...Which doesn't meant the problem doesn't need to be solved
Continuing from my last post: just because we're willing to excuse a candidate's lack of expertise (and/or the lack of existence of an expertise apparatus behind him) during the election, that doesn't mean that they don't need to develop that expertise once they're elected. In other words, the criticism from Vox, etc. (Krugman) was a valid; it was just a second order problem. Not solving that second order problem once elected definitely can be a disaster. After Obama won the primary against Clinton, it was pretty shocking and dismaying to see him pick up so many people from her campaign (and her husband's presidency). The explanation was that the Clinton people were the only ones who had "experience" in Washington, so they were the only people that could be chosen. That was debatable, and it led to bad policy (e.g. the poor response to the financial crisis), but i sort of kind of understand how it happened.
And we also see this with Trump. Trump is plenty evil on his own, but amplifying the problem is the fact that he was so toxic he was only able to populate his administration with people worse than him. So (if we believe it) we have situations like this regarding the decision to repeal DACA:
Still, the president was conflicted until the end about how to address the plight of dreamers, waffling repeatedly in recent days about how to phase out the program.
I don't expect something like that to happen if Bernie were to run and win in 2020, but the possibility of him pushing not-ready-for-prime-time bills is real. That's why Yglesias' article below, appealing to think tanks to start working on real progressive ideas, is interesting. I also think that experts will flock to the White House if there's an opportunity, and i have more faith in Sanders than Obama in being willing to take outsiders without "experience", but it's definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration.
By fnord12 | September 5, 2017, 12:05 PM | Liberal Outrage