When I started working in American politics, George Bush Jr. had just won his second term as president. I immersed myself in a new career, outside academia where I had been dwelling for too long, in the hopes of making a difference in terms of economic policy writ large.
It was a rewarding career. I was indeed able to make a difference. I informed good policy reforms, and I was able to help stop bad reforms. Not nearly as many of either kind as I would have liked to, but given that politics is a business aimed at changing as little as possible, I have to say it was a good many years well spent.
Having said that, I also learned a few things about politics that I did not know before, or at least was not willing to acknowledge. As a policy expert, I thought that I would be in the thick of what politics was all about. Politicians listen to all kinds of people, including those who make major contributions to their campaigns and their parties, but—naively for sure—I expected us policy wonks to have the biggest say in how politicians would run their campaigns, and how they could reason once they were elected.
What I discovered was what many others had already seen before me: being a policy guy in politics means that you are almost a little awkward to people—almost like an afterthought.
This is especially true for political campaigns. Some of them, especially the big presidential campaigns, can often feel like a surgeon’s team getting ready for the first operation of the day. Everyone is in place, the relevant instruments have been checked, the room sanitized, and the door is sealed so they can go to work.
There is just one problem: they forgot to bring in the patient.
We policy guys are that patient. Yes, there are political campaigns that gladly center around policy issues, but way too many of them—and certainly a majority of presidential campaigns—treat policy issues like something you give your kids to entertain them when you and your significant other need some time alone.
Republicans and Democrats are both equally culpable in this regard: they both marginalize the policy aspect of their campaigns in favor of other functions. The smaller political parties, such as the Green Party and the Libertarians, tend to value policy a great deal more. They are often born out of people’s frustration with the cemented political status quo that the two big parties represent. Policy differences are, so to speak, their reason for existing in the first place.
As strange as some smaller parties can be—no one named and no one shamed—their focus on policy and on making a substantive difference (realistic or not) adds a bit of fresh air to American politics. The two big parties no doubt need more competition from smaller movements; looking at the campaign trail for the 2024 election, we policy wonks can only wish that this would happen sooner rather than later. More policy pluralism in the public arena would challenge Republicans and Democrats to engage in a debate over substance.
In short, they would be forced to consider how politics can make the lives of American families better or worse.
So far, the 2024 campaign has shaped up to be the least policy-influenced of all the presidential campaigns in recent memory. The domain of policy, be it taxes and spending, criminal justice, education, or health care, has been little more than barren land.
Republican candidates have spent significant time arguing over who likes or dislikes Donald Trump the most. There is a rare exception in Governor Ron DeSantis: he has done a decent job touting his accomplishments in putting conservatism to work in Florida. In contrast, two former governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Nikki Haley of South Carolina, have done the opposite: they have tried to avoid policy issues as far as possible.
Much like small parties in American politics in general, it has been incumbent upon the less established candidates to put policy issues into the campaign. Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota did so in the first two debates between the Republican presidential candidates.
Their efforts have not left many footprints along the campaign trail, but at least in the case of Ramaswamy, this has a lot to do with his inexperience with politics.
On the Democrat side, there is even less of a debate on policy issues. One reason for this is that the party is trying to project impregnable unity around President Biden’s re-election bid. Unfortunately, this desperate façade does not include their voter base, which is definitely not united. The farthest left flank of the Democratic Party is engaging in protests against the Biden administration, focused primarily on environmental policy and Biden’s (admittedly stuttering) support for Israel. Their disagreement with the Democrat establishment was put on full display by a recent attempted shout-down protest where left-wing radicals went after President Biden’s Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg.
Underneath the make-believe party unity, dissent is brimming. The divisions are not procedural, as when Republicans argue over who likes Trump the most or the least. Democrats appear to have some genuine policy differences, such as the economic disagreements and the criticism over vaccine policy that Robert Kennedy Jr. has directed against Joe Biden. Kennedy, a lifetime Democrat, recently shifted his affiliation from Democrat to Independent, which means that he technically no longer represents the suppressed divisions within the Democrat party.
A more credible exhibit of intra-Democrat policy disagreements comes in the form of a newly announced presidential candidate, Congressman Dean Phillips from Minnesota. According to the National Public Radio, NPR, the campaign that Phillips has launched “reflects growing concern” among Democrats that “the president’s reelection effort is in trouble.” However, a closer look suggests that Phillips is on to something regarding actual policy issues. CNN reports:
He said during his announcement speech that rising costs have left an undue burden on Americans and argued that foreign aid packages supported by the Biden administration for Ukraine and Israel should redirected [sic] to solving domestic issues.
