Red Pill Politics

Much has not been made of Hillary and Obama’s policy differences. Apparently if CNN says “their policies are pretty much the same,” it must be true. Admittedly, I capitulate that Hillary and Obama are much more alike than not and am very thankful that they both stand in stark contrast to any Republican candidate left in the field.But I’m not ready to dismiss the 5% difference. I’m not ready to call it “same, same” in this process of picking the candidate for the most powerful position on Earth. For me, details matter in this race for the White House. Details don’t matter for the sake of details. Details matter because they reveal Hillary and Obama’s underlying approach to governance and what type of leader they will ultimately be in the Oval Office.

The Myth of the Visionary Leader
Obama is sexy. He’s your “visionary” leader armed with a Steve Job-esque presentation style. Two-word keynote slides. No nitty gritty data, no tiny details that belabor the point. All vision, all the time.

But let’s spend a moment debunking the myth of the visionary leader – the kind with all the great ideas that take a backseat once he or she inspires his or her staff. Behind Steve Job’s veneer of stylistic flair is a someone whom many consider “a temperamental micromanager whose insistence on total control” has made Apple… one of the hottest consumer products company in the world.

Obama is no Steve Jobs. He has essentially admitted that much in his interview with the Reno Gazette:

I’m not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that’s not my job. My job is to set a vision of ‘Here’s where the bureaucracy needs to go…

And it shows.

Exploring the 5% difference

Let’s look at some of Obama’s limited work that we can critique – namely his healthcare plan. (And trust me, I won’t limit myself to just healthcare, but I’ll be looking at other significant issues like trade and economics in the upcoming weeks.)

Both Hillary and Obama’s plans are aimed at achieving universal healthcare – an admirable and necessary goal given that 45 million Americans are uninsured. In the richest country in the world, 8.4M children do not have health insurance and a one-third of those children received absolutely no medical care over a one year time frame.

As stated by Paul Krugman, a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton as well as famed NY Times Op-ed columnist in his piece Clinton, Obama, Insurance: Both plans are quite similar, “but the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t. “

What does this 5% difference translate into? Everything.

On face value, it means 50% of those currently uninsured remain uninsured. It means a Hillary-style plan that would cost $2,700 per newly insured vs. a Obama-style plan that would cost $4,400 per newly insured. Hhhhmm…a plan that cost 40% less than the other on a per person basis and covers double the amount of people. Hard one. Krugman also goes on to make the argument that due to the stinker that Obama has gotten himself into by stating that he doesn’t support mandates, if he wins the election, the likelihood we achieve universal healthcare under his administration is improbable.

Seems like the 5% matters.

Okay, I know what people are going to say already. Do these pre-election plans really matter that much? The practical reality is that these plans will be chewed up in Congress. That I understand. But what I don’t understand is why that’s an excuse to introduce a flawed plan in the first place.

Hillary is no Steve Jobs either…but she may be Bill Gates

Hillary doesn’t seem to fit the Steve Jobs mold either. In fact, if I were to compare her to a tech CEO, I think that I would liken her to Bill Gates – former CEO of Microsoft and phenomenal philanthropist (Thank you Bill for your work on education). They share similar styles of leadership – an authoritative tone coupled with an unrelenting and at times ruthless drive to win. (Luckily, she’s on our side.)

An aside: I also want to let people know that I’m not anti-Obama (I like him.), but very much pro-Hillary. I’ve heard friends say, “um, she’s so boring…McCain/Hillary…that’s so blah.” Well, it’s not blah to me. I’m impressed by results, not rhetoric. I’m also impressed by what this one supporter aptly describes as “her command of policy and her fierce political intellect.” I love watching her debate. Her knowledge and depth on issues is inspiring and reminds me who is best ready to lead our country in tackling the ridiculous problems we face.

I’m also going to take a page out of my Org Behavior class. In bad times (read: war, recession, 8 years of crap to fix), more authoritative leaders tend to perform better as the circumstances demand a willingness to set vision (at times without total consensus) when the direction is unclear and tackle issues aggressively. Democratic/people leaders who like to form consensus do better during good times (read: the 90’s – peace and prosperity) as the need to be authoritative isn’t there. Hillary is just the right leader for our times.

Missteps in their careers

Back to Hillary and Gates. They’ve both also had similar missteps in their career. Gates, the self-made billionaire, was so convinced of his ability to control the fate of Microsoft, he paid no heed to the powers that be in Washington. The result was an anti-trust case that brought the mighty Gates to his knees.

Hillary has also had her share of missteps. Her well-intentioned work on universal heathcare during Clinton’s first term ended in nothingness. Well, to be fair to Hillary, it did end in the SCHIP program that extended healthcare to 6.6 million children; she worked with Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch to make it happen. I know the Obama camp has made much of how Hillary’s healthcare team “worked on policy behind closed doors,” but I personally found this account by Paul Starr, senior advisor for Bill Clinton’s healthcare plan, fascinating. He makes less of the closed door aspect and touts overconfidence in the administration’s mandate to reform as well as miscalculations in timing. As for Hillary’s unwillingness to compromise? Well, it’s hard to compromise when the ‘94 Republican controlled congress vowed to “Sight unseen, oppose it [compromise bill on healthcare introduced by Senator Mitchell].”

Both Gates and Hillary, I’m sure, have learned from their mistakes. Do I wish Hillary were more like Steve Jobs in form? Well, there’s a reason why Microsoft owns over 90% of the market. (Wow, feel kinda disloyal given I’m typing on an Macbook right now)

Other Related Content
What happened to Healthcare reform? by Paul Starr, Princeton professor
Krugman’s analysis of Healthcare Plans: Clinton, Obama, Insurance
Update to Krugman’s Healthcare analysis