No, Democrats have a courage problem.
4
Here's something that's easy to understand and see: Trump is a thug and a bully, and the Republican Party works to hurt poor people and promote oligarchy. Also, 'Medicare for All' is an easy to understand slogan. All very clear. How do you prompt people who vote for an obvious psychopath and his psychopathic party to cease doing that? It is really up to the 'buyer', and they apparently love to hurt their fellow Americans by 'buying Republican'. The problem is not the Democrats; it is that Republicans need therapy.
7
yeah but republican have a simplicity problem ... simple "non"-solutions to complex problems ...
3
This may be why Beto is so popular.
1
I'd like to offer a non-complex solution to the so far impossible problem of junk phone calls: Make it a crime with prison time to do it.
Then set up some special purpose credit card accounts for volunteers (I'd do it) to lead on the scammers and trace that money.
And if it involves international extradition of the scammers, any country that refuses to extradite loses its access to American immigration (think H1-Bs from India).
4
The one thing missing in this piece is an example of how simplification might be achieved
I agree there’s a complexity problem so let’s boil it down to its simplest statements. Lock him up. Lock him up. Lock him up ... start with that. The argument for national health is simple ... get sick and die under the current system and in between go bankrupt. The in-house White House acronym for all the crazy stuff Trump does TFA equals 25th amendment. The chant at the rally needs to be 25 25 25. Everyone will learn what that means quickly. Keep it simple like the stupid MAGA hats. To say make America Great Again is an insult to all the great Americans who have come before this draft dodging ConMan with no class who was bought by the Russians and the Germans. Trump has nothing but his racist base and and that will not be enough to keep him in the White House in 2020. Finally don’t debate him. No debates. As Speaker Pelosi so accurately said of Trump “he’s not worth it”.
4
Sometimes it seems that COMPLEXITY is the desire of so-called progressives, rather than simplicity and transparency. Anyone remember Jonathan Gruber?
It's debatable exactly how large a role Gruber played in development of Obamacare, but he certainly thought that its complexity--indeed, incomprehensibilty--was a virtue:
On the videos, which show some of his many speeches around the country, Gruber gives his highly critical take on Americans’ understanding of Obamacare prior to its passage in 2010.
“If you have a law that makes explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it wouldn’t have passed,” he said in one video. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/obamacare-jonathan-gruber-architect-112886
Indeed, "to be Grubered" is now an idiom for pulling the wool over the public's eye in order to achieve some policy goal.
4
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L.Mencken
the average attention span used to be something like 4 seconds like an 11yo - so how to persuade such short-term impressionable voters ?
here's one way - used by Sideshow Bob to great effect - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WJuejPFxF0
2
I see so many quoting, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." Y'all didn't run out of money for war? the endless tax cuts for the rich?
11
Our problem out here in flyover country is that sometimes the experts are wrong. Take Krugman, for example. Back in early 2008, he told us all about how horrible Obama was and why he should never be president and then he spent the next 8 years telling us he was the best president ever. And when Trump was elected, there was a market adjustment and the stock market went down for a few hours, I repeat, for a few hours, and Krugman live blogged that stock prices might never ever go up ever again, which of course they did, within an hour of his post, and then going up by thousands. All I'm suggesting, not even saying, just something to consider, is we all ain't that dumb and you all ain't that smart. I remember growing up y'all were telling us the ocean would be a vast endless source of fish and that's all we'd be eating in the future. I'm not kidding. And there was no more oil. And any number of foolish things. Expert schmexpert. First do no wrong.
3
the author lost me when he used the word "progressive" and then "ACA". Medicare for all is progressive. ACA was a liberal (i.e. compromised effort) proposal.
3
Andrew Yang has a super simple proposal: $1000/mo. per adult, no question asked. Everybody else has a complexity problem.
2
Dems have a tougher row to hoe, because they operate in the realm of honest policy ideas and political debate.
By contrast the Republican "agenda" is to exclusively serve the 1% and the corporations they own, and have no ideas to help the middle and working classes that they can honestly defend in a political debate.
Thus they are forced to make simplistic and ridiculous arguments, and need "targets" like AOC to attack and demonize, because they need to inflame and distract from a serious discussion of issues, which they would lose.
Trial lawyers spend countless hours simplifying an argument before presenting it, not because they believe a judge or jury is stupid, or incapable of learning details, but because they know they have a limited amount of time and opportunity to get their point across. The best ones succeed. If they can do it, so can Democratic politicians.
5
"Americans are short on time and attention and already swamped by millions of daily tasks and decisions. They would prefer that the government solve problems for them — not create more work for them."
LOL
According to a Nielsen report, United States adults are watching five hours and four minutes of television per day on average (35.5 h/week, slightly more than 77 days per year).
Now add in social media - video games - blabbing or texting AND then there's mindless shopping for uneeded junk!
Really what we have is a huge uneducated and bread and circus addicted mindless citizenry which only reacts to appeals to their emotions by politicians whose only interest is power. -The GOP! -Trumpism!
That's why the most needy and self mandated helpless rabble will be further reduced to economic and cultural irrelevence.
It's not the complexity -It's the stupidity!
5
The message has to make sense. The Democratic platform cannot support free college tuition and day care, paid maternity leave, and Medicare-for-all while, at the same time, calling for an amnesty for those who are living here illegally (let alone all of those who are requesting asylum).
The Democrats have to make a decision. Either we want to offer the social supports that western Europeans designed for themselves (which they could afford because NATO funding fell mostly on U.S. taxpayers sparing them of having to pay much for their own defense) before they were deluged with poorly educated Mideastern and N. African migrants, or we want to legalize illegal immigrants, knowing that any hint of an amnesty will inspire even more to migrate here illegally.
Most Mexican migrants have no more than a 6th grade education, and most Hondurans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans have less. They lower wages of our lowest paid citizens and legal residents, and pay little in taxes. They are heavily dependent on government services and subsidies. If given legal status, they will become eligible for even more subsidies, such as housing.
We cannot afford to offer an amnesty to people who came here illegally or who remained here after being denied asylum (let alone all of those who continue to come). The possibility that we could continue to subsidize their daily lives, and also offer every citizen low or free college tuition, paid maternity leave, etc. does not add up.
6
Getting something down to a slogan is usually effective, but progressives are not able. I agree with the writer but must add that progressive are also, apparently, unable to use language that engages our brains. OUr brains run us we do not run our brains. They, again, after the Clintons heralded healthcare reform instead of what is actually was, health insurance reform. They are constantly doing very stupid words choices to describe their proposals. No one's mind will invite their care be reformed, but almost every would not object to reforming insurance. Where the word "care" is placed in most brains is in sacred places, the word insurance? Not so much.
2
I.e., the American public is either too dumb or too ADD to follow Elizabeth Warren. How sad. The fault lies not with Warren but with the educational system and perhaps with a zeitgeist that foments desire for instant gratification, impatience, lack of self-control and an addiction to constant ( often meaningless) change. All very good for producing the sort of people a consumer-driven, advanced capital society needs (Liz might concur) but not for producing independent or deep thinkers.
3
Yes obviously the problem is progressives are too smart for everybody else. Far too humble too.
4
I'm sorry, but many of the NYTimes picks are criticisms of progressives and their proposals. This article was not a criticism of progressive thinkers, but somehow this is what is getting attention on this site. Those darn progressives. They're so elite. How dare they try to improve peoples lives. It will lose elections. We don't need a Green New Deal or anything like it. Nor do we need better health coverage. Everything is going so well. College tuition is affordable already. What we need is candidates with deep pockets funded by corporations. Everything will be fine in the garden.
2
You know what? Life is Complex! And progressives try to reflect real life, not some distilled and idealized mantra on a few subjects like God, Guns and Gays.
2
Democrats effectively convey "open borders" message to Central Americans
By dangling another amnesty in what is euphemistically called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and by refusing to alter the Congressional laws on amnesty (such as the current law which allows migrants to request amnesty after illegally entering our country, and which allows them to do so up to a year after entering), Democrats are sending a loud, clear message to foreigners. You will be allowed into the U.S. if you arrive with a child and claim to be fleeing from violence. It is O.K. to enter illegally if you are caught within a year and request asylum.
A 2/17 Inter American Dialogue Report titled "Educational Challenges in Honduras and Consequences for Human Capital and Development” said the average Honduran, age 15 and above, has only a 4th grade education. Guatemala and El Salvador have higher illiteracy rates than Honduras. Despite their low levels of education, Central Americans are hearing and acting on the Democrats' message. Over 76,000 migrants were apprehended trying to enter the country just in the month of February. At the current rate, 100,000 are expected to have been apprehended by the end of this month.
Democrats know how to convey a simple message.
2
The worst example of this sort stumbling had to be the Swift Boating in the John Kerry campaign.
Kerry, a real soldier, was up against Bush, a draft dodger. But the Republicans began pumping out lies to make Kerry look bad.
In response, the Democrats just smiled slyly thinking that the average voter would do hours of research to get at the truth.
Instead, the unrefuted smears became facts.
4
When a large government tries to craft solutions for a large country, you can bet that chaos will rear its ugly head. The ACA is a prime example. One size can not fit all...we are not Norway. Think of the hundreds of cultures we have in this country, the hundreds of religions, the dozens of languages, the size of a multitude of generations (I'm a baby boomer...what are you?). That is why this country will never be socialistic as socialism requires homogeneity. That is why when Democrats try to sculpture a one size fits all program, it's inherently is too complex to work. Like your doctor? You can keep your doctor. Period!
1
The United States is a best a right of center nation. More than 40 percent of the population blindly support the Putin stooge, crime boss and racist Donald Trump. There is not even the slightest chance Democratic Socialism will be acceptable to the majority of US voters in the foreseeable future.
Progressives must strive sincerely for social progress but not engage in self-righteous destruction of the Democratic Party. Returning from the fascist abyss of Trumpism must be the top priority for all. Only then can we begin to move toward desperately needed programs based on social justice.
3
Funny I was a liberal before I was mugged and after I was mugged. I guess I'm just stubborn that way.
Democrats may have a complexity problem, but Republicans have a stupidity problem. Which would you rather have?
1
Professor Wu doesn't offer any examples of "simple" solutions, and for good reason: there generally aren't any. Or none that are politically feasible. The ACA is a good example. Democrats had tried for decades to expand health insurance to the majority of Americans and failed. The Obama administration's solution was to get "buy-in" from a broad range of "stake holders" (i.e., economic interest groups) and came up with a confoundingly complex solution. It passed. "Medicare for all" is a much simpler solution, and one I generally support. But it is politically a much harder sell.
What is certainly true is that the Republicans have mastered the art of offering simple messages, generally based on fear. Frank Luntz has showed them they way. "Death taxes" was a bit of inspired evil genius, turning on its head the longstanding American opposition to a landed aristocracy.
I agree with man commenters that the American public as a whole is not as far to the left as many progressives. But I don't agree that the progressive agenda represents a threat to the party's electoral success. Bold positions are what a campaign calls for. It is important to lay out a clear picture of the fundamental differences between the parties and what they stand for. The time for compromise will come when bold ideas get translated into bills. Obama's most frustrating habit was his readiness to compromise at the beginning of the process. And it generally turned out that the opposition wasn't interested.
As a former computer designer from Silicon Valley, who is very aware of good interface design, I am normally a critic.
I find every sentence here rings true and powerful for me.
Yes, some good programs are complicated, like medicare, but they have had decades getting acceptance.
Physics believes the most elegant solutions are most likely to be true. The voters deserve clean elegant, short, pointed explanation of their new policy recommendations, no matter how complex under the hood. That is real empathy.
2
What if the problem is the government, itself, is too complex? Maybe it has become too big too manage. Shall we simply government first and prove that the government can do something right?
1
The ACA is not a good example of the Democratic complexity problem. The ACA is actually a conservative idea, designed by the Heritage Foundation as health care reform consistent with conservative "free-market" ideology. The complexity is what happens when you try to reconcile universal health care with a capitalist medical-industrial complex.
The health insurance industry needs a complex obstacle course of provider networks, formularies, prior authorization, "medical necessity," copays, deductibles, and pre-existing condition exclusions as a bulwark against "medical loss," money that goes to patients for health care rather than to shareholders. If we insist on capitalist health care, the only obstacle we can remove is underwriting that excludes or penalizes individuals with have pre-existing conditions. Then we have to mandate the purchase of insurance, and subsidize those who can't afford premiums that must be high enough to cover the risks, compensate executives, and satisfy shareholders. The machinery for all that adds significant complexity to an already complex system.
Expanding the existing Medicare program to cover everyone would not only have been much simpler, but would have eliminated the complexity imposed by private insurance companies and greatly reduced costs for everyone. As that would have been unacceptable to the health insurance industry, which invests generously in campaign contributions, we ended up with a complex Republican alternative.
3
ok, so let me suggest a simple concept that we Democrats and progressives have been discouraged from talking about, since the era of Bill Clinton:
We need more ECONOMIC EQUALITY. There is too much ECONOMIC INEQUALITY.
We're not supposed to say this. The upper class Democrats tell us we're only supposed to be in favor of "equality of opportunity" and not "equality of results." The latter is communism, or some such, and cuts down on growth.
But that's not true. We're not advocating absolute economic equality. We're not saying that you can't start a company and make a good deal of money.
All we're saying, as Bernie Sanders has put it, is that the playing board is tilted towards the "[multi] millionaires and billionaires", and they've got too much, and the rest of us have too little, and have to struggle too hard. And this hurts the whole society and the environment in so many ways.
A modest amount of wealth redistribution and a resurrection of economic fairness is a simple concept that everyone can understand, even if not everyone will support it.
"MORE ECONOMIC EQUALITY." "SHARE THE WEALTH." "ECONOMIC FAIRNESS FOR ALL."
Is that simple enough?
PS Tim Wu is brilliant. Anther simple concept!
2
First, Democrats have failed to recognize that Republicans now dictate the terms and content of political discourse in this country. They've done that in large part by reducing complex policy issues to simple, visceral slogans that they repeat consistently and incessantly. The slogans may misstate, twist, or even ignore the truth. But their ubiquity has led many Americans to internalize them without considering their validity.
Another way is through redefining essential words. "Growth" and "opportunity" now specifically mean redistributing wealth to the wealthy. "Socialism" is any government program that benefits non-wealthy Americans. What used to be Republican policy in the 1950s is now "the left"; what used to be Democratic policy in the 1950s is "the far left." And "liberal" is anyone who doesn't unquestioningly support the Republican agenda-- an all-purpose pejorative.
Americans indeed have the attention span of a house fly. Republicans figured that out years ago, and exploit it masterfully. Democrats haven't figured that out, and respond to Republican talking points (basically all they can do when Republicans control political discourse) with long-winded statements incomprehensible to the majority.
If Democrats want to succeed, they need to develop a concrete agenda that will make life better for all Americans (rather than just the wealthiest), and express it in simple, visceral slogans that clearly contrast with Republican slogans.
3
The design analogy is good but should be extended a bit further.
My personal bank has an elegant simple website, user interface that allows me to do my banking very easily. I am a typical use who has NO technical knowledge in computer programming.
My experience is simple and direct. However I expect there is a tremendous amount of computer complexity happening behind what I experience.
Well designed public/government interactions should aim for the same.
Single Payer Healthcare: A single line item, payroll deduction on my pay stub, just like I see for Social Security. DONE. It is no more complex to me than Social Security. I pay in. When the time comes, I receive a service.
The beauty of this is that it would be just as simple for employers. Payroll administration of health insurance for employees is a major hassle. Every year large employers have to engage in complicated negotiations with various insurance providers, who are constantly changing their rules, their prices, and the hospitals/doctors in their networks.
It would be so much simpler (and cheaper to administer) if it were simply a line item payroll deduction based on a fixed percentage of an employee's salary.
3
My wife turns 65 this year. She has spent many hours and talked to several experts to determine if and how to sign up for medicare (she is covered by my company plan). And we don't know who's advice to trust.
Complexity is a gift to accounts and lawyers - and people who can afford to hire them. It is a huge burden on the rest of us. I'm all for reducing it. But how do you sell that to the electorate?
3
@Rob S: Sign up for Part A.
As long as the company health care plan is considered "creditable coverage" she will not be penalized when and if she eventually signs up for Part B. Her HR department will be able to tell if her coverage is considered creditable.
The same goes for Part D.
Cobra coverage is not considered creditable.
@Jp Thanks for the advice.