Phillips also had the audacity to credit Trump
for his ability to turn out voters who feel alienated and said he plans to make immigration—a sore spot for the Biden administration—a key focus of his campaign.
Based on his campaign website, it is clear that Dean Phillips has a few policy disagreements with President Biden. However, even if those differences were to boil down to only one issue, namely immigration, his contribution to the campaign trail would still be worthwhile. It would help put politics back where it belongs: where it makes a difference in people’s lives.
Depending on how successful his challenge turns out to be, it may inspire debate on other policy issues as well. The Democrats need such a debate, and so do Republicans. With Trump still in the race, and with him leading the rest of the candidates by substantial margins in the opinion polls, the debate over policy issues—to the extent the candidates are interested in them—has given way to a shouting contest between supporters and critics of the former president.
To the casual consumer of news from the campaign trail, it is easy to get the impression that the race to elect a party candidate for president is really a contest for campaign donations. While there is almost no news about policy, a story about campaign fundraising is easy to find, both about the presidential candidates and about the party organizations themselves. As a case in point, on November 30th, the Washington Examiner reported that the Republican party has continued to haul in big donations after Kevin McCarthy was fired as Speaker of the House:
Right after [Mike] Johnson became speaker, the National Republican Congressional Committee [NRCC], the campaign arm of House Republicans, reported a single-day haul of $175,000 for online fundraising, marking its highest day since February 2022. That cycle record was broken just one day later
The story continues, accounting for transfers of millions of dollars to the NRCC from the campaign funds controlled by individual members of Congress. Speaker Johnson helped a member of Congress in Florida raise $1.4 million in one day, while two other organizations affiliated with the Republican party “raised $16 million” in a ten-day period.
The Democrat side is no less active. Back in October, Politico reported that
President Joe Biden, the Democratic National Committee and their joint fundraising committees brought in more than $71 million combined in this year’s third quarter
For many decades, America’s political elite has been used to a system where the winner of an election is determined by whoever is the most prolific fundraiser. Two politicians have seriously challenged that dogma: left-wing radical Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016; and Donald Trump, who defeated Clinton in the election that year.
In fairness, Trump did not exactly go into the campaign empty-handed; a recent figure placed his wealth at $2.6 billion. However, although he had enough money to finance his own run for president, his 2016 campaign did raise $433 million. As impressive as this number is, it fell way short of Hillary Clinton’s $770 million. Yet, despite having $1.78 to spend for every $1 that Trump had, Clinton still lost the election.
Trump won on substance. He taught us all a lesson about American politics: substance can abridge even significant fundraising gaps. Senator Sanders, who was remarkably successful in his primary challenge to Clinton, de facto made the same point: at the end of the day, it really does not matter how much money you have, if you cannot connect with voters. They, in turn, are not interested in money—they are interested in the personal and political character of the candidate, and his or her policy substance.
It remains to be seen if policy substance can rise above the tidal waves of fundraising in the 2024 campaign. To date, there is not much that points in that direction: the candidates are simply not interested enough, or savvy enough, to put policy issues at the forefront of their campaigns.
In this context, the rise of Nikki Haley to presumably replace DeSantis as the front-runner (not counting Trump) appears to be the result of donor choice rather than voter approval. Her campaign website does not even have a link to her policy platform—if she even has one. This has consequences for her name recognition: ask ten Republican voters to name one policy issue that Nikki Haley has, and you will get ten blank stares in response.
Despite appearing void on policy, Haley just picked up the endorsement of Americans for Prosperity Action, AFP, the major political and policy arm of what has become known as the ‘Koch network.’ For decades, Charles Koch and his late brother David, two of America’s wealthiest industrialists, have been prolific sponsors of non-profit organizations, often with a right-of-center ideological profile.
With AFP behind her, Nikki Haley can count on an inflow of endorsements, first and foremost from Koch associates of all kinds. Beyond that, other big donors who trust the Koch network make their own donation decisions based on theirs. This means more campaign donations for Haley, as well as organized ‘get out the vote’ grassroots efforts which otherwise would have cost the Haley campaign significant amounts of money.
