Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is not over, but the US presidential election in November seems ever more likely to be between Barack Obama and John McCain. It would be a fascinating struggle and a quite different one from the nomination contests seen up to now. The issue of personality, which dominated the Democratic race from the start, would not disappear – nor should it – but it would subside and leave space for an overdue debate about policy. This shift may test Mr Obama, if he is indeed the nominee, more than he and other Democrats expect.
Mr McCain’s victory speech after the Potomac primaries entirely ignored Mrs Clinton. Without saying his name, Mr McCain attacked Mr Obama. “To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.” That was a Clintonesque line of attack, to be sure. And of course Mr McCain will emphasise his years of experience (he has more to boast of, quantitatively and qualitatively, than Mrs Clinton) and contrast that with Mr Obama’s callow youth. But whereas the Democratic contest was about nothing else – Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton disagree about almost nothing – the general election will turn on large, substantive questions.
Interestingly, Mr Obama and Mr McCain do agree about some big controversial things – more than you might expect, remembering that the first is a liberal Democrat and the second a conservative, albeit quirky, Republican. They agree about global warming, for instance, a huge change on the Republican side. Both are calling for a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions of greenhouse gases. In office, perhaps either would be pragmatic enough to consider instead a carbon tax, which would be more cost-effective, or failing that a cap-and-trade system modified to emulate a carbon tax. They should study the proposal of Warwick McKibbin and Peter Wilcoxen, which I discussed on this page on June 7.
They agree about Guantánamo (both want to close it); they agree about waterboarding (both call it torture and want it banned). They agree about immigration reform. It is a miracle of US politics that John McCain has the Republican nomination all but sewn up, despite the fact that he appalled much of his party last year by co-sponsoring (with Edward Kennedy) a plan to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. To appease popular opinion, Mr McCain is now stressing border security first, with more liberal regimes for legal immigrants and measures to normalise the status of illegal immigrants later. But so is Mr Obama. You cannot tell them apart on the subject.
This convergence is welcome, because on all four of these issues they are right. But their disagreement in other areas is stark. On national security, including Iraq, and on the government’s role in the economy, the distance between them could hardly be greater. On Iraq, both can plausibly claim to have been right all along – Mr Obama for opposing the war in principle, Mr McCain for demanding a much bigger initial commitment of resources. But Mr Obama now wants a speedy withdrawal, whereas Mr McCain has talked of a 100-year commitment if that is what it takes. The opportunities for triangulating a compromise from those starting points look limited.
Can Mr McCain convince US voters that “success” in Iraq is still achievable and that their safety depends on it? On the first, maybe. Arguably, as Mr McCain emphasises, the surge has worked. Mr Obama acknowledges as much (though in last week’s Democratic debate he called it a tactical success imposed on a strategic blunder: a good line). On the second question – will a heavy and indefinite commitment of forces in Iraq make the US safer? – Mr McCain faces a far more sceptical public. Much as Americans admire his patriotism and his grit, persuading them that this sacrifice is worthwhile will be extremely difficult.
On taxes and spending, the two men again have fundamentally opposed world views. Measured by his voting record in the Senate and his economic plan, Mr Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal. He is a pragmatist, not an ideologue – which makes him such a compelling politician – but his plans for health reform and other new outlays nonetheless call for big tax increases (going beyond merely allowing the Bush administration’s cuts to expire). He calls for new forms of industrial policy activism. As the campaign has progressed, he has become markedly anti-trade – attacking Mrs Clinton, for instance, for ever having favoured the North American Free Trade Agreement, while at the same time (and preposterously) calling for the US to support faster economic development south of the border.
Mr McCain is a small-government, fiscal conservative and a hawk on public spending. His proposals on healthcare focus on cost control – which makes sense – but fall far short of Mr Obama’s commitment to extend access and, ultimately, achieve universal coverage. He is unapologetically pro-trade. The priority he repeatedly emphasises is keeping taxes low.
Barring some national security emergency, health reform will be pivotal. It is hugely important in its own right and has enormous long-term fiscal implications. It crystallises the two men’s differences and the choice that confronts the US. Most Americans (not just the uninsured) want comprehensive health reform. But they are also suspicious of tax-and-spend politicians. The country’s instincts are sound on both points – but which is stronger?
Send your comments to clive.crook@gmail.com
More columns at www.ft.com/clivecrook
I have been the FT's Washington columnist since April 2007. I moved from Britain to the US in 2005 to write for the Atlantic Monthly and the National Journal after 20 years working at the Economist, most recently as deputy editor. I write mainly about the intersection of politics and economics.