Keep it simple. Mother was just an average senior voter. She was against government spending on exotic things, including that big word Obama used - INFRASTRUCTURE. She always voted Republican. She said it was because she came from a family of successful businessmen. They built useful things like roads and bridges. Keep it simple. Senior citizens vote.
3
A wonderful article! How many of us really understand the basic benefits and trade-offs of current or proposed law. We are easily led to quick conclusions and biased beliefs.
Professor Wu, please walk us through more policy making examples. Putting the process on-report and making it more accountable can only help.
Is there any reason to believe that experts developing policy are significantly more prepared than NYT writers and readers?
2
Yes, great article!
"The Democrats’ Complexity Problem" is a real thing. It gives Republicans a decided advantage in appealing to voters.
Whether it's the ACA, Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage or other policies to benefit the people, Democrats find it hard to succinctly sum up and sell the policy. Meanwhile Republicans are great at trashing every policy Democrats advocate with derogatory bumper sticker slogans.
For instance, Democrats (those brave enough) are currently wrestling with how to explain "democratic socialism." First you have to get the people to pay attention long enough to understand that democratic socialism in not your grandfather's feared Stalinist socialism. Then you have to walk them through what democratic socialism actually IS.
Democrats struggle to get people to follow along, when all along, Republicans are yelling their bumper sticker slogans: "Democrats are socialists," "Democrats want to turn America into Venezuela." Republicans simply resort to schoolyard bully name calling.
And that is the difference between Democrat and Republican style: Democrats feel compelled to explain, Republicans simply give it a name.
This Democrats' complexity problem isn't going away. Democrats do not have a single candidate who wants to use Republican style tactics of name calling. And what makes the problem even worse, Republicans have a bully with the biggest megaphone: President Man-child Trump. He is the Name-caller in Chief.
Democrats' only hope is intelligent people.
4
I completely agree with Mr.Wu's views on the complexity problem: nuanced answers miss their mark on TV. In the election season, which seems to be forever, democrats are more likely to make their point if they distill it into meaningful sound bytes before the conservatives twist them into ugly, even scary slogans about liberals. Policy statements should be like commercials for automobiles or smart phones: in the first 30 seconds, people should see that the policy will make their lives better even if they don't understand how it works.
2
If the Dems want to win next year I hope they drop complex and make it simple. Come up with 3 or 4 ideas and pound on them from the campaign. Save your insurance. Restore law and order to government. Keep it simple. Keep it short. All the long winded explanations can come after we get a Democrat majority and President. Keep insults aimed at the Republican party in general. Push the idea they are corrupt white power nationalists in as few words as possible. But nothing will get done if we're not elected.
Sorry, Professor, but I think the other half of the equation is the problem: Republicans/conservatives insist that everything is much simpler/easier than it really is: "Just cut taxes, scrap regulations, and the market will take care of everything."
"To be safe you must own a gun"
"Life was better for everyone in the 1950s"
"Don't talk about sex to kids and they won't get pregnant"
"Climate change is just a hoax"
"Racism is a thing of the past"
A long litany of these Republican bromides is making your once-great nation a literal laughing stock.
4
The trouble with Affordable Care Act is NOT that nobody can understand its complexity. The problem is that nobody read it to start with and "You have to pass it in order to find out what's in it" was the erudite advice we got from the "elites" that represent us. If I had a lawyer who told me to sign on the dotted line BEFORE I read what I was signing, and I did, then I would deserve everything that followed.
2
Democrats are in such serious trouble that a complexity problem would be welcome. The issue isn't complexity, it's a total misunderstanding of the electorate. "The expert class" isn't the problem, uncompromising and dogmatic left-wing ideologues are. They're sanctimonious and reckless yet think they're wonderful. At the rate they're going, they'll reelect Trump and lose the House just yanked away from the GOP.
The divisions between Democrats are not over complexity, they're ideological and geographical. The enormous divide between the geography of where the current Democratic left inanely believes it can win, as opposed to where it can actually win, is insurmountable. Why else do Democrats in swing districts keep having to apologize to their constituents every time a leftist opens their mouths or tweets?
Republican districts swung away from Republicans and are the only reason Democrats now control the House, not the Ocasio-Cortez's who replaced already very liberal establishment reps with left-wing anti-establishment reps.
Speak with Americans in those districts and you'll find the label "Socialist" toxic. You'll hear voters mystified and angry at Ilhan Omar not over allegations of anti-Semitism, but at her and the left recklessly advancing identity politics, failing to address the problems Americans face, and making things like reparations a centerpiece of their agenda.
It is a formula for losing an election, but it makes them feel good, which is all that matters.
67
@Robert B
Great incite ! For example, I believe universal health care is a bridge too far in the 2020 election cycle, especially when there is no plan for its implementation.
5
@Robert B
Except that under Centralist's guidance the Democrats have lost seats at every level, city,state and federal for years and it's all not due to gerrymandering. People are looking for fresh solutions to a government that is 'not providing' and the 'left' sees that and is willing to try.
The term 'socialist' as used today is returning government practice to where it was before 'the third way' of Clinton and followers adopted Republican lite.
5
@Robert B last I checked, Clinton received nearly three million more votes than Trump. And the only states that swung to Trump did so thanks to voter ID laws that scared away the electorate.
To wit, not only do Democrats know the electorate, but the electorate likes Democrats. And thanks to Trump they have plenty of easy issues to run on. Saving health care is an easy winning issue. So, too, is raising taxes on the rich. So, too, is the environment. So, too is breaking the influence of Big Business on government.
8
The complexity of our HC & other policies is not a necessary evil--it's deliberate, to manipulate & confuse voters to not stand up for their rights in a democracy.
Look what we tolerated for decades, which ACA has only partially helped. For years, many US citizens died, were disabled, & their famililies lost a loved one & also had financial disaster---loss of a breadwinner or medical bankruptcy--all because multi millions of citizens had no access to affordable HC.
This was deemed lamentable, but a worthwhile price to pay for corporate profits as a confirmation of our American Freedoms.
If many of these same victims of high profit HC had lived in other democracies with the tradition of HC as a right, they would have lived out their life spans, and been healthy working people with secure family finances.
Medical bankruptcy is unknown in civilized countries. Their voters wouldn't put up with it. They have problems but they're more used to elected officials with a duty to try to work for the citizen majority.
Here corporate profits equals protection of our freedoms. Regulating corporations is anti American, so the corporations regulate our govt.
The US media still can't come to grips with this, lest it look too left wing in US terms. So they label the new Dem progressives as left wing, or radical, or socialist---the perfect words to cause anxiety. So media commentators urge caution to anyone pushing policies that are centrist in other civilized democracies.
3
Dems need to frame proposals for universal health care, college loan forgiveness, and early child care, in terms of those programs creating opportunity and freedom for middle class and working class Americans. Repeat after me, freedom, opportunity, fairness, not just redistribution and social justice.
4
We don’t like complex policies . Our legislators make them that way because they have to protect the interests of their corporate benefactors lest they lose their precious campaign funding .
I give you the proposed Single Payer MedicareForAll legislation . They are relatively simple and beautifully elegant with a easily communicated selling point -the removal of Third Party profit seekers from the relationship between you and your healthcare provider . These superfluous rent seekers drive up prices and limit choices all in service to The Healthcare Lobby’s economic interests and subtracting from the quality of our healthcare .
Perhaps The NY Times could better present this viewpoint rather than consistently run interference for corporate entities .
Or is that too simple ?
3
The Democrats don't have a complexity problem. They have an incompetence problem.
They're not using an "Occam's Razor" approach to dealing with the complexity simply because they don't know how. It's one of the many things they're not capable of doing.
Keep in mind that the highest levels of the power structure of the House Democrats are inhabited by the same individuals who accomplished literally nothing of note during the full 8 years of Obama's presidency - even when they had a majority in both houses. The impotent version of Obamacare that eventually passed did so only with the approval of the Republican minority, who easily removed the Public Plan. Scratch universal healthcare.
Can the addition of a few new voices to the House, even if competent, suddenly transform their do-nothing leaders into proactive, intelligent, successful politicians? Don't bet on it.
In fact the recent track record shows that there have been no substantial changes overall. There are a lot of hot-air pronouncements coming from the oversight wings, but that's all. Nothing is actually being done about the critical issues involving the Executive branch. Mueller runs that show. Since he's a Republican, the House Democrats of course defer everything to him.
I'll give them kudos for being more entertaining than they were in the Obama years. The border wall funding "victory" declarations were a laugh riot, especially after the Executive Order.
2
Rights have to be balanced by responsibilities. Right to trial by jury = obligation for jury duty.
A simple slogan should not replace a lack of understanding about what makes some problems complicated.
If a presidential candidate claims free healthcare is a right, who is responsible to make it happen and how? "Free college for all" How? It can work, but it isn't easy and requires everyone to be invested in both the costs and the benefits, otherwise it is just another chase for Other People's Money or 'the government should pay'.
I think our bigger problem is not that the 'marketing' of highly complex policies is not simple enough, but rather a lack of creativity in these policies. Rube Goldberg was not a creative man. Rather than trying to repair society's bad outcomes and other patterns of inequality, injustice, etc., we should focus on simple changes to the PROCESSES that generates these undesired consequences.
For instance, why try to engineer a politically palatable form of social medicine when all we need is to open up participation in the democratic primaries/caucuses to non-core democrat voters, who vote in high numbers in the general election. Candidates baring major reforms (including social medicine) will present themselves - and they will win. We just need to eliminate the establishment's barriers to progressive changes - democracy will do the rest.
1
You make excellent points. Simple and elegant are both sides of the same coin. Anything else is just trickery.
A shining example is our tax code. Why do we allow our leaders to create so many levers to pull - to give to this one - to take from that one? ...Until finally it is impossible to have a conversation about taxes because there is so much gobbledygook that no one knows what the other is talking about and we start warring among ourselves. We then begin to hate our own government - a very unhealthy place to be.
So a simple and elegant tax code would be "tiered" flat tax with no deductions, period. Someone with a multimillion dollar home would not be able to deduct mortgage interest that in turn disadvantages someone with a small or no mortgage, thereby artificially raising the income tax rates on all.
Thank you for this excellent article. I say make things truly simple while doing the best for all as the objective. With an end to the smoke and mirrors, there is no need for "slogans".
" It is admirable that Democrats try to tackle society’s thorniest problems with the often unwieldy tools of government, but that is not an excuse for programs that are too complex for their own good."
This fellow has it backwards; the ACA was complicated because the ANTI-government party (Republicans) and private industry were involved.
7
How did Republicans make it complicated to understand?
According to Maeda’s 'The laws of simplicity', “The simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.” The educated elite often fail to explain simple fundaments because they enjoy using $5 extraneous vocabulary, and most of the time do not build and design basic structure from scratch with their bare hands. Only the mid-level management has the solid knowledge, experiences, and skills to decipher complicity. All congressional hearings or testimonies waste time questioning CEOs, Chiefs of gov't agencies. The most complicated challenge for universal health care is how to rid of health insurance agencies i.e. to eradicate lobbyists. That’s not about simplicity, rather it is about compassion which is quite straightforward. BTY, Mr. Wu's article is not so simple for me to read.
In "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Frank asks why people will vote against their own self-interest. Tim Wu has given us a big part of the the answer.
Our world today is much more complicated than it was in 1776. Before the Industrial Revolution it was predominantly rural. The main problems were getting enough rain and occasional overproduction. Guns were required for protection from bandits and wild animals.
Today? Well, it's a lot different. Property is defined differently (intellectual property and trademarks); markets and production chains span the globe and wind through many tax systems; products do more things; finance itself (which produces no physical goods) is a huge wealth generator. So solutions to any problems with all this are a lot more complicated.
Is Wu saying that we have become ungovernable, i.e. that articulating solutions is possible only for lobbyists and not for harried, overworked voters?
I don't know the solution. But I do thrill when I hear people like Elizabeth Warren navigate through complexity with simple questions like: (to a magnate who insists on minimal taxes and government regulations) "You didn't build your business all by yourself. What about the schools who educated your employees, the infrastructure that carries your goods, the court system that protects your intellectual property, the stake that employees have in your business, etc? What about your contribution to all that?"
It seems that things can be made simple.
4
Are you saying that
(a) society has become too complex to handle, and any increase in complexity yields negative returns?
(b) citizens are insufficiently educated and lack critical thinking?
Both of these caused civilizations to collapse.
2
What progressives seem to want nowadays is government's endless role and interference in people's lives, seeing everyone as children incapable of managing their lives, and as perpetual victims of the "system." They want endless social programs to justify their jobs and the bureaucracies they support. Sometimes government interference is not the ultimate answer to people's problems, but with the socialists and communists running the show, voters need to be prepared for what they would inaugurate: high taxes and more and more unwelcome government control.
2
You conflate communism with democratic socialism. Then you paint all Democrats with the same brush.
While I agree completely that Democrats/ Progressives have a complexity problem with their messaging, I don't think that's the only problem. The other part is that many Americans won't support any program they think will benefit those they consider "undeserving". For a program to be simple, it has to apply to everyone, like Social Security does. But if it applies to everyone, then a large segment of voters will think their tax dollars are paying for other people to get something for nothing, and will vote against it even if they are in fact cutting off their own noses to spite their faces.
Remember, 14 states still have not expanded Medicaid, even though that has proven to be the most successful part of the ACA, and those that have not include some of the poorest states in the Union, such as Mississippi and Alabama. Combating prejudice and spite is indeed complex.
2
I do not think it was the poor in these states that voted against the expansion, since these are the same states that have done so much to gerrymander and limit voting rights to this segment of the population.
They did, however, vote for the representatives that are not allowing them the option to improved medical care.
Policy will be complicated. Messaging needs to be simple. If your campaign platform can't be understood by a third grader then you're doing it wrong. If the eventual law that you pass can be understood by a third grader then God help us all.
5
Complexity happens when you try to have a broad policy, but also feel like you have to make exceptions. Sort of like taxes.
1
How about a simple tax policy:
1. All income is counted the same - wages, capital gains, dividends, all of it.
2. All income is subject to Social Security withholding - eliminate the cap.
3. Eliminate all deductions.
4. Steeply graduate income taxes - something like no taxes on the first $50,000, 10% on the next 50, 20% on the next 100, 30% on the next 200, 40% on the next 500, 50% on the next million, 60% on the next 9 million, and 70% on everything over $10 million.
5. A steeply graduated wealth tax, as Warren has proposed.
Simple enough?
7
@G. Slocum
Good program, but far too simple to be adopted. There is money to be made keeping things complicated and unclear; actually, I would say it has become an industry -- lobbying.
2
@G. Slocum
Perfect! A super simple tax policy would be an easy sell and even easier to vote for. Everyone would vote to simplify taxes - even if they paid more!
1
A truly good teacher has the gift of simplifying what is inherently complex. That does not deny its complexity, but breaks complex concepts into understandable building blocks. The simple clean solution is elegant in its beauty. So, the Democratic Party needs to become better instructors- Not for the purpose of dictating solutions, but to allow our citizens to better understand the "possible" and how it may be achieved to benefit most citizens. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, although not perfect, was a leader who was capable and very effective in doing this o educate the American public. ( Think Roosevelt's Fireside Chats, think the leadership as Commander-in-Chief during World War II.
Democrats take note- read history and apply it to present problems. This approach still works.
6
What Mr. Wu does not mention is that complex programs - in addition to being hard to explain to the unwashed masses - are also very hard to implement. As a result, many fail to even come close to their well-intentioned anticipations. The ACA a perfect example.
1
This op-ed reads like it has a smirk on it. Like it’s the kid ‘begging for mercy’ as an orphan after he’s murdered his parents. The author rightly gives credit where credit is due (Dems) and blame where needed (GOP). However, the modern nation-state, administering social programs for tens if not hundreds of millions of eligible citizens while also guarding against waste and fraud through regulatory mandates has a responsibility to taxpayers to be ‘complex enough’ to fulfill such requirements while being as simple as possible for reasonably educated users and consumers.
Whatever difference remains can be seen as the necessary price for self-governance that even the Founders understood: eternal vigilance and necessary effort.
3
This article is spot on. And it is scary just how long it has taken to appear.
That the MIT World One computer forecasts about 2040 elicit virtually no response from the supposedly evidence based media is a case study of an existential issue meeting a wall of silence.
1
@Henry
Feel free to shares those forecasts for 2040.
I would hesitate to point to Donald Trump as a role model for anything, but he does have a knack for (over-)simplifying complex issues, talking about them in words of three syllables or fewer, and using visual metaphors (like "The Wall"). In his case, it's because he doesn't understand the issues himself. He's notorious within the White House for his inability to concentrate during briefings, and his eyes glaze over when he tries to read by rote from a teleprompter while giving a speech he doesn't care about (like one condemning white nationalism).
