Last night’s Democratic debate, together with recent campaign appearances and newspaper interviews, demonstrated that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share a largely-similar “diagnosis,” to use Hillary’s phrase, of the problems facing America, but that only Hillary Clinton is prepared to create progress from her first day in the White House.
It has been evident throughout Bernie Sanders’ career that he is good at identifying problems—the U.S. needs universal healthcare, wages are too low, college saddles students with a morally-inexcusable and economically-destructive level of debt—but a president’s job is much larger than putting out value statements on these issues. Both candidates agree on the seriousness of these issues, and each has presented a policy agenda to address them. But how we choose to address these issues matters—vulnerable people need help now, so we need well-designed plans that explain how we move the world from where it is now to where it must be. As the debate demonstrated, Hillary Clinton’s plans are adequate to this challenge. Bernie Sanders’ plans are inexcusably poorly-designed for someone seeking to wield the power of the presidency.
Higher-ed policy is a good starting point for demonstrating this contrast. Hillary Clinton’s plan addresses all aspects of the crisis, as seen in this Vox overview. On affordability, it provides federal grant funding to lower tuition, incentivizes institutions to reduce living costs, and addresses the issues of students (and graduates) who already hold debt by tying repayment to income and providing debt forgiveness over time. Finally, it addresses the underlying structural issue—explosive cost growth—by making new federal funding contingent on changes in schools’ cost structures. In contrast, Bernie Sanders’ plan suffers from a fatal flaw: it is a 2:1 matching funds plan that requires states to buy-in by increasing their own funding. If past experience is any guide, red states will not buy into this plan, and budget-constrained blue states may not either. For me, the issue here isn’t one of moderate/progressive or incremental change/sweeping change. Both plans are ambitious efforts at tackling a worthy, ambitious goal. One, however, is well-designed to deliver needed benefits nationwide. The other is simply not.
Healthcare offers another example of this contrast. The candidates agree on the moral and economic need for universal healthcare coverage, but Sanders speaks as though a single-payer model is the only path to this goal, ignoring the existence of other successful models worldwide. To be sure, single-payer models such as Canada’s are effective and popular. However, such programs were largely designed and implemented before modern private insurance developed. Any attempt to replace this system will have to contend with backlash from the two-thirds of Americans who are satisfied with their healthcare coverage—the fracas over those who “lost” plans in the wake of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage changes will look minor in comparison. Given the number of Americans who are uninsured and under-insured now, the urgency of their situation, and the success of the Affordable Care Act model (and similar universal systems in other countries, like Germany), it simply makes more sense to build on the 90% healthcare coverage we already have than to uproot an entire system and start over. Such a process would involve a years-long legislative effort, a years-long transition period, and white-hot political backlash. Instead, the situations of those who need help urgently would be better- and more quickly-addressed by filling in the remaining gaps in our system, including through public options, larger subsidies, and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Even ignoring the political and time obstacles to Sanders’ proposed path, his plan itself is poorly-designed. The few operational details he has provided claim, among other things, that the plan will feature no co-pays or deductibles whatsoever. To my knowledge, no such system exists, whether in Sweden, Canada, or the U.S. Medicare system.
On minimum wage, Clinton’s nuanced position is similarly better-designed. While high cost-of-living cities are (rightly) phasing in a $15 minimum wage, it is simply factual that cost-of-living differs by area. With no economic evidence on the impact of a $15 national wage, regional differences based on local conditions are sensible. The recently-passed New York minimum wage law, which Clinton has rightly praised, acknowledges this reality by setting a $15 statewide level, but phasing it in at different regional rates. Raising wages is a moral issue, and both Democratic candidates’ proposals have gone far beyond the status quo. It was not so long ago that a national $10.10 minimum wage was the Democratic majority position. But it is also an economic issue, and, given the degree to which a national $15 wage is a step into the unknown, we should acknowledge on-the-ground realities in designing wage policy so that the most vulnerable people and communities are not adversely impacted. As documented by the Brookings Institution, a wage that is based on local conditions is good policy. Like the other issues described here, the goal should be to produce the maximum possible benefit for people who need it while minimizing costs, rather than going for a less-precise stance designed to make a point.
The three issues I’ve written about here highlight what I see as a fundamental difference between the candidates; this difference is also apparent in their policy proposals for issues such as financial regulation. Hillary Clinton has, by and large, developed a set of meticulously-researched and detailed plans on how she would address multiple aspects of important issues. In contrast, Bernie Sanders’ plans generally read more like value statements, with most details and policy mechanisms to be filled in at some later date.
This stuff matters to me. I do not doubt either candidate’s commitment to progressive causes and values. And value statements are important, because I believe that the public policy our leaders develop should reflect our values. But a president’s job is to oversee a multi-trillion dollar economy, as well as numerous federal agencies that must address difficult choices and develop fully-formed, functional policies. Furthermore, the president must negotiate plans with Congress, and this means developing the mechanical details of how policies work in addition to just articulating what the policies are meant to accomplish. Certainly, these details can be filled in at some later date. But it is my belief, particularly in a year when the electorate is demanding straight talk, openness, and transparency, that a superior candidate for the most powerful position in the world should explain exactly how he or she plans to get from where we are now to where we should be. In my view, Hillary Clinton is currently the only candidate clearing this bar.