It's my birthday!
Also, buttermilk chicken and policy as messaging
Dear Readers,
It’s my birthday, and I am away in New York for the Praxis Summit. The downside is that I’m away from Melissa and our girl. The upside is that Melissa is sending me brilliant pictures of Saoirse throughout the day like this one:
Another upside is hearing Jon Tyson preach on Acts 17 this morning. No living preacher hits me like he does. He’s such a gift. Read Acts 17 today if you have a moment.
On Monday, as paid subscribers know, I cooked Samin Nosrat’s recipe for Buttermilk-marinated Roasted Chicken. Fam…it was ridiculously good. Highly recommend. Also, check out Samin’s new mini-cookbook out today on Persian food. I’m intimidated and intrigued by the recipes, and I’m eager to dig in and try my hand at a few of them.
There’s been another surge of conversation about abortion this week in response to recent laws passed by Alabama, Missouri (in the past 24 hours) and other states. I might have more to say on these most recent developments, but my recent essay for The Atlantic is very close to my thoughts on the present situation.
Here’s the primary thought I have to share with you though in this post:
In my talks for the last few years, I have almost always included these few lines:
Political campaigns understand and feed into this emotional pull of politics. Increasingly, political messages are not about policies; instead, the policies proposed on the campaign trail are about sending a message and propping up a desired narrative. Our politics is both driven by and guiding our emotions.
I thought about this recently when considering Senator Michael Bennet’s entrance into the presidential race. Unlike some recent entrants (Looking at you De *Blah*sio!), I am actually thrilled Bennet has entered the race. He has a really intriguing combination of both a pragmatic temperament and really bold policy ideas. His anti-poverty bill is something I’ve talked about and featured in multiple platforms. I think he’s missed an opportunity so far to really invite the faith community and faith leaders to take ownership over his plan, which could cut child poverty by 40%.
But he’s not the only one with a poverty plan. In fact, Vox did a helpful round-up of five of the candidates’ anti-poverty plans, and I would definitely recommend reading it.
Here’s the interesting thing: many of the candidates have endorsed each other’s plans…in addition to their own plan. Now, in some cases, that’s OK, right? Poverty is complicated, and requires a multi-pronged approach. But guess what? Some of the candidates/potential candidates have even endorsed each other’s bills in the same general policy area, such as Kamala Harris’ LIFT Act and Sherrod Brown’s GAIN Act. This is not necessarily disingenuous, but if we are to ensure policy is not just a messaging tool, then we need to have robust opportunities for candidates to debate the details of their policies. So, for instance, Harris’ LIFT act, according to one analysis, has a significant marriage penalty. Well, in a primary, it’s not sufficient to just categorize Democrats’ as all having poverty plans. We need to have a debate about which candidate’s plan is better. We need to have a debate about whether a marriage penalty is desirable or not. The stated intent of reducing poverty is great, but it is through a debate on the means that we can really determine whether we have shared ends in mind, and be able to describe those ends accurately.
Relatedly, candidates should not be judged simply by how big and bold their ideas are, but their feasibility. Is the candidate who proposes legislation on an issue that is bold and extravagant but will never get enacted, really stronger on that issue than a candidate who has a less-aggressive proposal, but a realistic plan to get it enacted.
Finally, it is easy to put forward plans catered to various interests that essentially amount to that interest group’s wish-list, but that’s not policy making; it’s Simon Says. Instead, look for candidates whose policy solutions contain some bitter medicine, and reflect a consideration of various, even opposing, interests.
I hope we’ll see a real policy debate in the 2020 Democratic primary. The party is ripe for one. But that will require viewing policy proposals as more than just messaging vehicles, and for voters to hold the candidates accountable to a higher standard.
Until next time,
Michael