But a minority of people (never more than half) believe his goofy, transparent lies because they're easy to understand and visualize. And they're designed to provoke fear, loathing, and violence, so they make an impression. Somebody who opposes him needs to offer voters positive imagery without insulting our intelligence the way Trump does.
2
Tim Wu is right. Democrats don't have a policy problem so much as a branding problem. Conservatives take terrible ideas and brand them beautifully, and Democrats take good ideas and drown them. A good brand is not a dumbing down. Usually, it's the opposite, the simpler and stronger the message, often the more complex the branding assignment. Smart people may recognize that good branding is at work, while others may only benefit from it. Either way, Wu's thesis is spot on.
4
@Chris
He did not state that Democrats only have a "branding problem." He is asserting that the designs of Democratic policies are also too complex.
1
Decisions are made on feelings--around which rational processes are layered. As Goethe said: Gefühl ist alles. Of course rationality is important, but it is secondary.
3
The American voter is too mentally lazy to understand complexity or nuance. Sometimes it takes a complex verbal construction to express a simple idea. The simple contracts become complex contracts because of their incompleteness and ambiguity whereas an apparently complex contract becomes a simple by resolving all issues. One of the great Republican minds, Donald Rumsfeld, pronounced, Occam's razor notwithstanding, that the simple solution is usually the wrong solution.
Wu defeats his entire point with the the "drill, baby, drill" quote from Palen. All of the "highly qualified"experts denied Palin's claims and called her an idiot. Yet here we are, drowning in US energy production. On the single most dominant economic development of the last 10 years, the "experts" were dead wrong The experts presume knowledge and foresight which they do not possess and belittle those of us with enough sense to realize that the emperor has no clothes. The efficacy of expert central planning by progressive experts is a myth which we accept to our own detriment.
4
I think your argument supports his claim. The highly qualified experts needed complex information to debunk Palin’s ridiculous (but oh so easy to remember) quote. But which is rembembered?
QED
Should a teenager working part-time, flipping hamburgers on the weekend, who lives with his parents, be earning $15 an hour when a round trip flight from Chicago to Las Vegas is less than $200 and a new pair of jeans is $50? A new pair of jeans was $40 when the minimum wage was $4 an hour. Bernie Sanders is wrong. Kids didn’t make that much money in the 1960’s. They couldn’t buy a flight to anywhere with barely more than a day’s wages. The reason healthcare, housing, and education is so expensive is because big government is getting in the way of capitalism. We don't need more government, we need less.
7
They also couldn’t buy a computer, because they did not yet exist at consumer levels. Same with cheap air flight.
In the days of the Romans, ice was a precious commodity, but we don’t use that to argue that people now should not be able to afford ice.
4
@Mark
How many teenagers still flip hamburgers? Aren't these jobs now held mostly by adults, often adults with a family to support, or older adults who can't make ends meet?
1
Comparing different times without context and with funny numbers is not a strong case. I worked as a teen in the seventies and I bought jeans then and now- I can tell you they were certainly not $40-50 then. I can remember buying Levi’s for $25 full price. My minimum wage had more buying power adjusted for inflation. As to air travel you are quoting for a one way ticket, most people buy round trip. Teens can’t afford it much now either. Meanwhile a used car they could actually work on cost very little back then, you won’t find that now. Lastly, there are far fewer teens now, they have more time demands from extra curricular a and sports and more rules against working younger than 18. Businesses that employ them also know that there are plenty of second wage earners and desperate parents among adults so there’s no pressure fo4 them to raise wages. Personally I think minimum wage ought to be tied to an index of some sort and raised year over year or at least every five to keep the buying power of those workers propelling the economy and not stagnating.
1
Governing was not simple even in 1786. Who could imagine it could actually become simple to do, let alone explain in simple terms. The Constitution is not printed on 3x5 cards. Neither is the Bill of Rights.
Governing in a democracy, and especially as the most successful of its kind in human history, requires an educated population and/or a populace that recognizes potential leaders who can articulate — hopefully, without the eloquence — what is needed for a strong, healthy and fair democracy, and our democracy must be nurtured for the sake of We the People.
We are currently in a Second Gilded Age with deregulation of nearly every industry putting the great Middle Class at high risk of being denied the benefits of what the Constitution intended.
It is distressing that there are law school students getting their lessons from legal scholars professing hatred of governance. How did we get legal advisors convincing presidents that torture of prisoners is necessary; or, advising presidents to sidestep the Constitution to serve a plutocracy and a wannabe autocrat; or, that the Supreme Court should serve a president and other political special interests, instead of We the People. How could Citizens United be approved the SCOTUS?
Over several centuries, legal scholars have debated points of law. Some are content to agree to disagree. Others have an agenda to subvert The Rule of Law.
This administration has fired the former, while staffing itself with the latter.
2020.
1
simple is hard.
45
@jkw
I agree, but it's eminently worth exerting extra efforts for.
3
Simple is not hard, but elegance is.
5
@jkw
That is no excuse.
Mr. Wu makes excellent observations about the mumble jumble of 'govern-meant' speak. When any information or documents are sent to people, the explanation and wording should be carefully checked by those who are experts at clarity and communication - not for the policy geeks but in regards to the rest of us.
Also - the government needs to make a more logical effort with the graphic design and layout of these papers, forms, etc. The use of symbols, small instructional drawings (graphic icons) can be very helpful.
Some federal and state offices and departments do a better job. For example, the website for Healthcare.gov is vastly improved from the original. But they do need to work on the verbal and graphic clarity of the letters they send in the mail.
Take a look at what is done in the United Kingdom. They may have Brexit-itus, but their graphics for government documents are usually quite clear and consistently communicative.
Finding that elusive Goldilocks sweet spot between effort and reward is one of life's great philosophical challenges for all of us. It's human nature to take the path of least resistance. While that path is easy and less strenuous, the route might ultimately be much less rewarding when self discovery and any hint of challenge are taken out of the process. The destination or outcome might be much less rewarding as well or even unwelcome. Simple is no guarantee for the best outcome or even a marginally acceptable one. Health care, especially in America, is incredibly complex, fraught with complicated moral and financial dilemmas, beyond the medical selection of the best course of treatment. Both Medicare and the Affordable Care Act are arguably complex. Medicare keeps those complexities (mostly) hidden from the public while the ACA has partially pulled back the curtain on the for profit "middleman" complexity and failings of the private health insurance industry in the American system. Shame on the author here for speciously comparing simple binary decision policies like smoking bans and do not call registries to complex health care legislation, including Medicare.
One might argue that Republicans have a simplicity problem in contrast to the Democratic complexity. A simple flat taxation rate vs a progressive one or a simple but big southern border wall vs thorough and effective immigration legislation are but two examples where complex trumps simple in fairness terms.
2
I served as the Supervisor (like Mayor) of my upstate New York community several years ago. I was a Democrat in a predominantly Republican community, (before Democrats came back into vogue!) and I stand as the only women ever elected to the post in almost 200 years.
At the time, the ideas I was advocating - partnership governing and bi-partisan government, several years before Obama - were "progressive."
We were successful with some things, and not with others.
Now however, there is a very practical, tangible, urgent need to weigh pushing progressive ideas to the forefront, vs. simply electing a President who can help, heal, and restore some sanity and order to our nation...and protect our democracy from further disintegration.
Our politics have become like a rubber band...pulled far to the right. Pulling far to the left now will have the effect not only of increasing tensions, but possibly...breaking us.
A wise, mature, experienced leader knows that they must set aside their "progressive" ideas when the health and well-being of the whole is at stake.
It is my hope the Democrats will set aside all of the drama and rise to the occasion; the country and the world are waiting.
1
gee, wouldn't it be great to get back to basics, to live on a small family farm, to be pretty self sufficient and be basically uninvolved with making and spending money? wouldn't it be simpler if everyone was just a member of a regular mainstream Protestant church and everyone was white and knew all the old Christmas carols? what about those blunderbusses, weren't they handy when bears prowled around the homestead? remember those terrific old Hollywood movies like Andy Hardy - why can't we just go back to those days? we didn't need to know anything about science, really, as long as we knew the basics of animal husbandry. everyone spoke English, even the Swedish immigrants who had a funny accent. why can't we just listen to the wise council of President Washington and avoid entangling foreign alliances? the days before they invented abortion and homosexuality were just better, right? let's make the whole country into Main Street USA.
3
When I started my first job out of college some too many years ago I was given the latest rudimentary "email" program. Its default setting was to flag language and grammar that were above the 5th grade level. This was at a very successful and sizable company. To this day I remember, and try to employ, that standard. Not because I think my audience is stupid or ignorant (they are not the same thing), but because I think they are far more likely to be receptive to ideas that they can EASILY understand. Policy shouldn't require a PhD to understand nor should it induce splitting headaches in those who are supposed to benefit from it.
1
Obviously, explaining the reality of issues in clear simple language is NOT what our political system is about. Instead it's keeping voters confused and misled. That's how political propaganda operates ---by those calling the shots in politics funded by big money donors and their investments in politicians. And all legal, per the S. Court.
Our medical system and democracy are schizophrenic. Extend HC to all, while guaranteeing excessive profits of the medical whose business model is power/profit, and exploitation of the public. Interfering with profit is labeled AntiAmerican.
It's how our incentives are set up. Reformers are climbing a huge mountain. To contradict that profit motive, and represent the interests of citizens in a democracy---is called Big Govt Interference in Freedom. Voters buy it.
Contrast other nations--- it's centrist/normal for govt to actually regulate insurance premiums.
Crucially, they ban 2 things that inundate Americans---paid campaign ads, and paid pharma ads on their media. Obvious cause/effect here. Our media avoids that contrast, leaving Americans uninformed and misled by our Political/Medical, Industrial complex.
It's basically a different attitude to public vs private interests. The psychology underlying that contrast is what we need NYT columnists to repeatedly analyze, and then connect to the political/public problems they discuss. But they're afraid of looking too 'left wing' by our definitions, so they don't get to causes.
2
I served as the Supervisor (like Mayor) of my upstate New York community several years ago. I was A Democrat in a predominantly Republican community, (before Democrats came back into vogue!) and I stand as the only women ever elected to the post in almost 200 years. At the time, the ideas I was advocating - partnership governing and bi-partisan government, several years before Obama - were "progressive."
We were successful with some things, and not with others.
Now however, there is a very practical, tangible, urgent need to weigh pushing progressive ideas to the forefront, vs. simply electing a President who can help, heal, and restore some sanity and order to our nation...and protect our democracy from further disintegration.
Our politics have become like a rubber band...pulled far to the right. Pulling far to the left will have now will have the effect not only of increasing tensions, but possibly...breaking us.
A wise, mature, experienced leader knows that they must set aside their "progressive" ideas when the health and well-being of the whole is at stake.
It is my hope the Democrats will set aside all of the drama and rise to the occasion; the country and the world are waiting.
YES!!! This article hits the problem on its head.
.
As an architect I’ve always believed that the simplest solution is usually the best. The more complicated a roof is - for example - the more susceptible it is to leaks. In fact I changed around an old saying: “keep it stupid, simple”. It gets laughs but I want people to follow it.
.
Mies Van de Rohe used to say “less is more”. That certainly ought to carry to public Policy. We need laws that are elegant in thwir simplicity; that are understood by everyone and easy to follow; that make our lives better.
.
Like great architecture, this is more easily said than done.
61
@ZAW I'm not so sure the author is advocating for simple solutions as much as simple presentation of solutions —a key reason for Trump's success particularly when what's behind his rhetoric are no solutions (let alone bad ones). It's why Elizabeth Warren can gain traction by answering merely "Yes" to the question of whether to dump the Electoral College (whether or not you agree with her or her plan), but imo John Hickenlooper lost some in his well-meaning but meandering answers to fairly basic questions in last night's CNN town hall. (It's also partly why I think Pete Buttigieg is rising—he gives detailed, well-thought-out answers to virtually every question in a reasonable, plain-spoken way.)
5
@ZAW
So how would you have designed the ACA to make it simple to implement?
I'm not sure why Americans would have a hard time understanding that we can help ourselves with our problems. The only thing standing in the way is a bunch of ultra right wing wackos and mega corporations doing their best to subvert our country.
2
Good column and some good thoughts.
Interesting point made by the Times pick @Grillin ona -- no, the electorate do not want to hear that they are stupid. And particularly in America, like a nation of 8 year olds, they do not want to be told what to do. Part of the American myth is the cartoonish glorification of self-determination and individualism - but guess what - we aren't going to beat climate change doing our own things our own way. The whole Republican THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO TAKE YOUR CHOICES AWAY thing is getting pretty weak. The fact is we DO need people who we feel are "smarter" than us, in the same way the carpenter we hire better know more about framing a house than we do, so are we "stupider" than a carpenter? Yep. The good news is that we get to evaluate the credentials of those we are going to ask to pull our planet out of the fire, and pick the people we think can make the best decisions. The bad news for Americans is that - particularly in the case of climate change - we are going to have to sign-on to doing exactly what we're told, or (I hope) face a serious fine or jail time. I mean - we all know we're toast anyhow, because humans are a selfish species - but that's what it would take.
1
"What progressives [sic] most need now is not more brains, but better policy designers....Many of us...se[e]complexity as a necessary evil, an unavoidable feature of answers to hard problems...We criticize conservatives for relying on simplistic slogans like 'cut taxes'-"
Do you see your problem here, Mr. Wu? "Better policy design"? The problem isn't complexity - it's that the term is a politically bloodless and morally neutral, if not passive, response to the full-throated populism of the right.
No, what liberal Democrats need to engage people are the morally unequivocal and uncompromising demands that are now being sounded by the left in the person and movement of Sanders - the elephant in the room of your opinion piece.
In Sanders' bold and unapologetic condemnations of the power of the rich and of inequality lies the solution to the "complexity" and fussy professional-ese you bemoan.
3
I recently applied for social security and healthcare on the exchange. Very complicated with endless phone calls, websites that didn’t work, etc. Can we get some Amazon-style customer service and efficiency in government? Lord knows we’re paying enough for bad service.
I agree with all the issues Dr. Wu raises about benefit complexity, especially the impact of Republican interference, which is often designed to undermine or obscure benefits. However, as a private benefits attorney, I learned three lessons about making benefits understandable that are equally applicable to private benefits:
1. User-interface specialists must be consulted as soon as there is a real chance of adoption of a benefit.
2. No single design will be easy for everyone to understand or use. There must be a variety of ways to access every benefit, and a variety of explanations at each stage of the enrollment and participation processes.
3. For many beneficiaries, there is no substitute for live in-person assistance. For example, the HICAP program provides personal assistance to Medicare beneficiaries on almost every question they could have. The trouble with HICAP is that the assistance is provided by volunteers. With so many young, educated people out of work or under-employed, I believe the best answer to the problem of benefit complexity is to plan for a corps of paid advisors in the design of any new benefit, from scratch.
2
@NeilG
I meant equally applicable to government benefits.
"Social Security, Medicare, bans on indoor smoking, the “do not call” list (when it worked) and public libraries are examples of government solutions that are easy to understand and to benefit from."
So are Glass-Steagall, not invading countries that have not attacked the USA or an ally, increasing taxes on those who make more than a million dollars per year, taxing capital gains the same as income, and strong nation wide single payer.
Wu also "forgot" repealing Taft-Hartley, and an FT tax.
Another big thing he forgot: Anti-trust, which is, ironically, his field.
3
Anybody who includes Medicare as an example of "government solutions that are easy to understand and to benefit from" has lost all credibility in my eyes.
4
I dunno. I wish someone had given me one share of Apple or Berkshire Hathaway stock years ago every time I tried to explain to my fellow lawyers (who were the legal experts on how to write a law) some legal issue that was relevant to how a proposed law would work out in practice or would be perceived in the political climate of the day, but they just couldn’t (or refused to) understand; yet when I explained the same legal/practical problem to a member of the legislature or high ranking legislative staff they quickly understood and gave me the marching orders necessary to override the objections of my reviewers. I’d be writing this from my villa on the Adriatic; well, maybe my cabin in the Hill Country.
I agree with a lot of what this article has to say but want to emphasize that it’s often not a question of experts needing to dumb down well thought out proposals so the rubes can understand. It’s often a question of the experts needing to go broader and deeper and do a better job of incorporating political realities and the realities of day to day life into policy design.
