2008 The Gas Tax Primary
posted by on May 6 at 11:35 AM
I hope the exit polls today are asking voters in North Carolina and Indiana what they thought of the debate over Clinton’s proposed gas tax holiday, because I think that was one of the more fascinating—and telling—political fights of the past week.
The Clinton proposal has been derided by journalists, economists, and even an Indiana woman making just $25,000 a year.
And yet the Clinton campaign continues to flog it, using the issue as an opportunity to cast Clinton as a champion of common folk, a fighter who will punch pointy-headed economists (and reality) in the nose if that’s what it takes to save Americans a few pennies at the pump.
David Brooks does of a nice job of filleting Clinton’s populist pretensions today, but more interestingly he gets at the deeper philosophical and dispositional divide between Clinton and Obama that the gas tax posturing has exposed:
Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a [gas] tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Paul Krugman, a Times columnist, has raised doubts about the plan, Clinton lumped Krugman in with the Bush administration and said she wasn’t going to listen to the people responsible for the last seven years.
This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own.
Why? More Brooks…
The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.”
That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of Camp Clinton.
Campaign issues come and go, but this is a thread running through the race. One believes in the raw assertion of power, the other the power of communication.
On the gas tax, then, Clinton’s calculation seems to be that if ridiculous, nonsensical pandering is what it takes to gain power, so be it, the desired end justifies the embarrassing means. And maybe the means aren’t so embarrassing after all—maybe on some level they help convince voters that Clinton is so tough she’ll destroy the truth if she has to.
Two questions remain: Will the pandered-to actually bite? And will Clinton actually end up closer to the power spot she’s pandering toward, or just that much less credible than she was a week ago?
It's hard to believe in communication, when the Republicans believe in power.
"She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence."
Why should she? It never bothered George W. Bush.
It isn't just that she offered to save people a couple bucks for three months. She put out an ad that said she will "lower gas prices for good."
Once again, if the Clinton policy is going to be built around the idea of cheap gas forever, the effects will be profound. Somebody should pay attention to where she is going with this.
Like Bush, or any other Republican.
It's good to see Sen Clinton return to her GOP activist roots and core hatred of economics.
What's next? More Tax Cuts for the Ultra-Rich?
Hah! That woman making $25K is my sister! She's a big Obama supporter. And wonderfully skeptical.
You can't out republican john mccain.
Wait, I thought enviro/car posts were ECB territory... or was she rendered comatose from trying to rationalize away her belief system for the sake of Hillary?
If I believed in God, I'd pray that Clinton drops out of the race today... And that ECB finds a boyfriend and stops trying to convince us that she can form a cogent thought.
agreeing with David Brooks makes me feel icky all over.
I'm just suprised ECB hasn't attacked Obama for driving, and not biking to campaign events. ECB doesn't need a boyfriend, she needs a basic lesson in logic.
Hasn't Krugman been a huge Clinton cheerleader for the past year? I wonder what he's got to say about being called a Bushie.
You quote:
That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of Camp Clinton.
Campaign issues come and go, but this is a thread running through the race. One believes in the raw assertion of power, the other the power of communication.
and then you say:
Are you kidding me? How what Obama's friend saying any less nonsensical pandering?? I have been fairly jaded with Clinton's decisions lately, hell, I have switched to Obama in the last few weeks. But are you fucking kidding me? Did Cassie lift that Obama drivel straight from his website, or did his friend just call him? Come on. How is it reporting if someones friend is writing the piece?
Politics is politics. Clinton's gas tax plan just isn't good, it sucks. It's not some sort of HUGE disparity between how Obama and Clinton are running campaigns. One is pandering to low class people with a bad plan, the other is pandering to high class people without substance. Whatevs.
Damn blockquotes messed up. Grrrr. You get the point though. =)
@14 No, I don't see your point. Go to Obama's web site and you can read well thought out plans. This whole "lack of substance" stuff is the spin that McClain and Clinton have put on him. They simply don't have the credibility to offer up similar plans so they have to pretend his don't exist.
Or you could just go to Moe's tonight for Fuse's election watch party and drink cheap $2 beer and well drinks. Starting at 5 pm.
