or do you really believe this intellectually lazy crap? I would think the choice between Bush and Gore in 2000 would have put the permanent lie to the "They're all bums" line of thinking.

Then again, I guess you two could be the poster children for the behavioral economists.

@12:
Lincoln analogy:

Lincoln ran on a platform of NOT changing things. The abolitionists wanted big change, he rejected them (the US constitution, he said, pretty much said slavery was okay and he promised not to change it regarding slavery). He also rejected the secessionists who wanted big change.

He was the "middle" course.

He did not run on a platform of "slavery is immoral, let's change everything."

Obama is inspiring and yes, we should never undervalue hope -- he's right about that.

Analogies to FDR, Lincoln, Sartre, God, the Mighty Quinn, etc. seem really fun, but perhaps premature.

unPC @14:

The NYT article goes on to say the Clintonian policy approach works -- like the earned income tax credit.

If we're just talking about the mechanics of how the plans would work and not the politics of getting the plans enacted, I would agree that it's better to have mandates than not have mandates. But in politics, the straightest path isn't necessarily the most effective.

We may find that we're able to achieve universal health care with mandates if we first establish it without mandates than if we try to lock in mandates from the get-go. Remember, in the 1860 presidential election, Lincoln did not campaign as an abolitionist; he was more an accommodationist (if that's a word). And yet, Lincoln is the president who abolished slavery.

As for the policy argument against mandates, here's an interview with Obama's health-care adviser.

Wow, unPC @16. Within two minutes, we both managed to pull out of thin air the fact that Lincoln did not campaign as an abolitionist. I guess that's evidence that "great" minds think alike; just they're not necessarily making the same point when they do.

@15 - That's not "intellectually lazy crap". That is reality. What is intellectually lazy is getting all fired up by what candidates say during the run-up to an election and thinking that the rhetoric would actually mean something once the candidate is elected.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would sell their own grandmothers if they thought it would help them get elected.

Bareback Osama is a giant QUEEFING DOUCHE BAG!

Anyone who runs soley on the color of their skin (endorsed by people like Oprah because of the color of his skin) is sending the wrong message.

He will never win the presidency Nig-Nog lovers! A vote for him = Four more years of Republicans!

@17:

Thanks for the link. Useful when people provide more info.

But in reading it, I could not see why not having mandates is better. Certainly it could not be explained quickly; that's death in a political campaign.

If Obama is wrong on this, as Edwards and Hillary say, that is a big problem and will hurt him in a general election.

So the theory he can more easily get elected by -- by being for less change, by not telling us the real costs and the real program needed -- does not work.

This mandate thing shows his negatives: weaker on policy, less experience, etc.

As for great minds thinking alike -- let's meet halfway, and say you are half right.

:)

Sweet Jesus, if only this were the general election...

@21: Well, the argument seems to be that insurance premiums are a regressive form of back-door taxation, and if they're forced on people who can't afford them, that's fundamentally unfair. (I prefer a single-payer system funded by a graduated income tax to any of the top Dems' plans, but that's probably not politically viable at this point.) If you have a mandate, you're telling the least privileged people in this country--WalMart workers and people who hold multiple part-time jobs--that they must take money out of their pockets and give it to an insurer because the government says to do so. Sounds like a recipe for alienating people from the Democratic party to me. The attack ad practically writes itself. I fail to see how Obama's plan would be a liability in the general election. You think an R is going to complain, "Your plan doesn't cover 100% of the American people"? Not when their plans are "nothing," "nothing," "let the states handle it," and "blah blah market-based blah." They have no alternative to stand on.

does anyone know what hukeebees stance on healthcare is? i hear he's pretty progressive on some social issues

....for a republican

@24: Here's Huckabee's issue page for health care. He doesn't like universal health care, believes employers shouldn't necessarily provide health care, would encourage the states to develop their own "market-based solutions," and wants to reduce "medical liability" (so you can't sue if a surgeon sews a sponge into your side, or something). He isn't progressive in the least.

Here's what Obama said:

"blah blah blah hope blah blah blah colonists blah blah blah Lincoln blah blah blah civil rights"

I just don't get why everyone is so crazy about this guy. I really wanted to be impressed by him, but his performance in the debates seemed poor and he just hasn't turned me around.

He seems nice- I'll be o.k. with it if he wins the nomination- but it seems like you all are seeing and hearing something that I'm just not.

Because he's not a traitorous sellout like all the Repugs are, @26.

That's why.

@23:

Do not believe "mandates" means forcing people to pay who can't pay, I think Edwards and HRC are proposing other things to deal with that. Subsidies? Graduated premiums? Not sure.