The elegance and simplicity will then often take care of itself. Experience helps; your designs will probably get less clunky as you get older. Talking to a lot of people who will be affected by your policy as designed is necessary. Was it Kant who said there’s no such thing as “works in theory but not in practice?”
The Democrats have a marketing problem. Elections don’t involve complex ideas, for the winner.
ACA is designed to be complex. It tries to extend HC to millions while keeping the #1 priority---profit for the medical industry.
Yet, we must protect ACA from destruction---this complex, high cost system compared to our previous HC which was a violation of human rights by international standards of advanced countries.
America had long rationalized what lack of insurance resulted in---early deaths, disabilities, medical bankruptcy and financial devastation for families. Now we still have millions uninsured and costs rising for the insured.
Our media hardly mentions how dozens of democracies, also capitalist systems, have financed generations of HC for all as a right.
Their citizens wouldn’t put up with the ACA---the most expensive and financially profitable system in the world. As are our elections.
Glad to see Tim Wu’s column----he wrote a book on big corporations in our new Gilded Age. But he must discuss how mega donors set the limits of our policies on HC and crucial issues--- guns, taxes, jobs, education, consumer protections.
Citizens in other countries don’t have to have long attention spans to worry about HC complexity. Their HC is set up for them, not for profit makers. Here’s that’s still radical.
See NYT op ed “The Fake Freedom of American Health Care” by Anu Partanen, a Finnish journalist, living in U.S. after marriage, contrasting the complexity, anxiety and high expense of delving into HC here, compared to Finland.
4
@Meredith
Enjoy your posts. Very clear sighted and compassionate. Thanks for the info.
I think anyone who has been in business knows you have to nutshell your ideas to get them across. In academia, not so much. I've seen colloquia where it was clear no one (full tenured profs included) had much idea what the speaker was talking about. But that's allowed in academia I suppose.
But if you want to get ideas across in the real world you have to boil the critical points down and make them understandable. Of course, you can't be like Beto or AOC and just know the bullet points but not the details or the costs. You have to have all that in your back pocket.
The trouble with progressive policies isn't that they are too complex, they are either unworkable for the most part or simply silly.
And I certainly hope your intention wasn't to suggest that if only progressives could simplify their ideas so the dummies out there could understand, then they'd all vote for progressive programs and nirvana would be ours. Sorry, that's both wrong headed and it ain't gonna happen, bubba. You can simply most progressive ideas all you want and they still be palatable to most.
1
American voters are driven by gut reaction to personalities and it is not “complexity” that baffles them.
1
We don’t need to "dumb down" our complex progressive ideas. But we need a short hand when we refer to them that make them easily and quickly understandable. I think that’s why Medicare for All has some traction. Calling it M4A may even push it further. Calling an agenda to address climate change a "Green New Deal" may have the same effect. People like catchy slogans and there's nothing wrong in using that to our advantage.
I am kind of surprised that so many posters are angry that Democrats "talk down" to them, or consider them "not quite bright." Republican policies are the metal rock of politics: a simple and repetitive beat, unimaginative and often unintelligible words, and no melody to speak of, let alone harmony. A politics comparable to Beethoven or Bach seems to be beyond them, and they are angry whenever someone proposes a policy that goes beyond the simplest of structures. Stretch your brains, Republicans - they won't break.
2
Finally we see the light and we understand why the Left’s ideas have not been approved so far by the voters !
Before this article, I would have thought the left had the opposite problem: the public understands quite well where their policies lead, that’s why they don’t vote for them.
Well, now that the left is switching to Socialism, problem solved. It’s going to be really easy for voters to understand and make up their mind, especially with great examples like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Too bad we’ve never heard of the Socialist Republic of Denmark.
When I studied for an advanced degree in Architecture, then in practice as a licensed Architect, the old adage of KISS - keep it simple stupid - was always important to keep in mind. We must continue to work on designs until the most elegant, which is also often the simplest design is found. Good article. Thanks.
The premise is wrong.
Ask any young person whether (s)he wants to risk the planet dying from climate change. Ask any parent.
There are no simple answers to complex problems as Trump is finding out.
Here's simple: tax long term capital gains and dividends at the same rate as earned income. Why should someone who earns their income from the sweat of their brow pay less in taxes than a person that earns income simply because they are wealthy. This one change and 60% of the tax code would go away.
1
The suggestion that the complexity of dealing with government and political policy are only attributable to progressive programs and proposals is patten nonsense.
Defense and agriculture programs and policy, darlings of the right, entail the same and worse goo. Barriers to entry exist all across the political spectrum for the advantage of insiders as well.
Progressives have completely failed to offer meaningful alternatives to the conservative trinity: greed, bigotry, and militarism. Program complexity for a multitude of reasons is pervasive and not key.
Great column! A good example of the way in which Dems should flip a complex topic and make it simple and the benefits obvious is taxes. Instead of debating higher taxes versus lower taxes, Democrats should change the subject to higher incomes versus lower incomes. You want higher incomes? You're going to have to have better education and infrastructure, as in the blue states that produce the vast majority of the wealth in the country.
It's not the complexity. It's the basic progressive ideas which are anathema to most Americans.
4
Signing up for Medicare is much more complicated than signing up for the ACA in states that wanted the ACA to work.
2
This is the simplest, most-commonsensical, easy-to-understand contribution to the recent debate over progressive policies that I have read. Now, progressives just need to ensure that the simplification of policy is not manufactured by media consultants and pollsters, but by policy design makers (candidates) themselves.
1
The author says progressives for decades have been hard to understand because of the complexity of their ideas. Sorry, but I can only think of Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, who were ignored by the mainstream media so there wasn’t much attention paid to their ideas as the author seems to assume.
Complexity is often the product of deception. Just look at the excuse for no Middle East peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It’s quite simple from the historical and legal point of view but the excuse that it’s “too complex” to fix easily has always been used.
Look at Beto’s/health insurance lobby’s Medicare for AMERICA. They’ve excepted the reality that Americans want a government guaranteed health plan. So they’ve devise this plan that’s doomed to failure. A progressive can easily and simply demonstrate how the plan lacks the “economies of scale“ because it doesn’t require everyone in like Medicare for All. It should be explained in five or fewer sentences- that costs are reduced when production and services are provided on a large scale. A half in and half out approach like Medicare for America, will not provide the cost savings and sabotage the universal health plan.
2
I agree that simplicity is the best goal. And the way to get to universal health care is to use the current Medicare program and its established systems, and gradually lower the age at which people can enroll. Yes, our Medicare system is imperfect. But currently, once you hit 65, your health care management becomes very much simplified. Most people I know celebrate their 65th birthday for this reason. Our legislators need not get bogged down in reconciling the House & Senate bills and hand-wringing over all the new & enhanced benefits.
Having lived 30 years in the US and with still one foot in France, I can say that US taxes are as high as French taxes for mid range revenue (under 100 K $ ) so where does the money goes ?
How come in France we can pay for free global health care and free education and here you have no health care, no free universities, no 5 weeks paid vacation per year , no retirement, etc..
And in France we work 35 hours a week !
And we get cheated on by the US corporations who invade our economies without participating and paying any taxes.
5
Too much complexity is a problem in our policies, yes.
However, I feel that two important points are lost by pinning the complexity all on the Democrats:
1) we have a considerably more complex system now than we did 250 years ago, with a greater understanding of the complexity of the world. Oversimplification can be especially dangerous; and
2) Republican intransigence has played a large role in keeping Democratic policies from being simpler. They refuse to consider Medicare for All. They added extra complexity to Obamacare that added costs and reduced benefits and blunted initiatives that would have made it more effective both in care and in costs. They add user-shaming means testing for all of our non-senior safety net programs, from cash assistance to WIC to food stamps to Section 8 and more, and add ridiculous hoops and time constraints to keep getting help.
I would *love* to see certain of our programs become more effective, more streamlined, more user friendly and more understandable. As long as there are powerful opponents who have a vested interest in making our programs ineffective, complex, frustrating and incomprehensible, it will be difficult to change.
2
Here's a simple request. I'm a democrat, and I'd like to know, in annual taxes paid by a family earning the U.S. median income, about 60k, the cost of the 3 big progessive proposals.
Green New Deal
Free College
Medicare for all.
2
Confusion and disorder are right next door to complexity. Look how simple the invasion of Iraq looked to most Americans. Rid the world of one more axis of evil and their wmd and American enlightenment and world security would spread. It was instead $1 trillion of mistakes and chaos. Wu is right about Obamacare. It’s too complex for most Americans (me included) to see its simple virtues. One could argue that Social Security is not the most efficient method of security for the elderly, but most Americans grasp its simple effectiveness and that’s its selling point. However, the countless liberal programs to aid the poor have backfired in countless ways. Appalachia, the inner cities, Indian reservations it could be argued have been locked into generations of failure because of well intentioned liberal programs. Reality is much more complex than progressives ever dreamed.
An excellent column!
But about "...progressives,...must accept that simplicity and popularity are not a dumbing-down of policy, but rather the unavoidable requirement for its success." I doubt that progressives want success. Progressives want to be pure, principled, uncompromising and excruciatingly correct politically.
2
I assume you are not a progressive. As a progressive I believe I can speak for many in saying that what we want is a better country for ourselves and our families. our efforts to achieve that may be to your disliking, but our goal is not censorship or vanity. It’s simply to live in a kind and just world. Hopefully this article does some good in helping achieve that end
5
The Democrats problem is they have too many ideas, and few plans to accomplish them, even less leaders to push them through, and next to no willingness to compromise.
For the left fringe is all or nothing. For AOC and her cohorts, is grand words with no clue about the reality of the situation. For the few remaining near the center, it’s a career ending mistake to try to find a compromise or a possible solution, they simply get booted out of office by people promising a paycheck for refusing to work.
How are they to get anything done, if they are at an all or nothing war with each other?
1
The Democrats’ rallying cry for the next election should be short, sweet, to the point, and sized to fit a bumper sticker.
I’d like to suggest this one: Make work pay again.
And then they need to live up to it. No need for excess complexity.
8
@pedigrees
Far too boring. "Lock Them Up!" is far better.
Agreed. Also, the US tax code is preposterously complex. Drastically simplifying the code by doing away with Byzantine deductions and formulas should have long been a Democratic priority, but Dems were near mum on this. In the vacuum, a big fat giveaway to the wealthy under the cloak of "tax reform" was enacted by the Republicans. I'm hoping that Democrats will give us true tax simplification - like exists in most of the world - along with a progressively increasing carbon tax that forces people to pay for the negative externalities (damage and costs forced on to others) of carbon emissions.
3
Professor Wu is in the right ballpark but seems to leave out a few lessons from Democratic Party history. The Party of FDR spoke to and made significant social progress/economic justice with, most notably enduring for now, Social Security and Medicare. It passed civil rights legislation, nominated and elected the first African-American president. However...under Bill Clinton the Party of FDR became the Party of Republican-Lite. "The era of big government is over," said President Clinton. Indeed, except for Wall Street and mass incarceration, etc.
That Party of Republican-lite endures in its current "leadership" of "centrists" and "moderates"...both self-proclaimed and media championed.
It's not complex language or policy that's the root of Mr. Wu's analysis. It's the failure of the Clinton-era Democratic Party to go beyond words to meaningful action/policy that ain't Republican-lite e.g. ACA, Iraq War, et.al.
Despite the huge current field, there are glimmers of hope that movement is gathering steam and support. The fact that the corporate media is already repeating some of its 2016 "sports" coverage of 2020 gives some proof that the "moderates"of the Republican-lite Party are nervous about losing their power as they hid behind "anybody but Trump".
Alexandra Ocasio Cortez doesn't have that problem. She cuts right to the chase with correct information (99% of the time- there was a blip when she first got out of the gate with one issue - can't remember what that was - only that there was something incorrect), she phrases things in respectful language and gets her point across.
5
The problem is the unWoke Pelosi Democrats, specifically the moderates. They appease all sides and that creates complexity. The policy details are then be rigged to favor the ultra-rich corporate class behind the scenes. Progress gets buried in those details that the media ignores and the public never reads.
Healthcare, for example, did nothing at all for our healthcare. Did nothing to raise the quality of outcomes up even one place from the very bottom of the industrialized world. Didn't even lower drug costs. Obamacare was a giveaway to the insurers, yet Democrats sell it as a big win for the People. No it wasn't.
As for the Republicans, they've already rigged everything in their favor. Their job is to obstruct, lay-low, get tax giveaway 2.0, lie to obscure the truth, and stay in power.
Ultra-rich global corporate interests - the status quo - are extremely well protected by the Democrats and Republicans working together representing the status quo.
The Progressives (aka the People's Representatives), are chipping away at the fake realities both parties use to protect their corporate masters and shield themselves from exposure.
But losing the message in policy detail never works.
Progressives need to out-Trump Trump. They need emotional appeals targeting the status quo - because even smart people are emotional.
Forget the inclusiveness, forget the moderates, instead create an enemy - the Ultra-Rich - and attack.
Otherwise Trump will win again.
7
The ultra rich didn’t get there by accident. When Mitt Romney was running for president there was an explanation published that he (and many others) were able to avoid taxes by not taking a salary and using special low or no tax privileges. Laws were written specifically for favored industries, the implication being that they would feed our politicians with huge donations in return.
4
@Fourteen14: You couldn't be more wrong. ObamaCare gave health insurance to many that didn't have it. It was the Trumpsters that prevented improvements in health care quality and lower drug prices, and they are not yet finished in destroying what's left... What the Progressives are doing is addressing real problems and exposing Trump's fake reality, like the wall, which is nothing more than racist policy for racists. The Ultra Rich are not the enemy, the enemy are the politicians that take PAC money, respond to lobbyists not the people and deregulate to benefit corporations so they can avoid checks and balances like with Boeing. Many Ultra-Rich will say they do not mind being taxes more. Trump will win again if the Dems are perceived as Robin Hood, steeling from the Ultra-Rich to give to the poor and if they try to out Trump Trump by using emotional appeal rather than common sense. As for status quo, give me the days of status quo anytime. Trump have brought us so far to the right I am sure the corporate interests can't believe what they can now get away with, all in the name of jobs and profit.
1
@DSS
Money in Politics is the jugular problem, everything else is a symptom. Fix that and you're 90% there.
You go after Money in Politics by attacking the source, the Ultra-Rich, dead on. They're the ones who stole our money and are stealing our future (literally with the tax giveaways). And they won't stop.
You need to cut the supply lines to the politicians and force them to see the light. If you do not cut-out the cancer, it will grow back.
"Money in Politics" by itself is not enough, too cerebral - the People need an enemy with faces and names and nefarious will to hate.
Only that emotion will break through their pack-of-lies deep programming that the status-quo is on their side. The status-quo exists only for the status-quo of the Ultra Rich.
They will start wars and kill thousands to get another pair of designer shoes. They deserve no mercy.
I don't think Tim Wu is advocating over-simplified solutions to inherently complex problems, as many comments seem to imply. The challenge, rather, is to frame any important issue in concepts and language that distills the issue and the solution in a way that most Americans can identify with and grasp. The simple communication needs to reflect the honest truth of the complex solution (no major "yes, but" and "except for" qualifications). As some have noted, this ideal representation is very difficult but not impossible to pull off within the give-and-take world of actual governance, laws and policies. But when we need to figure out where we want to go and whom we want to lead us politically - as in campaigns and in major policy initiatives - Wu's basic KISS principle is exactly right and should be indispensable.
4
The author buries a key takeaway: continual effort is needed to improve policies that can help everyday citizens.
Humans are less ingenious than we think we are. We must keep trying to improve, not just deliver a program and let users suffer through its jungle of problems.
And while it's true that dealing with the government can be complicated (the tax laws-- c'mon!) dealing with private corporations and financial institutions is just as gnarly and time consuming, with all the aggressive layers of non-access one encounters when addressing a problem. The constant barrage against government is largely an ideological, media-aided rant that began almost 40 years ago.
2
Dr. Wu is right (once again). We need simpler explanations for policies we propose, and we need to propose simpler policies. If you design the most beautiful system in the world and no one uses it, you have contributed nothing.
People don't understand means testing. They do understand health care and social security for all. They understand single payer.
Liberals, particularly the imagined 'Northeastern Liberal Establishment' have a reputation for talking down to people. Deserved or not (it's mostly hype, but some of it is deserved), progressives need to confront that reputation and put it to rest.
Or we could just keep yelling at people.
