The idea is based mainly on the premise that Obama has not laid out highly-detailed plans on how to tackle various issues. Overlapping with this is the claim that Barack does not have adequate experience for the job of president.
Now, it's not overly difficult for someone with both a senatorial and campaign staff to whip out the most complex schemes on any issue. But will they be able to deliver on those plans?
Dennis Kucinich has what is probably the best universal healthcare plan of all the candidates. Its based on HR 676, a House bill he co-sponsored with John Conyers. It's basically a universal extension of the current Medicare system.
Kucinich's plan is a single-payer scheme, something that Obama has said that he ultimately supports himself. So why doesn't Obama have a similar plan? The problem with HR 676 is that it only has 78 supporters in Congress, far from the number needed just to get through the House.
HR 676 is one of a number of plans on Kucinich's website that can be considered more as ideological stands than promises that can be practically delivered once in office. Unless a Congress that happens to agree in majority with Kucinich on these issues is elected at the same time, the candidate's plans have to be considered no more than dreams. And the possibility of such a sea change happening is generally considered very unlikely.
So, "substance" has to be considered with reference to credibility.
A candidate is credible both in the practicality of his/her promises, as well as the credibility of the candidate on a specific issue based on previous history.
Many people believe Kucinich is sincere about his promises but simply not practical. There is another type of credibility gap based on the candidate that is not so sincere about their promises.
We all know about this type of candidate. One who makes promises on the campaign trail, but does little to deliver on the promises while in office. Often these candidates will change course in midstream during a campaign based on changes in poll numbers or other indications of what issues are popular among voters.
One of the best ways to judge the latter type of credibility is to look at the candidate track record and previous positions. Have the candidates held consistent views during their political career?
Barack Obama is credible in the first instance because he offers plans that are workable in the present environment. He also makes it clear that he will need the support of the people throughout the entire course to be successful.
His credibility on the issues also comes from his past history in the political arena. For example, take his stand against the Iraq War.
Don't just consider his stance during his campaign for U.S. Senate in 2004, when the Democratic presidential candidates thought it "safe" to be hawkish on Iraq. Even back in 2002, when many considered an anti-war stance as political suicide, Barack protested publicly against the misadventure.
So the question here is more about credibility than substance. A candidate can offer many promises filled with complex detail, but can they credibly be expected to come through on these plans once elected? And how believable are they in offering these schemes in the first place.
We need to be skeptical if they don't have the record showing a consistent stand on the issue, or if they have a history of "flip-flopping" a lot in their agenda.
What one will find after studying the career of Barack Obama is that he is a very credible politician.
No comments:
Post a Comment