I'm sure someone will present the economic plans - or lack thereof - of all the campaigns there
@14,
I agree with #15, I don't see your point. Consensus, learning and accommodation are all part of nonsensical pandering?
facts, figures, evidence doesn't mean much to the poor folks in IN that I know.
HC is playing up to the closed minded "working white people" who don't care about the big picture or anyone else or the overall economy or the gov'ment any more.
Believe it or not there are a lot of people out there like that. Sick of this country screwing them over. They want theirs and screw the other guy.
In Indiana $8 an hour is great pay. So a little gas relief to them is huge and will help out on the bills a month or two.
They hear the gas compnaies will pay this tax so that's good enuf' for them
They just want something for them and if the rest of the country suffers - oh well.
That's what HC's got to work so she is.
I think the pandering will work in some ways even when people hear the big impacts it will have on this or that budget.
All those big numbers and budgets don't phase the poor and closed minded who hate the government. To them the Goverment will always find a way but joe blow making 5.50 doing oil changes wants that $30.
This actually hits on the reason I stuck with Clinton so long in the face of my Obama-loving friends (and they are legion). Hillary is a horrid human being in so many ways, but she is crazy smart and will absolutely go to the mat to get shit done. Obama has the smarts, but will he go to the mat? I don't know.
@ 15 and 17:
Yes, having your friend write a piece for you in The National saying that your campaign is "Consensus, learning and accommodation" is bullshit pandering. And nonsensical in the sense that people are just eating it up. It's just buzz words. Bush could claim that his administration has 'consensus' (remember 80% of congress voted yes on Iraq) 'learning' (He sent more troops in after he learned he didnt have enough)and 'accomadation' (cutting capitol gains tax did help the upper middle class, not just the top 1%!)
It's all spin. It's all pander.
I am sure Obama has "plans", but saying that Clinton panders and Obama is some sort of mythological creature that doesn't is getting really annoying.
I would feel this way except for the fact that I'm pretty certain Clinton's policy will not ultimately be built around this; it's bullshit pandering that she easily could and likely will forget when it's no longer useful.
The problem is that I'm not sure exactly what Clinton's policy will be built around, because I don't know what principles she will hang on to even when it becomes politically inconvenient. What's important enough to not cave in on when you're put under pressure? How about, say, a war in the Middle East?
It is what she really believes in that is entirely too murky.
@19 - All i hear is this HRC "going to the mat" and "fighting hard" bull shit. Sure she fights hard (dirty?) to get elected, but she is far from the fearless brawler she is being painted as when it comes to policy, in fact she is downright gutless. She will betray her conscience and judgement at the drop of a hat if it might cost her a single vote. If had an inkling of hope that she would bring even a smidgen of this now famous "fighting spirit" to issues that actually matter for people, i might support her too. Now we have to listen to all this macho Hillary bullshit from every moron stupid enough to join in the chorus. Even Terry McCaulif is telling a story today about her beating McCain in a shot drinking contest. I'm not fucking kidding. In the last couple weeks she has grown balls, knocked out Rocky and now can out drink McCain. Give me a fucking break.
OM @ 20: Sure, Cass Sunstein is Obama's friend, but he is also his fellow professor at the University of Chicago Law School, an author of several books on politics and a longtime contributor to The New Republic, which is an opinion magazine. So it's not really surprising a prominent law professor who knows and has worked with a leading presidential candidate would write an article describing the candidate and his candidacy for the journal to which he regularly contributes. I doubt that Sunstein wrote the article at Obama's request, as you imply, and I don't think it amounts to "bullshit pandering."
@20,
I still don't understand how it's pandering. Spin, maybe. Pandering is telling people what they want to hear/promising things that you probably can't deliver or that are just bad policies. How is Obama's supposed method of getting things done pandering?
In case you cant follow tonights results, here is EXACTLY what will happen, again...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano
The gas tax thing is dumb, but Brooks is still a choad.
@19: give me an example of HRC "going to the mat" - what did she get done?
She got us government cheese.
Oh, wait, no, that was someone else.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).