4
One of the reasons I really like Andrew Yang's UBI platform is that it is simple. Everyone 18-64 gets $1000 a month with no strings attached. It helps mitigate a wealth of issues (depression, drug use, crime, healthcare, education, childcare, poverty, debt, transportation, etc.) without instituting a myriad of programs that add regulation and bureaucracy. Everyone can understand it, and everyone can imagine what it would mean directly to them. Everyone gets taxed a bit more, but most people make out ahead with the check arriving each month.
The traditional technocratic solutions are complex and unrelatable to large tracts of the population. It's disheartening to see so much of the Democratic field embracing this complexity.
2
@ncarr
It's a good idea. Simple and direct and effective.
What's also good is that money would otherwise go to the military or corporate subsidies or tax giveaways for the ultra-rich.
Better that we should take it, after all, it's our money.
“Too often”, to borrow from the subheadline, the complexity of ‘progressive’ legislation (eg the ACA) arises from good-faith efforts to accommodate the often bad-faith amendments demanded by Republicans as the price for passage. Both to line the pockets of their preferred donors, who’s businesses stand to benefit from any subsidies, as well as to begin the process of using the resulting Rube-Goldberg complexity to demonize the legislation itself on the basis of ‘bureaucracy’ and the ‘regulatory state’ run amok.
In the case of the ACA, itself an accommodation to for-profit healthcare, how much simpler could things have been with either the public option or Medicare-for-all?
2
Here is a simple program for child-care. Decide on how much funding the country wants to make available. Decide on how to target it....kids under 6 maybe are budgeted at one level and kids 6 to 12 maybe some fraction of that level. Do the sixth grade algebra implicit here and then provide that funding to families with a refundable tax credit. Don't set up government day care facilities. Don't get involved in family decisions to work or stay at home. Don't bother trying to make it work "fairly" for California versus Idaho versus Mississippi.
3
There is a huge difference between "complicated" and "complex." Conservatives have learned how to confuse the two to their advantage. Democrats should not let them get away with it.
The uneducated masses, particularly the 38% who support Trump, are easily manipulated by language that complicates issues. Conservative leaders understand how to confuse people by creating these false but "catchy" narratives. At the same time, conservatives know how to distill issues that are complex concepts for most people to grasp into simple slogans.
This is how sociopaths operate. They use semantics, circular arguments, gaslighting, word salads to confuse and control.
Democrats need to understand HOW conservatives operate in this semantic world if they have any chance of fighting back.
4
@Misplaced Modifier
You admit that it is a minority (only 38%) that is attracted by Trump's snake-oil salesmanship. That doesn't elect a President. Also, we cannot and will not get an absolute majority (67%) voters to our side. So, we shouldn't fret over it. Not that we should not try to win them over but we cannot afford to be distracted by them. The one thing that we have to "manage" is the electoral college and the other thing that we must fight against is the Gerrymandering (by both parties). We always had the majority but we keep losing because we seem to appease the 38% more at the cost of losing the 62% (so called "moderation"). I gave up on the Democratic party not because I favor the Republicans but because the failure of the Democratic party to institute policies for public good no matter how many times they are bestowed with majorities in both houses of Congress. In other words, Democratic party has proven to be lacking honesty and candor. They "appear" to be progressive but only in words but not in action.
Straw man, much? The Affordable Care Act is NOT an example of a progressive policy. It was gestated in a conservative think tank, midwifed by a Republican governor, and presented to an uncomprehending public as a compromise that Republican politicians could support. Of course, not a single one did, and the party has spent nearly a decade sabotaging the law. But that’s because it was signed by a Democratic President. That doesn’t make it a progressive idea. Single payer healthcare IS a progressive idea and it’s remarkably simple.
7
@oldehamme
Yes.
Although my problem with single-payer is that it does nothing to fix the broken underlying system that literally kills (AMA statistics) 250,000 people per year with medical errors (including over 100,000 from pharmaceuticals correctly prescribed by MDs in a hospital setting).
Are you better off paying 20% less for a car that still does not run? Yes you are, but it's no reason to celebrate.
I feel really touched by most comments to this article. Beautiful postings of progressives explaining to each other how intelligent and sophisticated they are, together with warnings that many mere mortals might not rise to this level of complexity. I’m sure that after that regular voters will wipe a tear and vote straight Socialist.
4
@Gimme A. Break
Have you noticed that all the Scandinavian countries (plus Canada) are not falling over themselves to copy our system? Why is that? Maybe they just don't get it.
It's those in specialty professions like Wu who move complexities into territory where complexity doesn't naturally live. Progressive social domestic policy centers around what is ever present in human consciousness. One that can be defined quite simply: quality of life issues. This addresses our common humanity irregardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender. The morass of identity politics, which the Democratic Party inaugurated to be their guiding light taking the forefront over their traditional values and legacy, has served to divide rather than unify. Has confounded the entire human story and its conditions with trending enthusiasms that have sidelined what really matters to people. Adequate income for food, shelter, health care in a society that offers opportunity. That's not something so complicated to understand, America, is it?
1
Good piece Mr Wu. Suitably succinct and to the point.
Surely one problem with streamlining policy at the point of impact with the public comes from how utterly legalistic it all becomes in the hands of wonks and lawyers.
Then too there is the political imperative to placate every potentially important interest no matter the degree of elemental conflict with reason.
I am deeply skeptical that in our current chaotic and divisive political climate that that well honed, streamlined, and pragmatic policy for the seminal issues will see the light of day.
At last, someone who understands the rather simple idea that policies are not likely to be popular if no one understands them! You wouldn't think it would take a genius to figure that out, but apparently it does. Obama never understood it, since he kept offering policies so complex that the average American couldn't tell what they were about or for. I recall that at an event he arranged to publicize the Obamacare bill at the home of an "average American," the host asked him to explain the legislation because "a 2,000 page bill is a little hard for me to understand." People who work full time and have families to take care of don't have time to read a 2,000 page piece of legislation? Wow! What a shock!
Obamacare could have been very simple. Just expand Medicaid by removing income eligibility limits but requiring everyone over a certain income who wants to join to pay a premium based on income, with no one turned away for a preexisting condition. The expansion would be paid for by the federal government so states would not complain about another unfunded mandate. No exchanges, nothing for the individual to compare or figure out, just one program that pays for one menu of procedures with people paying what they can afford, which is nothing if they are below a certain income. What's wrong with that? Too simple? Apparently.
3
Nothing is simple if you feel you have to include the health insurance industry in whatever policy you put forward.
3
@The Dude How true! During the 2008 primary campaign Paul Krugman repeatedly wrote in this paper that one of Obama's trademarks was watering down his policy proposals to attract broader support for them, sometimes to the point that they no longer solved the problem they were aimed at. Surprise! As president that is exactly what he did. As to Obamacare, the practices of health insurers have created serious problems in our healthcare system, and there is no way to solve those problems so that both insurers and consumers will both be happy with the solutions. Obama's approach was to do something that made no one happy. Brilliant!
@Mrsfenwickd: Medicare for the elderly IS NOT based on income.....at least, not up until very high incomes. For almost everyone else it is the same -- Part A is "free" (*after 45 years of paying Medicare taxes for it) and Part B costs today $135 a month PER PERSON (thanks Obama, for raisin git from $104 -- a 30% increase!). There are copays for hospitals and ERs, but generally, it covers 80% of costs after that. Pretty simple.
I believe a BETTER system FOR ALL -- not just elderly -- would be one that taxes people 10% of income -- no matter how poor or rich you are. Earn $15K a year, pay $1500 but you are covered at 100% or very modest copays (like $10). Children would be free, an easy one because kids have virtually no medical bills beyond vaccinations.
It's not a complexity problem. It's a pedagogy problem. Elizabeth Warren can explain the nuts and bolts of complex financial policies and how they impact middle class lives in terms just about everyone can understand. Use her as an example and a model.
12
@Mrs.ArchStanton
She can, but that does not help - she's far down in the ranking (6%).
Good ideas without emotion (Hillary) will not motivate Turnout, but emotion without ideas (Trump) will.
Consider sitting through a presentation. 10 seconds after you don't remember a single word. But you remember the person and how they did for months after.
The iPhone interface is an apt comparison, and I've been using it for a while. Especially for taxes. Why isn't the IRS like Turbotax? (The answer, I suspect, is that Republicans don't want it to be. Complexity allows cheating by the rich and keeps the middle class angry at government.)
The Dems would do well to hammer the absurdities of American life. There's nothing confusing about people going broke to pay medical bills or the fact that moms can't take time off from work after having a baby. There's nothing confusing about corruption or the fact that large parts of the world could become uninhabitable if we don't stop polluting. Collapsing bridges and terrible airports speak for themselves. Filing taxes is a joke. None of this HAS to be this way. But it is. Which brings me to...
Dems should be more vigorous in attacking Republican do-nothings. You can be the do-something party and still be tough. It's not always about hope.
Republicans have an advantage because they've already figured out the secret of the iPhone interface: They can throw out some slogans about government being a problem, even as they work feverishly behind the scenes to sabotage government, with the support of numerous think tanks, bad faith political hacks, cable TV, and naughty billionaires. They can affect libertarian cool, even as they secretly throw millions of dollars and untold effort at poking holes in civil society, taking over the judicial branch and helping the donor class.
5
Mr. Wu makes very good points here. Eventually, after all things are considered the action that addresses them can and should be direct which is to say "simple". The negative income tax is precisely one of these simplifiers that will allow our experiment in democracy to move forward towards an array of problems that would be solved more easily with a united citizenry. We need new narratives to explain ourselves to ourselves.
Good column, Tim. Do I hear the first stirrings of reality in the progressive world? Sure hope so.
In my limited (thankfully!) experience with government here in the "City That Works," I have experienced public servants who (a) didn't know their own regulations and laws, (b) took an instinctive stance of what could only be called antagonism toward a taxpayer, and (c) loaded up extremely simple problems with "studies" that reached levels of complexity that only a Jesuit could appreciate. Result: paralysis, time wasted, and the dead-end search for "equity," which is a problem that even the best philosopher finds daunting. And our city council ain't a bunch of philosophers!
As the ancient philosopher said, "In all things, simplicity." Tell that to City Hall!
1
I believe what Professor Wu is describing -- well-designed evidence-based proposals (vetted/crafted by experts in their fields), sold effectively through skillful communication to win support, and negotiation with rivals/opposing factions to make solutions attainable, palatable and beneficial for all parties -- is what's known as 'leadership'. What the democrats require is real, actual leadership: not populism, not blind optimism, not scapegoating, not escapism, not elitism, what's needed is feet on the ground, grassroots mobilizing, inclusive, canny, clear-headed leadership. Leadership is understanding that what's most popular isn't always right/most beneficial, and that complex problems usually require complex and well-researched solutions; it is understanding how to communicate those well-researched solutions to create understanding on why they are the best proposals; it is also working with all interested parties (including rivals) to make them understand why that plan is best, or offering them tolerable compromises to build consensus. What the Dems are crying out for is leaders who can effectively take on all those tasks, and a lack of that kind of leadership is what has had us in such a predicament. As long as I can remember Dems have failed to effectively sell their progressive ideas or focus on a core message. We can only hope new leaders like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and AOC can rise to meet that challenge.
1
Wow the level of tone deaf in this column is simply amazing. Dr. Wu the reason that democrats and progressives more generally propose complicated programs is that they hoped that republicans might go along with them if they include a market based component. Progressives are generally ready to propose simple programs without this constraint. Given the level of compromise from republicans we are seeing progressives push for: single payer healthcare (easy to understand), child care (easy to understand) etc. I look forward to your next column about how single payer healthcare will be too disruptive even though its a simple concept.
4
@Bill smith This columnist doesn't appear to be anti-progressive. Go read his other columns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/oppression-majority.html
If anything, I think the "Medicare for all" policy proves his point. It's easy to understand and communicate, which may be why it's getting so popular so fast. Contrast with the marginal fiddles, tax credits and technocratic tinkering of the Clinton campaign.
Yes, the Democrats may have a complexity problem for people without a college education, and that is unfortunate in this epidemic of ignorance and stupidity that we are facing in our country .
The problem that one might want to pay a little bit more attention to right now is the honesty problem that Republicans have. It has become a party of liars and cheats .
Which problem would you rather address ???
1
It's 6 orders of magnitude more complex than the smartest progressive intellectual ever imagined. That's why there are no individuals only groups.
1
Donald Trump and the Republicans have provided simple, understandable solutions to practically all the problems currently facing mankind.These solutions create another set of more intractable and probably insolvable problems for the continuation of 'life as we know it' in the near future but in the long run we will not have to worry about it. Surely the Creator with the numberless galaxies ,perhaps universes and dimensions,has many other worlds inhabited with beings who do not simply create garbage, metaphorically and literally.
I've said for years that Republicans and conservatives in general see issues, international, domestic, social, and otherwise, in terms of black and white. Because, it is easier. Lower taxes, use force, put'em in jail. America First.
Progressives, liberals, and Democrats see the many shades of gray in the world, which is more difficult.
2
There is no reason why the message for 2020 from the Democrats need be any more complex than "beat Trump". That is priority #1 and all it requires is any reasonable candidate not named Hillary to succeed in that goal. Trump is very vulnerable and it is the Democrats alone who can turn a victory into defeat, and the sure way to do that is with an extreme socialist agenda.
1
Simplistic minds offering simplistic non-solutions to complex problems brought us (R)eagan, Bush the Lesser and VeryGoodBrain.
1
Tim, sorry but it's 2019 and despite Donald Trump's delusions, the world is nowhere near as simple as he or you imagine. To cite some examples:
• There's nothing inherently simple about health care policy. Even Trump eventually figured THAT out and admitted it!
• Or trade, as the President is learning the hard way, for example with China.
• Or foreign policy, as he's learning in dealing with Russia, NATO, North Korean, and the Middle East.
• Or climate change, where he's slowly learning that it's NOT a "Chinese hoax".
• Or securing the southern border, where Mexico will NOT be paying for a wall.
• Or immigration policy more broadly, where there's a whole mess of issues and tradeoffs to sort out.
• Or economic indicators, which require context and interpretation.
• Or tax and budget policy, where he may or may not have learned that deficits almost always DO matter.
• Or that legislating for gun safety doesn’t mean taking back guns from law abiding citizens.
• Or regarding abortion, that there’s many nuanced positions in between extreme pro-life and extreme pro-choice.
• Or that there’s both good and bad regulations, and that painting with too broad a brush about them doesn't accomplish anything.
4
The Republicans attacks on public education and intellectual rigor has made a whole section of the country averse to complex thinking and ideas. Don't blame the intellectual class for the intellectual laziness of the GOP/MAGA crew who think in words like bad and sad. Many issues of the modern world like climate change, and health care need sophisticated solutions. The knuckle draggers will not give society these solutions, but the expert class may.
2
"simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
da Vinci
1
The problem with simplifying is actually outright lying.
Let give an stellar example.
Trump during his campaign boasted that He is going to implement his own new health care program , It will be BETTER, CHEAPER AND COVER ALMOST EVERY AMERICAN.
He was so much dumb down in the audience even the late Alzheimer guy applauded him.
The only glitch about this simplification , it was a COLOSSAL LIE. There was never been any Health care plan neither in Trump head or GOP mastermind heads.
While simplifying the slogan don't fall in to outright lying.
P.S
A little white lie from Obama , he was trying to simplifying for audience too, You can keep your doctor.
Pythagoras
"tout n est pas a dire."
You cannot explain everything to everyone.
my addition to that wisdom
Not necessary either, omit some people all together.
They are hapless.
Any comment that begins "as a lifelong Democrat," will eventually reveal that its writer is a Republican concern troll.
Same with any comment that savages "leftists," "socialists," "identity politics," "Black Lives Matter," or, especially, "illegals."
The only interest these posters have in the Democratic Party is that it stays crippled, and that anybody smart, strong & bold is kept out.
2
So called complexity is often dissimulation for self-contradictory policies that ordinary voters can see right through. Take open borders, for instance. We are told brightly that we can take in millions of immigrants a year. OK, that's great. Now where are we going to build millions of housing units per year for these new Americans? And the instant response will be that we will build nothing, that urban sprawl is evil, that we will instead impose a carbon tax to make sure that no infrastructure is built. And if anyone suggests that there is a contradiction here, the tried and true response is that anyone seeing a problem is just a stupid Nazi racist hate criminal. Blahblahblah repeat ad infinitum. Voters can see right through you.