It remains to be seen if Haley can substantially rise above DeSantis, whose campaign in large part has been based on his gubernatorial policy accomplishments. If she pulls it off, it will be more evidence that money trumps policy in American politics. If DeSantis prevails, it will be a confirmation that we policy wonks still have a say in how America is governed.
Money or Policy: Who Wins the White House?
When I started working in American politics, George Bush Jr. had just won his second term as president. I immersed myself in a new career, outside academia where I had been dwelling for too long, in the hopes of making a difference in terms of economic policy writ large.
It was a rewarding career. I was indeed able to make a difference. I informed good policy reforms, and I was able to help stop bad reforms. Not nearly as many of either kind as I would have liked to, but given that politics is a business aimed at changing as little as possible, I have to say it was a good many years well spent.
Having said that, I also learned a few things about politics that I did not know before, or at least was not willing to acknowledge. As a policy expert, I thought that I would be in the thick of what politics was all about. Politicians listen to all kinds of people, including those who make major contributions to their campaigns and their parties, but—naively for sure—I expected us policy wonks to have the biggest say in how politicians would run their campaigns, and how they could reason once they were elected.
What I discovered was what many others had already seen before me: being a policy guy in politics means that you are almost a little awkward to people—almost like an afterthought.
This is especially true for political campaigns. Some of them, especially the big presidential campaigns, can often feel like a surgeon’s team getting ready for the first operation of the day. Everyone is in place, the relevant instruments have been checked, the room sanitized, and the door is sealed so they can go to work.
There is just one problem: they forgot to bring in the patient.
We policy guys are that patient. Yes, there are political campaigns that gladly center around policy issues, but way too many of them—and certainly a majority of presidential campaigns—treat policy issues like something you give your kids to entertain them when you and your significant other need some time alone.
Republicans and Democrats are both equally culpable in this regard: they both marginalize the policy aspect of their campaigns in favor of other functions. The smaller political parties, such as the Green Party and the Libertarians, tend to value policy a great deal more. They are often born out of people’s frustration with the cemented political status quo that the two big parties represent. Policy differences are, so to speak, their reason for existing in the first place.
As strange as some smaller parties can be—no one named and no one shamed—their focus on policy and on making a substantive difference (realistic or not) adds a bit of fresh air to American politics. The two big parties no doubt need more competition from smaller movements; looking at the campaign trail for the 2024 election, we policy wonks can only wish that this would happen sooner rather than later. More policy pluralism in the public arena would challenge Republicans and Democrats to engage in a debate over substance.
In short, they would be forced to consider how politics can make the lives of American families better or worse.
So far, the 2024 campaign has shaped up to be the least policy-influenced of all the presidential campaigns in recent memory. The domain of policy, be it taxes and spending, criminal justice, education, or health care, has been little more than barren land.
Republican candidates have spent significant time arguing over who likes or dislikes Donald Trump the most. There is a rare exception in Governor Ron DeSantis: he has done a decent job touting his accomplishments in putting conservatism to work in Florida. In contrast, two former governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey and Nikki Haley of South Carolina, have done the opposite: they have tried to avoid policy issues as far as possible.
Much like small parties in American politics in general, it has been incumbent upon the less established candidates to put policy issues into the campaign. Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota did so in the first two debates between the Republican presidential candidates.
Their efforts have not left many footprints along the campaign trail, but at least in the case of Ramaswamy, this has a lot to do with his inexperience with politics.
On the Democrat side, there is even less of a debate on policy issues. One reason for this is that the party is trying to project impregnable unity around President Biden’s re-election bid. Unfortunately, this desperate façade does not include their voter base, which is definitely not united. The farthest left flank of the Democratic Party is engaging in protests against the Biden administration, focused primarily on environmental policy and Biden’s (admittedly stuttering) support for Israel. Their disagreement with the Democrat establishment was put on full display by a recent attempted shout-down protest where left-wing radicals went after President Biden’s Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg.
Underneath the make-believe party unity, dissent is brimming. The divisions are not procedural, as when Republicans argue over who likes Trump the most or the least. Democrats appear to have some genuine policy differences, such as the economic disagreements and the criticism over vaccine policy that Robert Kennedy Jr. has directed against Joe Biden. Kennedy, a lifetime Democrat, recently shifted his affiliation from Democrat to Independent, which means that he technically no longer represents the suppressed divisions within the Democrat party.
