,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ At the risk of sounding trollish, I'd like to ask what I intend to be a serious and constructive question: How does the Niskanen Center's new "policy vision" differ from the Obama administration's? cc: @lindsey_brink @hamandcheese @willwilkinson @jerry_jtaylor
2/ I don't mean that as an ad hominem attack. There were lots of good people in the Obama administration and they put forward thoughtful policy arguments. If Niskanen seeks to carry forward the legacy of @CassSunstein and @jasonfurman, that would be a constructive role to play.
@CassSunstein @jasonfurman 3/ But it rather muddles the discussion to describe this as a potential destination for the center-right, both in positive and normative terms: the American political spectrum will never be Sanders/Warren/AOC vs. Obama/Clinton, nor should (small-c) conservatives want it to be.
4/ In my reading, I see perhaps some daylight on health care reform, but I suspect the Obama team would have been very open to universal catastrophic coverage, and conversely it seems like the Niskanen authors would have been a "yes" on the ACA (vs. status quo ante alternative).
5/ Clearly, Niskanen favors a carbon tax over the mess of green energy policies we have. But I gather that's their first-best policy and they'd prefer Obama-era policy (which is more politically viable) to no policy; in my experience, Obama's team would have said that too.
6/ I hope the question helps to sharpen the lines that Niskanen wants to draw: What, in their vision, do they think the Obama team would have disagreed with in principle? What in the Obama administration's approach did they dislike (making accommodations for political reality)?
7/7 And again, if the answer is "no difference," that's not an indictment per se. Thoughtful technocratic progressivism needs a home. But it's hard to see how this "bold moderation" constitutes a "sharp break" from anything or a "daring, reformist spirit."