3
As a biomedical scientist who for decades has been required to also write abstracts and summaries of my work in lay language for the NIH and for community members, I found that describing the purpose and the approach of the research in a language that my mother (not a scientist) or a middle-school student could understand was an approach that worked. It is never a pretentious dumbing-down, and it actually serves to make me better understand my work in the larger scheme of things. Every Democratic candidate should have such a person on their team to convey how their proposal will benefit the individual person, no matter their background. Mario Cuomo was expert at this in explaining a problem to his mother ("Ma") and what he was going to do about it.
2
H. L. Mencken observed: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." Today's problems a exceedingly complex (in part because we have only tried to address them with simple "bumper sticker" solutions). Trump is in office today in part because he promised simple solutions to problems without understanding their complexity - and many of his supporters, not understanding the complexity, greedily soak in the simple solutions. How's that going for us? The Establishment Democrats over the past 35 years have been guilty of the simple solution fallacy, though not nearly to the degree that the GOP has embraced it. As our citizenry become more poorly educated year after year, only simple solutions will attract them, and, as Mencken pointed out, they will be wrong.
4
As someone who writes technical financial reports ranging from 50 to 1,600 pages, I agree wholeheartedly. Right now I am reading a proposed task order format that is 30 pages long in 10 point font for engaging a consultant for a routine job. For the past 20 years we have used a simple 1 page email, "Here is the job. Give me the time for completion and the cost." A professional is someone who can solve complex problems. An expert is someone who can explain the solution clearly enough that a non-professional can understand.
2
the real problem is not the complexity, but turning the solution over to a box of cats who pretend to know how to solve problems.
1
Here's what should be in a basic plan in any health care system:
1) the health care companies cannot deny you for pre-existing conditions
2) coverage is portable; you don't have to clutch onto your job in a bad or unhealthy employment situation
3) there are no lifetime limits in coverage
4) maximum out-of-pocket/deductible costs are limited to a percentage, say 5-10%, or your total income
5) reduce drug costs in any number of ways
This is paid for by:
1) a wealth tax
2) estate tax (50%+) on anything over a certain cutoff (say $5 million per individual)
3) trading tax - a low charge on each individual trade which adds up to a tidy sum of taxes
4) administrative savings by cutting current administrative costs (around 18%) to costs closer to Medicare (3-5%)
If the last item requires single payer then so be it. If there needs to be a market place for non-insured people in lowly populated areas, then open one up.
It always seemed to this observer is that the ACA should have covered the four points first, and the arguments could have made easily to support it. This doesn't have to be complicated. Use the Swiss model or other modles (Great Britain or Canada). The country is ripe for a healthy change in this area. The protests prior to the 2018 mid-terms, and the election results, prove this.
3
@Srose
I am not averse to single payer, but am sceptical about how advocates of it skip over the problems of how we move from present mixed system to full single payer. A majority of Americans like their present private insurance. What happens to present health insurance companies some of which are commendable? Are they in some way compensated? Your list of how we pay for it is the usual one, soak the rich, but we will already be soaking them for free college tuition, for livable incomes for all (even those unwilling to work), for climate change mega projects, reparations to descendants of former slaves. Confusion is the next door neighbor of complexity.
To Tim . . .
Your experience with computer interfaces and handset controllers certainly must date from the early days of Apple. Have you tried to use the latest versions of the Apple OS on your handheld or desktop devices, let alone the controller for Apple TV? They are not in the least intuitive or easy to use and instructions are not provided.
If you are not familiar with Robert Reich and his ability to make the complex simple and understandable, you should be. Perhaps Progressives should run their policies by him before they run them out.
I also think that there are many policies put in place by people like insurance companies that deliberately make it as difficult as possible for people to understand. That means that people making claims cannot either do it right (according the insurance companies) or at all. Or if they do manage to navigate the system and make a claim, the company employees do not understand the process and refuse claims, etc.
I agree with you that simplicity is devoutly to be wished for, but you need to tell me, a person with Medicare insurance which works well and understandably, exactly what is complicated about "Medicare for All". The money saved in not having to deal with the complexities of current health insurance would probably cover the conversion cost.
1
Kudos, professor Wu for this essential knowledge needed by our progressive leaders. It seems though that they are doing what you are professing because public has endorsed higher taxation on the wealthy. But managing environment, climate change, universal health care, banking, etc. do need careful modulation and simplicity in formulation of policies and their implementation.
One essential policy change should be to convert tax deductions and tax credits to fully refundable rebates which means all citizens will benefit fully and equally irrespective of their income and tax liability. Currently, this financial incentive, tax deduction and tax credit, benefits the rich and wealthy only. MOST of the public doesn't benefit at all because their income is low. This change not only makes the financial incentive equitable but also accomplishes the desired change in the shortest time.
"In recent decades progressives have not prioritized making policies and programs easy for most Americans to understand, use and benefit from. " While the term Kafkaesqe may be hyperbole there is also need for a term to describe the frustrations many elderly, less educated or otherwise low tech folks encounter using government online platforms which should be simple to use. I find it interesting that so many comments miss the author's point about usability of programs and focus on the programs themselves demonstrating both arrogance and irony.
"Avoidance of complexity and minimizing choices are hallmarks of good design, as we have learned from the technological revolution in user interfaces."
Someone has to design simplicity and minimize choice. That moves the power of decision from the user to the designer. Wu's technocratic perspective is that the smart people should decide what would be best for the simple people and offer it in a sugar-coated package that disguises where the power lies, which is what the social media industry has done. Politically, it ignores the immense resentment, suspicion and fear of technocrats by the simple folks at both ends of the political spectrun.
2
Republicans have always been better at branding and sloganeering than Democrats. Medicare for all? No. We're going to build a new health care system and make the country clubbers pay for it.
So, what would be YOUR simplified plan for health care? OR if you think we should keep ACA, then how do we tweek it, or find simpler ways to explain how it currently works?
(or how do we tweek it and then explain it WILL work?)
1
Message to Democratic Party
Find a symbol, like Trump's Wall, and run on it.
Of course, the symbol would not be a wall but a symbol of the principles this country was founded upon.
Trump's Wall is a powerful symbol his followers identify with. A wall to stop their own basest fears. A projection onto a concrete object.
The Dems need to find an anti-wall symbol. A symbol of hope.
4
Great article, and much needed! Just starting a legislative process with simplicity in mind would be a good start.
1
The simplest technologies tend to be web applications whose developers and operators can iterate daily to optimize key performance indicators. Behind the scenes, modern web applications are built as a collection of interoperable micro-services run by small teams with autonomy to quickly make changes, not as monolithic solutions designed by committee. Without an easy way to iterate based on user feedback, it’s unlikely that government will be able to replicate the simplicity of private sector solutions.
Affordable Care is a bad example to use. Much of its complexity comes from the Democrats trying to address the public's need for access to health care while appeasing the private health insurance industry. As experience has shown, these are, to a large degree, conflicting goals. Medicare and Social Security seem less complex because from the start they head only one goal: to use government to address social needs. The internal mechanics of Medicare and Soc Secy are very complex, but the outward presentation is clear. Perhaps the real lesson to be drawn is that third way market oriented approaches to policy are doomed to complex messaging because they are built on the internet conflict between commercial profitability and public good.
2
Part of the problem is this: in our current American ‘winner-takes-all’ version of capitalism, complexity makes money. Both public and private. Grifters and immoral corporate accountants take advantage of the absurd complexity of the tax code to evade taxes. Healthcare providers make their plans and policies so complex to disguise fraudulent denial of services and claims. Financial instruments have become ridiculously complex so that insiders (and designers of such instruments) can defraud unsuspecting individual investors. Tech/product support departments make their computerized call systems complex and unreliable, so we finally throw up our hands in defeat. And don’t even get me started on utility bills....
Until Americans decide to return to bedrock principles, like an honest dollar for an honest day’s work, we will be drowning in complexity; perpetrated by those who’s primary motivation is gaming the system, their customers, their constituents, and their fellow citizens...
Right now, they clearly have the upper hand.
2
In my former career I was often responsible for developing, writing, and implementing organizational policies. This was not an easy task considering the often conflicting demands of management. What I found was that the most successful policies were not necessarily those that were easily understood in terms of procedures, but those that actually achieved the results that were sought. Even if people didn’t necessarily understand how their required actions affected the outcomes they did know if the outcomes were met, and this reinforced adherence to the policies.
I don’t buy it. The solutions may be complex but the problems are pretty obvious. These are: income and employment insecurity, lack of affordable health care and drugs, education, crumbling infrastructure, and polluted air and water. Republicans haven’t solved ANY problems facing the vast majority of Americans. They have exacerbated them. Democrats (progressives) need to show the public that they understand these problems and will take action to address them - by challenging corporate power and by progressive and fair tax policy. The public has forgotten that Progressives have done this in the past and it has worked.
Well the obvious observation over my lifetime is that one party and one party alone has worked to defund, deconstruct, water down and ultimately "privatize" education. This party has been playing a very long game. They have recently openly claimed to "love" the uneducated through their megamouth president. What's "love" got to do with it? They do indeed "love" the reverse robin hood economic policies they've been able to foist on the country in part because of this "love". My understanding of "love" is that it is an act. Looking closely at the actions that republicans use to "love" the uneducated are so utterly without "love" as to be laughable and yet the uneducated feel very "loved" in this environment. These uneducated have had the space which would normally be for "love" filled in with other feelings which give them the same rush and in concert an intense feeling of belonging. Racism. Misogyny. Nationalism and yes, Guns. This is what they "love". Education is the only way to re train these people to "love" in a healthy way in society. Until then, keep an eye on them, they"ll "love" you to death.
2
There is a funny segment on Seth MacFarlane's 'Family Guy' in which Lois is running for office on bold plan's for the town. After unsuccessfully explaining her platform at a town hall, Brian (the dog) implores her to just say 'Jesus' and '9/11' over and over again. The crowd cheers.
This is where we are in our current reality.
3
@Bryan Nailed it!
Some real-life examples of complexity bewildering people might help. Here is a fictional but realistic example of the kind of conversation you could have about the ACA while doing volunteer tax prep:
"It looks like you have 3 W-2s"
"Yeah, this is my job, that's my old job and this is my part time job."
... [later]
"You can get a bigger refund if you have health insurance so lets look at that. This form says you had Medicaid until July."
"Oh, I still have Medicaid."
"Are you sure? The form says you don't."
"Why wouldn't I have it any more?"
"If you earn too much you are no longer eligible so that is probably be the reason based on these W-2s."
"Why would they punish me for having 2 jobs?"
"There are other options. You can probably get insurance through your employer."
"For how much?"
"They should have sent a form and it will say the cost per month."
"I don't know, maybe they did but I don't have it. When can I sign up?"
"In the open enrollment period."
"When is that?"
"I don't know, probably in 8 months or so."
1
@Steve: the individual is cheating the system. Medicaid is for the destitute, not people with TWO jobs. The maximum you can earn is only $16,700 -- so it easy scarily easy to earn too much and get kicked out and then OWE THE IRS the cost of your Medicaid in the months you earned too much!
I was almost sold ACA insurance that was a bit less expensive BUT there was a huge risk that I might not earn little enough and then I would have to REPAY THE ENTIRE SUBSIDY!!!! that could be thousands of dollars!
And think about it: who would WILLINGLY give up 100% FREE Medicaid for a lousy ACA policy that covers nothing and has HIGH DEDUCTIBLES?
1
"Keep it simple stupid" is a nice phrase. I'm not sure it makes sense in a public policy arena. Our world is complex as the author points out. Leaving out the details of a policy proposal leads to distrust once a voter finds out there were unmentioned costs that offset the promised simple benefits.
1
Often, the lack of clear expression arises from the lack of clear thinking. Credentialed "experts" are not immune.
2
The dumbing of America continues.
No, Democrats don't have a complexity problem in explaining policy.
Americans have an education problem.
5
@Mike: Agreed.But poets, politicians, propagandists, and pundits have always struggled to find a better word or phrase. The Catholic Church formed its office of Propaganda Fidei. Trump just lies, and Fox is his megaphone.
1
A complex way of saying “we are smart, you are not.”
3
Hmm... I see where the author is coming from but I detect a whiff of "It's not a bad idea, you are just too dumb to understand." If one was to look up "East Coast Ivory Tower Condescending Liberal Cliche" you might find this article. "If only you weren't so ignorant, you would realize I'm right" doesn't strike me as a valid logical argument. Rather, it seems like a way of dismissing legitimate criticism using the tried and true playground method "Oh yeah?! Well you are a dummy head!"
1
Of course politicians should always favor simplicity over complexity, but it’s not a lack of comprehension that scares people away from many progressive policies, it’s a recognition of their cost and impracticality.
Nobody wants to get in a boat that won't float.
sorry, Wu.
Americans get it.
Just not you.
want help? forget it.
1
@Aunty W Bush: James Inhofe and his snowball? Seriously? Creationists?
Complexity in governance has a non-linear relationship to population, technology growth and the resulting ever-growing myriad ways people can interact with one another.
When I was born in 1949 no one fretted over net neutrality, electronic technology impinging on personal privacy, or the regulation of hedge funds driven by sub-second trades. I'm sure many can add to this short list of examples.
Technology, and numbers of people using it, results in an explosion of situations where some government policy or regulation becomes necessary for the common good. The more complex the target of policies become, the policies themselves become more complex, and yes, unwieldy and arcane to those not directly involved or lacking an understanding of the issues.
The conservative right mines this natural and unavoidable situation like a gold field. AOC's New Green Deal is instantly reduced to "cow farts." Complex policy would be much easier to comprehend if we didn't have the Koch Bros. funded fifth column saboteurs in our midst.
"Stupid is what stupid does."
Why is it "arrogant" and being an "elitist" to be educated and knowledgeable on the issues? I don't care if the best solution is labeled "socialist" by Fox News and conservative media - I just care that it works. And having a person with a little humility and humanity in the White House would be nice too...
Oh, gee. Dummy America can’t understand? I don’t believe that. At least, not completely.
2
Nope. America has an idiocy problem.
1
What part of “Medicare for All,” “rich people must pay taxes,” and “burning fossil fuels screws up the environment” can’t Americans understand?
3
Three comments for Professor Wu:
The first is complexity is often necessary to force people to do something. Making people to do anything creates resistance and democratic policies are high on regulation to penalize and block activities they don't like.
Second, progressives have assumed the mantle of our moral-betters, and hence see any opposition to their plans as illegitimate no matter how ridiculous they may be on the face of it (Green New Deal). You can't have a conversation with someone who sees you as morally and intellectually inferior.
Thirdly, there exists, as shown in the comments section, a fanatical fiction that conservative media on the right is screwing things up. That impulse to suppress speech, to block ideas and force everyone into a CNN/MSNBC/NYT world view is the ultimate reason progressives have a problem translating policies into support on the ground.
2
Wait! Are you saying Americans are stupid?
1
This is an extremely important concept, which Dems and the left need to internalize. A “simple” message is more effective than a “complex” message. A “simple” argument is not the same as a “simplistic” argument.
Also, being on offense typically wins out over defense. Hammering home your most basic message, and not your secondary or tertiary point, is most effective.
There is never an issue where the solution is “too obvious” and that there is no reason to “make the case.” Or where making it in a straight-forward manner should give way to making it in a sarcastic, ironic or otherwise condescending manner.
Not following these basics leaves the field open for Republicans to do what they do best: Find a dishonest but simple slogan to put a shine on the damage they've done, and to demonize Dems.
E.g. “Global warming is real and must be addressed and we can simultaneously have an economic boom, including in rural America. When my Republican opponent trivializes this issue by talking about cow flatulence s/he is ignoring the reality of floods, winter tornadoes, wildfires and hurricanes that are devastating the lives of more and more Americans and their children.”
2
Right....we're all too stupid to understand you Mr. Wu. Exactly the attitude that got Trump elected. What a bunch of fatuous nonsense. Just keep on denigrating the intelligence of the American electorate and see where that gets you in 2020......
3
So what you’re saying is that it needs to be dumbed down for the Trump voters to understand because they are stupid?
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
- George Carlin
2
“Fixing this problem will mean overcoming a streak of perfectionism and a certain intellectual defensiveness, but it must be done if progressives are to make government popular again.”
Let us work to fix this sentence.
‘Fixing this problem means overcoming a streak of immaturity and a certain intellectual incompetence, but it must be done if narcissists are to stop screwing up politics.’
Not perfect but better now.
LOL Mr. Wu. Who declared you an "expert"? Expert at what?
Telling other people how to run their lives? The Wizard of Oz gave you a diploma?
2
There is another way complexity hurts. Krugman has called the ACA a 3 legged stool. but actually it is a hundred legged centipede. This leaves it vulnerable to the cutting off of many legs, one at a time which the Republicans are only too happt to do.
