A policy-driven White House

[babylonsister]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/a_policy_driven_white_house.html

A policy-driven White House
Ezra Klein


One further comment on the various Rahm Emanuel stories floating around town lately: They're notable in that they're about Emanuel's performance, rather than schisms in the White House. The stories are arguing that Barack Obama should be listening more to Rahm Emanuel, but they're not saying that he's instead listening to David Axelrod, or Valerie Jarrett, or Robert Gibbs.

In fact, what appears to be happening is that Barack Obama is listening to his policy people. He didn't scale back the health-care reform bill because they convinced him that the different pieces didn't work on their own. He's trying to close Guantanamo because a lot of people who work on this stuff think we should close Guantanamo. That's the thing about electing a smart technocrat as president: He's swayed by smart, technocratic arguments. The political people are being used to help sell and shepherd the policy, and to figure out how much of the policy can pass Congress, but they seem to be losing the major arguments over what that policy should be.

The obvious counterargument here is the stimulus debate, but as Michael Tomasky has noted, the limits on the size of the stimulus appears to have come from the House of Representatives (and then, later in the process, from the Senate). Maybe Rahm and the White House didn't do enough to break through those limits, but they also thought the recession would be a lot milder than it actually was, and so didn't act with quite the urgency that better information might have furnished.

But either way, I'd say that the White House's agenda has been a lot closer to what its policy experts advised than what its political team counseled. And that's a good thing.

[Inuca]

1. Last paragraph

says a LOT. By the way, I love Ezra Klein!

[Kdillard]

2. k and r.

[Cha]

3. Yeah, some people thrive

on rumors and have to have a boogeyman..thanks Ezra Klein for being some facts into the equation.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Well that explains a lost.

There is noting in Klein's piece that is fact, it is all speculation. He speaks of 'how it appears' and he has no quotes, no inside scoop, just his opinion based on observations. Same as the rest. The fact that his speculations fit with yours does not raise them above the status of speculative opinion. A 'fact' is not 'a thing I agree with' it is a supportable, provable thing. Klein offers up no facts, and if you were to ask him, he would say the same. This is opinion, not reporting. The difference is crucial.
He may be right. But what he is offering is his take on what he is observing, not the facts he has gathered and reporting. The difference is crucial.

[Hawkowl]

4. Bah! BS

The CBO has unequivocally said that single payer is the best, most efficient method of providing health care. A public option has been evaluated to be another highly efficient way of bringing down costs and covering more people.

His energy policy is promoting clean coal and nuclear over solar and wind?!?!

Pushing free trade agreements?!?!


With policy analysts like this, I'd prefer he went with his "political" advisors. At least they managed to get the duplicitous, annelid elected.

[TomCADem]

5. Of course, single payer would not make it through Congress

And do we have the luxury of waiting for some magical time decades from now when single payer will become politically feasible? There is a reason why it has taken so long to reform health care. To think that President Obama had god like powers to get single payer passed is just delusional. Presidents dating back to Teddy Roosevelt have pursued universal health care without success. If anything, the road has gotten harder, not easier.

[tanyev]

6. Karl Rove certainly wouldn't approve.

Heck, did the Bush team even have any policy people?