A more credible exhibit of intra-Democrat policy disagreements comes in the form of a newly announced presidential candidate, Congressman Dean Phillips from Minnesota. According to the National Public Radio, NPR, the campaign that Phillips has launched “reflects growing concern” among Democrats that “the president’s reelection effort is in trouble.” However, a closer look suggests that Phillips is on to something regarding actual policy issues. CNN reports:
Phillips also had the audacity to credit Trump
Based on his campaign website, it is clear that Dean Phillips has a few policy disagreements with President Biden. However, even if those differences were to boil down to only one issue, namely immigration, his contribution to the campaign trail would still be worthwhile. It would help put politics back where it belongs: where it makes a difference in people’s lives.
Depending on how successful his challenge turns out to be, it may inspire debate on other policy issues as well. The Democrats need such a debate, and so do Republicans. With Trump still in the race, and with him leading the rest of the candidates by substantial margins in the opinion polls, the debate over policy issues—to the extent the candidates are interested in them—has given way to a shouting contest between supporters and critics of the former president.
To the casual consumer of news from the campaign trail, it is easy to get the impression that the race to elect a party candidate for president is really a contest for campaign donations. While there is almost no news about policy, a story about campaign fundraising is easy to find, both about the presidential candidates and about the party organizations themselves. As a case in point, on November 30th, the Washington Examiner reported that the Republican party has continued to haul in big donations after Kevin McCarthy was fired as Speaker of the House:
The story continues, accounting for transfers of millions of dollars to the NRCC from the campaign funds controlled by individual members of Congress. Speaker Johnson helped a member of Congress in Florida raise $1.4 million in one day, while two other organizations affiliated with the Republican party “raised $16 million” in a ten-day period.
The Democrat side is no less active. Back in October, Politico reported that
For many decades, America’s political elite has been used to a system where the winner of an election is determined by whoever is the most prolific fundraiser. Two politicians have seriously challenged that dogma: left-wing radical Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2016; and Donald Trump, who defeated Clinton in the election that year.
In fairness, Trump did not exactly go into the campaign empty-handed; a recent figure placed his wealth at $2.6 billion. However, although he had enough money to finance his own run for president, his 2016 campaign did raise $433 million. As impressive as this number is, it fell way short of Hillary Clinton’s $770 million. Yet, despite having $1.78 to spend for every $1 that Trump had, Clinton still lost the election.
Trump won on substance. He taught us all a lesson about American politics: substance can abridge even significant fundraising gaps. Senator Sanders, who was remarkably successful in his primary challenge to Clinton, de facto made the same point: at the end of the day, it really does not matter how much money you have, if you cannot connect with voters. They, in turn, are not interested in money—they are interested in the personal and political character of the candidate, and his or her policy substance.
It remains to be seen if policy substance can rise above the tidal waves of fundraising in the 2024 campaign. To date, there is not much that points in that direction: the candidates are simply not interested enough, or savvy enough, to put policy issues at the forefront of their campaigns.
In this context, the rise of Nikki Haley to presumably replace DeSantis as the front-runner (not counting Trump) appears to be the result of donor choice rather than voter approval. Her campaign website does not even have a link to her policy platform—if she even has one. This has consequences for her name recognition: ask ten Republican voters to name one policy issue that Nikki Haley has, and you will get ten blank stares in response.
Despite appearing void on policy, Haley just picked up the endorsement of Americans for Prosperity Action, AFP, the major political and policy arm of what has become known as the ‘Koch network.’ For decades, Charles Koch and his late brother David, two of America’s wealthiest industrialists, have been prolific sponsors of non-profit organizations, often with a right-of-center ideological profile.
With AFP behind her, Nikki Haley can count on an inflow of endorsements, first and foremost from Koch associates of all kinds. Beyond that, other big donors who trust the Koch network make their own donation decisions based on theirs. This means more campaign donations for Haley, as well as organized ‘get out the vote’ grassroots efforts which otherwise would have cost the Haley campaign significant amounts of money.
It remains to be seen if Haley can substantially rise above DeSantis, whose campaign in large part has been based on his gubernatorial policy accomplishments. If she pulls it off, it will be more evidence that money trumps policy in American politics. If DeSantis prevails, it will be a confirmation that we policy wonks still have a say in how America is governed.
READ NEXT
The Enterprise State
Play the Ball, not the Man: Cancel Culture’s Attempt To Capture Hungarian Academia
Starmer’s War on Farmers: a New Low for Client Politics