2
This opinion piece is making it too complex...all Democrats want is someone who will beat Trump. Policies be damned...end of story. And, I'm with them!
When Donald Trump denies saying something even after the video of him saying it clearly shows that he said it a sizable number of his supporters will deny the reality of what is right there to be seen; and they will agree with him.
There is no complexity problem with these people; or with most right leaning people for that matter. There is a denial problem. The denial problem is reinforced by a media that is hostile to progressive ideas. Examples include media's repetition that OCA proposes a 70% income tax rate - when she has proposed the rate only on incomes over $10 million dollars; and, media's repetition that Elizabeth Warren proposes a wealth tax - while omitting the fact that the tax would only be applied to assets over $50 million.
Americans believe what they want to believe facts be damned. Media feeds Americans a narrative that will support the facts that they want.
2
Right ... it's not that my policies are stupid ... its that you are are too stupid to understand them. Right.
3
“Avoidance of complexity and minimizing choices are hallmarks of good design,” well-meaning for your reader, is a mantra. It can mislead. Consider, let’s begin by simply defining “complicated” and “complex,” since very few policies, “simple” perhaps in dimensions, are going to be simply followed. Abided by. “Complicated” is simply the reality in which whatever I begin with is what I continue and end up with, even as contexts and realities change. A screw for a 747 toy is still a screw; whatever its changed dimensions for a real “complex” 747. In the complex changes as a caterpillar transmutes into a butterfly, I could not determine/predict that what I started with would end as, or what I ended up with, began as! When worded policy determines the legality, devoid of scientific-consensualized-“evidence”-as belief but not as TRUTH- that fetal heart beat is LIFE, and a fetus is a PERSON, whether these statements represent complicated or complex states is irrelevant. And their pro’s and con’s, barriered from needed dialogues, are not engaged in efforts to know the knowable. Or to understand, the created, “homogenized,” dehumanized -“the-other;”infected as a WE-THEY toxic entity. Suckled on CERTITUDE! WE’s-THEY’s change roles and states-of-Being and BE coming. At interacting times and contexts of complications and complexities! Lots of words; so different from wordless, expressed, menschlich-norms.Values.Ethics.Policy or human accountability? Is to “abide” or not simplifiable?
Actually, when it comes to those "bread and butter" issues that are most important to Americans such as healthcare, minimum wage, getting money out of politics, etc. etc., I am afraid Mr Wu is off the mark.
It is not progressives, democrats or anyone else that is making the understanding of the issues complicated, it is the lobbyists! The issue of healthcare is the perfect case in point. While the rest of the developed world has moved on and with them there are plenty of examples from which to derive a solution, Americans continue to haggle about healthcare and they have been doing it since Harry Truman was President! The healthcare industry is now the NUMBER ONE lobbyist by dollar amount in Washington and they certainly aren't spending those billions out of the goodness of their heart.
The "status quo" continues to be the goal of the establishment and corporations who do not want to see the changes that would be required to implement a fairer America and they will say and do whatever is necessary to keep it that way. Once and for all, Americans must wade through the constant barrage of fear mongering and propaganda coming from these groups and vote for those that are not influenced by the corporate money that determines the "bought and paid for" politician who ultimately will do nothing.
2
....Mr. Wu makes a good point - the majority of Americans don't understand the intricacies of most policies...like ACA, the Green Deal, Glass-Stegall, etc. Politicians tend to provide sound bites which suit their needs or platform. It's not only Democrats, but everyone...most voters have only a superficial understanding of policy...and rightly so - it's complicated, or in some cases, poorly written.
The Democrats need not worry...one Joe Biden will be tossing his hat into the ring...and if he tosses Stacy Abrams' in with his, you have the next President of the United States.
Americans don't need to understand - it won't make much of a difference.
Joe is from the old guard...business as usual....however, after 4 volcanic years of Donald Trump, I think America could use a little peace and quiet.
2
It seems that Democrats mistake their ideas for plans, and that Republicans mistake their plans for ideas. Unfortunately for the Democrats, a lot of people prefer plans to ideas. The issue is not the complexity of the idea, but the clarity of the implementation.
3
If it is not elegant and accessible to all--not worth the time. But whenever a party tells you its principal concern is about the welfare of the polis, it really means it wants control over the lives of the citizens--true today, true 3,000 years ago--e.g., Cortez et al.
3
Tim Wu cherry-picks complex progressive programs, even while he acknowledges that "some challenges... are irreducibly complex." He leaves out simple proposals like free college tuition, or "Medicare for all".
If a progressive suggested regulating Wall Street, that could be a simple slogan, but Wu might point out that the program itself would be complicated. But would it be more complicated that the unregulated operations that the bankers themselves don't even understand?
And, Wu doesn't mention the competition, who, rather than pay any attention to real problems and solutions, just yells "build a wall" louder and louder. Any serious public policy proposal is going to look complicated, if the alternative is an empty slogan.
1
Government almost always make things more complex but more than that they almost always make things more expensive. "Health care" and college are the two that come to mind. I can usually pay cash at about 25% of the cost of what is billed out to the insurance. Some middleman is taking a huge cut or it just cost too much having staff to bill out insurance. The biggest problem with the ACA is it is not affordable for the middle class and free for lower income.
The problem with progressives is they need to get the arguments back to the reality of everyday life for the working men and woman. Bread and butter. Employers are not evil. There isn't an endless supply of "free" things to give away from employers or the government. There is always a cost. Personal responsibility versus the victim mentality etc. The priorities of the left are all screwed up and this move further left will be their downfall. This pie in the sky stuff has got to go.
How soon people forget "It's the economy stupid"
Life is hard work. No buts about it.
1
I'm a Licensed Mental Health Counselor in agency and private practice in Rhode Island. I've been around for a long time and have worked across the Mental/Industrial complex for years.
Lets use Behavioral Health as a test case!
How about if we get working groups of providers of Behavioral Health services, consumers of those services, and payers for those services together in a room in each state and come up with AN ACTUAL CONTINUUM OF CARE based on what the consumer's needs are. Limit the explanation to 500 words and the actual practice guideline to 1500 words.
I am sure it can be done AND it could serve as an example of how to simplify and be more effective... I'm not from the government and I'm willing to help...
2
@Gerry C...
Talking about it an coming up with a serious plans and a continuum for coordinated care sure beats just throwing more money at the problem !
1
@The Owl
Spot on Owl, I'm sure the savings would be substantial, and the quality would go way up! It's proven by every integration experiment in the field...
Its absolutely true that its harder to design a good policy than take one apart. As Sam Rayburn once said, any jackass can kick down a barn door, but it takes a carpenter to build one. It is not that difficult to explain progressive policies: living wages, decent and affordable housing, accessible and reliable health care, food security. If that's socialism, well, a majority of the U.S. population is all for it. We don't need more experts. We need better, clearer, more direct messages delivered by appealing people (i.e., our neighbors, family members, and friends) over and over and over again.
2
Its very complex due to the addition of the internet and cable media. Problem is, no matter what your facts are to explain things the "others" will be able to find their "facts' that support their position. We now have a situation where anyone can find their own"facts" to justify any position they choose. Also, the attention span is very short, maybe 30 seconds. Build a wall is easy to grasp whereas the explanations of asylum seekers versus illegals, the entrance of drugs via ports of entry, the actual decrease in illegal entry etc, all too much info . regardless of truth.
Sorry, they're not too difficult for Americans to understand. They are the convoluted torturing of reason that they are because they're ideologically extreme solutions in search of a problem.
3
Increasing ignorance and decreasing attention span make Republican chants that much appealing and comprehensible -- "drill, baby, drill," "building a wall," etc. Not everything can be boiled down to three or four phrases but Democrats do need to work on their messaging. It's often misleading or confusing or both. I propose they make a pie chart. Most people like pies and they understand how pies get sliced. Make a pie chart of government spending so we have a visual understanding where our money goes. Make a pie chart of healthcare coverage so that people understand that more people than it seems are covered by government sponsored plans. Make a pie chart of the breakdown of healthcare cost of commercial plans vs. Medicare. Etc. Pictures often speak more clearly than bunch of words. But then again, we are living in the age of negotiable truth and facts. That may be real problem, not complexity of ideas.
1
To be sure, no-one really wants to sit through an endless debate on the complexities of health insurance, or work through the finer points of tax law. But, this article just seems to be a plea for technocrats with a flare for talking down to the ignorant masses. Avoidance of complexity and minimizing choices in a world of myriad complexity and infinite options just means empowering someone else to do all the choosing. Obviously, the majority of the electorate isn't going to have much patience for detailed explanations of social issues and their solutions, but the alternative would seem to be a Reaganesque moral (read "emotional") politics -- inspiring perhaps, but more ignorant armies than engaged citizens.
I completely disagree with this article. But nice try.
2
While the focus of a lot of comments is on ACA and Medicare and health care in general, the real subject is what people who are voters want to deal with.
Prime example? Trump strutting around a campaign stage, bellowing and winking and implying, no facts needed. Laughing when his largest crowds ever chant "Jail her now!"
Versus Hillary, who physically is much smaller and less "impressive", using .... facts.
And you can't just say they'll get to keep their doctor or that we'll save the climate in 12.65 years.
It is indeed a very complicated world for people to deal with. It was in 1965, but news printed on paper was a primary source of information and facts. Snail mail was fast enough.
And we have seen that the majority of people in those rural red states wanted someone like Trump to take them back to Andy of Mayberry.
@jhanzel Saving the planet isn’t a policy. An example of policy is your gas will cost X more per gallon as a result of a tax to reduce gas consumption. That’s not complicated.
1
"Too often, progressive policies are difficult for Americans to understand, use and benefit from." I agree. For years a gave a current events quiz to my freshmen as they began their soc101 class IN A COLLEGE. Typically they all knew the answers to the "nonsense" questions like "name a celebrity whose last name begins with the letter K." One year 37 out of 40 could not name the vice president but 39 out of 40 knew who Tom Brady was. Checkout the Jimmy Kimmel man on the street interviews regarding Obamacare / Affordable Care Act, it's on you tube. Frightening. And these people can vote.
1
@John Locke...
Note that the Democrats are also suggesting lowering the voting age to 16...an age when the individual is not even believed to be capable of entering into a valid contract on his own.
1
@The Owl: Which Democrats? Not "The Democrats."
@The Owl As a very liberal Democrat I'd agree that lowering the voting age to 16 is not a wise thing to do. There are many wise 16 year olds but in general not so much.
Let's see..."You can keep your doctor, your health care pland and save $2500 a year." That seemed effortlessly simple at the time...Pure sophistry now. Much the same as Mr. Wu and his Progressive solutions for us all...Better packaging for the (ever ironic) future!
4
Mr. Wu, are you saying that Americans are stupid? Or just that the average American voter is not motivated enough to educate himself about the issues - to be informed as democracy requires?
1
Here's an example of an easy message:
Dear Naive and Ignorant Voters:
Big government "waste" = FEMA. No more FEMA.
Sorry about your flooded house.
Love,
the GOP
4
A remarkable assertion that Progressives fail because their policies are simply too smart for the average American idiot to understand. I would be happy to debate any Progressives on the pitfalls of Medicare for all - $30T, income for non workers - institutional welfare?, 70% income taxes - etc.
3
Social Security and Medicare are not easy to understand! The author is delusional.
1
Some advice to Democrats running for president... Dumb it down and stay away from lame slogans like, 'I'm with her'.
Geez! Even the replies to this column are long and complex.If you can’t say what that policy is about in 5 words or less you don’t really understand it yourself.
Au contraire. It isn't difficult to understand. We want things- expect things then refuse to comprehend who we get them. That is called Stupidity.
2
The American public has a stupidity problem.
1
You're right. Democrats should make things simpler for the MAGA-hatted morons who support Donald Trump. Maybe then they'll stop voting against their own interests for a GOP that caters to the rich and doesn't give a hoot for the problems of the working poor.
1
Actually large majorities of the american people approve of issues intoned by progressive dems, quite the contrast from Mr. Wu. What they have rejected is "more of $ame" of past 16 years lies leading to wars, war crimes, destabilization of entire Middle-East (Gen. Powell-"You break it, you bought it"), millions dead, millions refugeed, Wall $treet fraud$ still destroying U.S. economics.
It is Wall $treet and their mainstream media acolytes who wish sow "confusion" rather than clarify proposals and their costs, relative to "more of $ame" voters have already rejected, electing trump. That trump never intended more than expand his own "brand", allows ever more corruption-influence of "the people's" representative democratic process with $$$$.
1
True enough. We’re a country of sheep, easily swayed by propaganda. We invaded a country for an attack carried out by people from another country (incidentally, our “allies”)....all because we lusted after “revenge” for having our noses bloodied.
The same idiots who brought us that war runs on these messages:
“Brown people are scary”
“Poor people are bad and lazy”
“Foreign people take your jobs”
“Taxes are just stealing your money to give to brown, poor and foreign people”
That was the party of Reagan. Bush updated the message by adding a figure who consolidates “brown, poor, and foreign” into a convenient target, spiced up with religious fanaticism.
And now we see where all this has gotten us.
Ironic that another article in the NYT today is on the dams Missouri River not being built for global warming altered rates of water drainage..... Maybe all those red states it flows through might start to wonder, “hey, why have we ignored this for 40 years???”
But hey, let’s keep America “great”, right?
Yes, that must be it.
Americans are too stupid to understand you, with your complex ideas and all.
Reminds me of the Senator from Hawaii claiming Democrats’ biggest problem is they are too smart and nobody understands them.
You claim to be smarter than everyone else, then hop in line behind someone like AOC - and you don’t see the irony.
7
What an argument by the author. People are just too dumb to understand. Talk about elitist. That’s the dictionary definition.
6
@Shamrock...
People are too stupid to understand what's being sold to them?
Jonathan Gruber used that as an essential element in his proposal for what we now know as Obamacare.
Sadly for our nation, he was right.
1
I don't think the Democrats understand that their promoting of AOC, Elizbeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders is a script for failure.
A vote for Trump is becoming the Anti-AOC vote and it seems to be getting a lot of traction across the country. It's time to bury the girl in some back room and hope she loses her seat in 2020.
Pelosi seems to get it. Her absolute dismissal of de Blasio and his potential Presidential run was spot on. Either get behind Biden or forget the White House is what I am hearing from Pelosi. I think she has understands National politics in the US.
2
Progressives don't have a complexity problem, they have a messaging problem. The ACA is a good example of poor messaging and not being proactive about the law's benefits in the early years. This allowed Rs to shape the narrative with wildly inaccurate information like "death panels". The ACA guarantees that healthcare is a right of citizenship. It greatly expands coverage through state exchanged and Medicaid expansion. Most importantly, the law provides protections that did not exist before - no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime caps on coverage, and 10 essential benefits that have to be in all plans. I
don't think this is difficult to understand. It has just not been communicated effectively and consistently, something Rs are better at than progressives.
OK...except that the Affordable Care Act was complex because (1) all those ins and outs were necessary to get enough votes to pass it in Congress; and (2) the health care system is enormously complicated. Thus, "Medicare for All" is a great slogan until someone asks, "I like my plan. Can I keep my plan? I like my doctor. Can I keep my doctor?"
1
"For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, clear and wrong."
2
This is yet another example of feel good positive thinking from a progressive liberal. The professor tries to sweep real problems under the rug rather than face them. There is nothing, he assures us, wrong with progressive policies. The only problem is with the design (it hardly comes as a surprise that the term is currently very much in vogue). Progressivism is alive and well and still offers “bold and interesting” policy ideas. The author cannot say that these ideas are new because they are not. Obviously, he does not see anything wrong with old and tired policy ideas; they just have to have a simpler design. There may be a compelling reason why the design of these “bold and interesting” policies is so complex. Progressivism clearly has a problem with the principle of parsimony, or the old rule “don’t multiply hypothesis” advocated by William of Occam back in the Middle Ages. Using the author’s logic, one could say that there was nothing wrong with the old Ptolemaic geocentric theory of the universe: it just needed a simpler design.
The problem with geocentrism was not its design. It was just plain wrong and we abandoned it. Its premise was the reason for the excessive complexity of epicycles, not failures of design. The author may want to examine this possibility before trying to deny progressivism's obsolescence by trivializing the real, new and very difficult problems that we face.
2
It is not a complexity problem - it is a common sense problem - people understand that there is no hidden pot of money hiding anywhere because they possess common sense.
and that
all 'Progressive' [read socialist] policies cost money and
that socialists rapidly run out of 'other people' to confiscate money from.