(I am fairly sure they do not propose a law that says "hey poor people living on $15-20K, you have to pay $5K a year in premiums or else it's jail for you." Believe the social justice concern is a bit of a big, red, herring-like, straw man, IOW.)

Obama seems to be saying you can stay out of the new health system, even if you can afford to pay.

If so, this allows gaming the system: you only start paying when you need the care, after years of not paying in.
This undermines the finances of the plan.

The R's are very happy to make hit ads based on "real" or "fake" (to them) flaws -- they are opportunists.

BTW if anyone knows this stuff better, as is likely, please chime in.

The main point is: hope is not plan. Obama's gotta get health care reform right. He has to get his hands dirty in the wonky details.

No matter how smooth, and violinists'-like, they may be.

Yep, it's all in the wonky details. And neither Edwards nor Clinton have provided them. How much, exactly, will people earning 15-20K have to pay? Will there be straight-up exemptions, as in MA, for people who can't afford it? None of this is clear at this point, and it's not likely to become clearer in the course of the general election. Fear is a powerful campaign tool, and the Rs will exploit it like crazy. (I honestly don't know if a mandatory plan could even make it through Congress once a D prez is elected.) Make the plan optional but attractive, and all of this anxiety goes away. You're left with only the nebulous idea that prices will be higher because healthy people won't opt in--and you think that doesn't happen now?! Obama's plan is a step in the right direction, and it's not as politically touchy as Edwards's or Clinton's.

Exactly. Hope is not a plan. As much as I laud and respect and gain inspiration from the individuals who, through hope and determination, stared down racism to sit at the counters, etc., it is not the same thing or qualities that make an effective president. Leading the country, being commander in chief of the armed forces, being the chief executive of the nation requires a different set of qualifications than having the balls to do civil disobedience. See, that's what I think doesn't sell Obama to me. I think hope is very important, sure, but I think all our candidates are full of it. You have to have a ton of hope to stand up and put yourself on the block for the presidency. This is not something that sets him apart.

So I will be caucusing for Hillary, because I believe in hope, but I also believe in the weight of the moment, the importance of calculated plans. I believe that, more than hope and a great motivational speech, which I value, by the way, we need direction, action and change...all things that require solid plans and a sense of realism. Two things Obama hasn't convinced me he has.

kim @30:

Exactly. Hope is not a plan. As much as I laud and respect and gain inspiration from the individuals who, through hope and determination, stared down racism to sit at the counters, etc., it is not the same thing or qualities that make an effective president. Leading the country, being commander in chief of the armed forces, being the chief executive of the nation requires a different set of qualifications than having the balls to do civil disobedience. See, that's what I think doesn't sell Obama to me.

Kim, your criticisms seem to be directed at some caricature of a stereotypical, old-fashioned black politician. It's a bit like blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11 because, well, all those Arabs are alike. Well, sorry, Barack Obama is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, or even Martin Luther King or Malcolm X for that matter. The Clinton campaign would not be quivering at the prospect of a large turnout of independents and Republicans to caucus as Democrats if Obama were not a candidate who transcended race.

But Kim, if you can point to some item in Obama's biography where he did stare down racism at a lunch counter, I'd be happy to hear it.

Oh, and you know as well as I do that Obama has no shortage of serious plans and advisers. Sure, hope is not a plan. But a plan without hope and inspiration isn't going anywhere either.

cressona, I believe Kim was speaking to the quote Annie provided about leadership where Obama talked about Selma and Montgomery.

@30: True, hope is not a plan. But hope is not the opposite of a plan, and Obama has plenty of plans. Such as the health-care-without-a-mandate and automatic-retirement-savings-with-an-opt-out-option plans mentioned in the other piece I linked to.

If you're looking for realism, I suggest you read this piece about his time in the state senate. Obama is plenty pragmatic and canny. The rhetoric is useful, but he's more than his pretty speeches.

Overall, I'm fine with Clinton supporters. My major hesitation with her comes from a more abstract historical objection--I don't want the first female president to be a former first lady--and her positions are mostly OK with me. Edwards, on the other hand, irritates me to no end.

Yep that would be it. He actually said something about the activists at the lunch counter, that it was hope that got change done.I should've been more clear in that I believe the kind of hope and chane that comes from direct action to which hewas referring is not the same thing as the kind of change a president affects.

I personally am not stoked about his plans, and don't think he's done a stellar job communicating them. I do like his speeches a lot, though.if Hillary weren't in the race, he'd probably look good to me.