JUNE 17, 2019 – Elizabeth Warren has become the “ideas” candidate for president. One of her ideas is forgiveness of student debt, paid for by taxing the assets of the super-rich, not the merely rich. I love the electoral simplicity of this idea: free stuff for the masses, ergo lots of political benefit; whopping price tag paid by an eency weency minority, ergo, no political risk.
Any candidate (within reason, or rather, with reason) who has ideas, is better than one without reasoning ability and without a single idea other than the one spelled, M-E. But “ideas” in the realm of public policy cover a broad spectrum, from good to bad, simple to complicated, sure-fire to speculative, politically implementable to politically impossible. The “ideas” moniker alone shouldn’t win us over to a candidate.
Though I agree with much about Warren’s criticism of capitalism, her idea about student debt forgiveness falls short of the mark. If you’re someone who just staggered out of higher education with a financial millstone around your neck, the Senator’s idea sounds like a helluva good one. However, if what sounds like a good idea wins you over to her, then I say you haven’t thought things through any better than she has, at least as reflected by her standard stump speech directed at voters with lots of student debt.
Warren’s idea for solving the student debt crisis is not very probative. It addresses only a symptom of a much bigger crisis: the staggering cost of higher education in America. The current cost structure is simply not sustainable if the goal is a universally well-educated population. I have yet to hear from Warren (or other progressives) any ideas about bringing down the cost of quality higher education—regardless of who’s paying. It’s simply unrealistic to say the “super-rich” will pay for everything. (Dare I float the idea of forgiveness of all medical bills?)
In short, don’t confuse an “idea” with what amounts to politically attractive, symptomatic relief.
Second, whatever you think of a candidate’s ideas about one topic or another, a chasm often exists between an idea and its implementation. Start with the Constitutional division of government among legislative, executive, and judicial branches. With limited exceptions, the president doesn’t get to rule by fiat. If the president had all the chips, we’d have The Wall and a lot more worries than we already have. Moreover, even modern government with its immense rule-making and enforcement powers is not omnipotent. With dollars and decibels, special interests wield huge influence with respect to every matter that becomes the subject of government action—or inaction.
Ideas are one thing. Implementation amidst an array of politically structured headwinds is quite another.
Third, policy ideas are fine, but they are not the ultimate test of presidential qualification. What defines most presidents is an acute crisis below the horizon of the campaign.
I don’t think the ideal president is necessarily an ideas president. The ideal president is simply one who thinks straight. All. The. Time.
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