And inevitably the 'middle class' ends up paying for these notionally 'free' social programs.
Case in point - the only way ACA works is if everyone signs up - they didn't and they won't. Part deux - the New Green Whatever only works if there are carbon taxes - not the term taxes - someone pays these taxes and it won't be corporations. Lasly a 'wealth' tax will increase tax receipts by less than 1% as calculated bu the Economist magazine - so guess where the additional tax revenue will come from?
2
@SteveRR...
What middle class?
Carter's stagflation did a good job at eviscerating it.
Economic, social, and trade policies since the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s did the rest.
The middle class of today is mere shadow of what it was.
1
Republicans can do simple messages because their actions are simple, because at heart they don't want to govern. Tackling society's larger questions is not something the GOP is interested in, so they don't have to bother with how to beautify something complicated.
1
Mr. Wu's call for better better communication and "design" around progressive policy is certainly a valuable one. However, it's notable that his primary example of this failure is the ACA, which is not a progressive policy. The ACA was based on a conservative health care reform plan embraced by Republicans in the 90s. It represented a compromise made by Obama in hopes of gaining Republican support. Significantly, the progressive counterproposal of single payer is, in fact, startlingly simply compared to the ACA.
When conservatives embrace laissez faire policies toward everything, any plan to the contrary—that actually involves regulation and legislation—will appear complex, but most progressive policies aren't new. Some—taxes on high earners, fully-funded public higher education, to name two—were the norm in the US for the three decades following WW2. Recalling this would do a lot to alleviate any of the fanned fear surrounding "radical" progressive policies.
Democrats don't have complexity problems.
They have a failure of nerve, absence of resolution problem.
So, simple ideas like "let's make sure everyone gets the healthcare they need" become a morass of compromise and attempts to undo the whole thing in any number of ways.
Or here's a toughy: "Women are the boss of themselves and their bodies, no one may compel them to do anything they deem harmful or prevent them from doing what they deem essential".
You want complexity? Try the old 'fetus rights': "its still a person even when its not a person and deserves our love and protection until it is actually a person when it ceases to be a person in our view and is on its own".
Democrats suffer most from a failure of confidence and a giddy need to appear transgressive and forward-thinking.
Nobody cares if AOC is a Socialist Democrat or whatever. They care what she will do for them and the country, and how, and why it will be a good thing.
The new Dems' (and non-Dems') need to affix a frightening political label to their plans is plain foolish. They're building a fence before they even say hello.
Most people want universal, single-payer healthcare (beware the weak-sister 'Medicaid for all'), most people want gun control, most people are worried about the environment.
They're on your team, why force them to accept your baggage-laden term for yourselves? You'll cost yourselves the game.
Tell us what you'll do. And why. And how. Leave the rest alone.
1
I agree, the Democrats could do much better at communicating the value of their proposals to people as individuals and to society as a whole. Republicans are much better at this, and it allows them to violate actual laws unfortunately often.
But, the Democrats in year 2019 have a worse problem: racism. From Kamala Harris speaking of unworkable "reparations," to Beto O'Rourke apologizing profusely for his skin color (and, his sex), I fear that this will only serve to help the Russian Tsar Vladimir Putin and his American agent, Donald Trump, weaken and destroy the promise of the USA.
1
Even gravity is too complicated for tens of millions of Republicans and "moderates" to understand. Logic and the scientific method are far beyond the grasp of most most Americans.
Neither knowledge nor intelligence is needed to prosper in a cannibal capitalist society such as the United States - merely ruthless selfishness.
1
@Been There...
Actually, conservatives are very conscious of the effects of gravity...
They understand it so well that they are willing to let the progressives and their impossible dreams implode all by themselves.
1
Progressive policies are Liberal Policies. Remember that Liberals are extreme left wing Democrats with extreme left wing ideology. Some of the ideology is to not allow discussion on social issues on television, colleges or social media. Only Liberalism is taught on our campuses and only Liberalism will be tolerated. Any speech that goes against extreme left wing ideology is Hate speech and not allowed. Liberalism is one of the biggest threats to America today. Especially by taking 98% control of the media, social media and the colleges.
1
We live in a time when intellect is thought of as snobbishness, when half the country want leaders "they can have a beer with". Huge money is supporting profits above all else with no regard for the benefits or harm to Americans. Much of the populace is anesthetized by horrible "reality" TV and vacuous superhero flicks. We have rampant brainwashing by social media, Fox hate TV and right wing hate radio. Without acknowledging and acting upon root causes, things will only get worse. Life itself is complex and requires some effort and critical thinking.
1
It's impossible for liberals and progressives to avoid writing rules. Understandably, that's what they want to do, in lieu of free market capitalism. But therein lies the rub. As the rules become more complex and voluminous, the system chokes on itself, and ordinary people begin to hate the "reforms." Just look at middle America small business attitudes about OSHA regulations, state level HR rules, etc.
Until liberal/progressives in office learn to write simple, uncomplex, principal-based rules and not telephone book regulations, there will be an endless cycle of mainstream rebellion against the confinements of a bureaucratic society.
Rule #1 if Trump is defeated: KISS !!!!!
@GCM...
The first instinct of man, liberal or conservative, when faced with a "rule" is to try to figure out how to get around it.
1
I have nothing to add except to thank Mr. Wu for this article. Democrats are terrible at messaging - always have been. Republicans, on the other hand, must sit around all day thinking up catchy slogans they can use to motivate voters. Mr. Trump has a knack for coming up with derogatory nicknames for people he doesn't like. Reducing policy proposals to their essence and getting that word out in a way that can catch the imagination of voters is essential.
Let me a note about HISTORY and prophesy.
In 1992, Leonard Cohen wrote, "DEMOCRACY."
He sang "Democracy is coming... to the USA."
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. 27 years later, his prophecy is indeed coming true.
Trump is mobilizing a wave of RESISTANCE, now.
Ironically, Leonard Cohen passed away, one day after Trump was elected. And now another Cohen, Michael Cohen is pushing against Trump and Trumpism.
Perhaps you could SHARE THESE IDEAS, widely.
I have not way of reaching masses of Democrats.
My earlier comment:
Wonderful! Einstein said,
"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Trump has done is, he has made things, too simple.
He knows how to dominate the daily media, with fake drama.
I think we should give Trump credit for adding daily drama.
He has made politics interesting and personal, again.
Now, Democrats and the press have to find simplicity and drama.
(The NY Times, itself, rambles on and on and it is often forgotten.)
Take, for example, Trump's use of the OK sign, all the time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope Democrats find simple signs to push their own causes.
They might start by using the OK sign with both hands, to suggest
that we need OKness on both Left and Right in politics, again.
OK, OK?
----------
OK, OK?
1
Democrats are bad at messaging, and make the mistake of assuming the complex policy will speak for itself, while Republicans talk in bumper stickers. Case in point: the ACA. No Democrat ever came up with a series of bumper stickers to explain it, while Republicans did (lies, but they were catchy lies).
Good article. Our society, by its own volition, has made so many essential and basic needs so complicated that the need has been eclipsed by the processes. Keep It Simple Stupid. But our society has instilled this ravenous desperation that is literally killing us. Dems are the worst manifestation of these principles.
A perfect example is Pelosi's HR1. The public has no idea from the name what this is. To most people HR means human resources. Give the bill another name like "The anti-corruption act". If the Dems cannot explain themselves better they are doomed.
Oddly, an incredibly complex (and completely bone-headed) idea like supply-side economics somehow caught fire with the army of simpletons who make up the Republican base. How did that happen!? No. Simplicity isn’t any kind of panacea for society’s ills. Apple should be Exhibit A in that argument. New technology now comes with no instructions, relying on “intuitive design,” which, by the way, is the worst thing to happen to consumer electronics in all of human history. Might as well call it “voodoo design.” It’s nonsense, claptrap, garbage thinking.
The world is complex and we have relied far too long on simplistic thinking to understand it. Don’t believe me? Take a long hard look at our criminal justice system and its historical antecedents. People are not “bad” or “good” – they are animate soups of highly complex hormones, genomes, biochemical reactors, social influences, and genetic anomalies that are governed by both Newtonian and quantum physics. And yet, we continue to buttress laws and institutions that treat them as victims of original sin.
Nah, son, you can keep your simplicity to yourself.
I was really hoping that this article would be written by a conservative. It would be nice to see equal representation from ALL parties in the media, not just “progressives.” Because the media are biased, we have this false sense of reality. I would guess that it’s mostly liberals who read The NY Times, and consequently they get a confirmation bias as they read, affirming to them that their ideas are superior.
Yes, progressive policies are convoluted. Yes, Democrats let their brains get in the way too much; admittedly, they are highly educated, but that doesn’t mean they are always right. In fact, education has its own bias, so it isn’t necessarily an authority.
1
Have you seen old posters advertising the British NHS from the 40s? The whole advert fit on one page, written in English any adult could understand. "Anyone can use it...choose your doctor now". Progressive policies don't have to be that complex. Sometimes they're common sense.
1
Tax, spend. What is so complicated?
2
The Founding Fathers had such contempt, distrust and fear of the intellectual moral capacity of the heathen peasant masses that they created a divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states.
A republic where the votes of the white men who owned property for President of the United States for four year terms were and are mediated and moderated by an Electoral College.
A republic where state legislatures elected Senators for six year terms.
A republic where every state has the same number of Senators regardless of population.
A republic where votes cast in one state do not count nor matter in any other state.
A republic where the size of the House of Representatives is capped to the disadvantage of more populous states.
A republic where judges are appointed for life by the Electoral College President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
A republic where members of the House are elected for two year terms.
Complexity is the essence of living as a citizen in a constitutional republic of united states. While simplicity is the essence of autocracy, dictatorship and tyrannies
In the street vernacular of my South Side Chicago youth assuming that the person you were talking to was an idiot was called " Dummy Down " . As in" Don't dummy down to me Missoni Farmer." It was not healthy.
1
The Democrats have an average American problem.
Overly complex? I think you’re underestimating the mental capacity of most Americans. Oops, wait a minute, we did elect Donald Trump...
The "complexity problem" is just another term for "Most Americans have a stupidity problem and an intense fear of trying anything new."
This column and most of the comments point to a fundamental reason the left loses. It assumes that people that disagree are just stupid. The reality is that if one can’t explain something simply, they don’t really understand it. Complexity becomes a crutch to obfuscate this lack of substance.
2
This is exactly what’s wrong with progressives!!! They think they are smarter than the average American. I’ll paraphrase William F Buckley—he’d rather have the first 200 names in the Boston white pages run the country than the Harvard faculty. He’s “right”, in more ways than one.
2
Here's the final analysis:
1. The world is really, really complex
2. You, Joe American, are too stupid or brainwashed to understand
3. I'm an expert and will take care of this for you. You should be grateful I am doing this for you or else.
7
Best op-ed ever!
Here we go. The old Americans are too dumb to understand what we are doing and how we are inherently superior. They should just stop resisting and give up control of their lives to the technocrats.
We've heard that song before. Next.
4
The trial lawyers' motto is KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. The matter may indeed be complex, but the presentation must be simple.
3
Sheez. It is like screaming across the vacuum of space.
The Democratic Party has once again fielded candidates for President who think three-legged races and pie-eating contests will win the day. Worse, by studiously avoiding the mechanics of everyday life they are free to wax deeply about the inconsequential. Then sprinkle in the obligatory drumbeat that Trump is Satin, and those who voted for him are racist and voila! You have a New York universe.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Philip K. Dick (1928–82), U.S. science fiction writer. Definition given in 1972. Quoted by Dick in: I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later.”
Medicare For All (simple)
End 0.1% Tax Welfare (simple)
Single-Payer Campaign Financing (simple)
Pave The Roads (simple)
Automatic voter registration for all citizens (simple)
Bring democracy and nation building to America ! (simple)
Turn off your hate radio and Fake News channels (simple)
D to go forward; R for reverse. (simple)
6
The premise of this article is that simplicity is better for communicating ideas and policies.
Unfortunately, the author forgot that premise when writing the article, which is not even close to written with simplicity.
The great nuclear physicist, Lord Rutherford, once said he had doubts about the quality of any idea which could not be expressed in language that a janitor or charwoman could understand. I'm inclined to agree.
While real expertise deserves our respect, we have a right to expect those experts to be able to 'capsulize' their concepts in language the rest of us can understand--and, if they can't, to wonder just how 'expert' they really are.
2
This is a good piece of analysis and sort of hits the mark in many ways. But it doesn't get underneath at what seems to me a primary cause of confusing complexity, which is the comprimises, work arounds, pork barrel dynamics, etc. that take place when trying to put through progressive legislation. For instance, as l recall the news media claimed that a significant number of Americans were interested in the "public option" initially presented as a potential aspect of the Affordable Care Act. Lo and behold, the public will was squashed by those intent upon bending over backwards to appease the insurance industry. These kind of comprimises, in the name of conciliation, are nothing more than feeding the original beast with some modest incremental changes thrown in. The time has come to simply stop doing this. The result, if done well, will be a long, hard battle but one that retains the original integrity of the need for change in terms of the public good. Compromise may be necessary but so is changing the parameters of what the boundaries of comprimise are, basing them on legitimate issues of policy and fact vs. proxy arguments for unquestioning corporate welfare/dominance.
@MB:"This is a good piece of analysis and sort of hits the mark in many ways. "
Now that's complexity speech.
The Affordable Care Act is not complex simply for the sake of complexity. It was also designed to keep Health Insurance companies in business.
2
@Chris Martin The complexity came from the mixed messaging and from a signup process that’s harder than it should be. Do you remember if you like your health plan, you can keep it?
If it were just a matter of the issues, the Democrats would win every election. They probably have a 60-40 advantage on the issues themselves - most people are in favor of a functioning and funded society and govt., clean environment, being fair to one another.
Its when personalities enter the picture that we lose....and lose...and lose. Our complexity problem, to me, is that we think we are complex, and our opponents are not. Democrats are much quicker to engineer an election to give the voters what we think they should have, rather than letting them decide. When we had our own Trump in Howard Dean, he was shanked by the party as fast as they could manage it.
Mutual disrespect is widespread in America, but the attitude from the left toward the right these days is suffocating and not doing anyone any favors.
@Dan -Please explain how Howard Dean was a Democratic version of Donald Trump...He got excited over a primary victory and was perceived as unhinged in a 'moment' of time. That's it??
It's not just complexity in explaining progressive policy; getting it to work right out of the box is also vitally important.
Think on how different things might be had the rollout of the ACA worked as it was supposed to work.
The Republicans in Congress were in the midst of shooting themselves in the foot with an extended government shutdown over ACA implementation. This shutdown, starting on October 1st, 2013 and lasting for more than two weeks, was deeply unpopular. Had the shutdown been (and remained) the only big story on the national stage, it well might have been fatal to GOP hopes of gaining control of the Senate in 2014.
Instead, as we know, the botched rollout of the ACA also happened on October 1st, and the problems persisted well into December. Because of this, the pain of the shutdown had basically been forgotten by November, but the GOP was able to turn the ACA's continuing issues into a bludgeon with which they happily battered the Democrats for the next 12 months. Many Democratic senators up for reelection (one from my state among them) compounded the problem by running away from the ACA, depressing their base turnout at exactly the time they needed to increase it.
It's said that you should never interrupt your adversary if he's in the midst of making a mistake. Far worse to interrupt your adversary with a bigger mistake of your own.
Spot on, Tim! In their quest to "be all things to all people", and to satisfy everyone, and not put off anyone, the Democrats too often complicate things beyond understanding. Of course, they're often aided in this by Republicans eager to make any Democratic idea unworkable by adding amendments and riders to bills, guaranteed to gum them up. Sadly, the Dems play right into this.
The difference between how Democrats sell their ideas, and Republicans is like the tale of two car dealers. You walk onto the lot of Republican Motors, tell the salesman what you're looking for and he hands you the keys and says "Take it for a spin". You do so, and then say you'll get back to him. Next, you go to Democrat Motors where you witness an argument between the salespeople over who's turn it is based upon racial, gender, and age identities. After they finally decide on that, you're greeted and you explain what you want, and they take you to a desk and ask you to fill out a stack of forms, ensuring that you're qualified to drive, that you can explain how an internal combustion engine works, and promise to always drive within the speed limit and to not exceed the EPA Mileage estimate. Then the sales manager watches as you walk back to your old car and drive to Republican Motors.
The Democrats are often their own worst enemies. But they'd better figure out how to fix this, or Trump will beat them again.
A big part of the problem is that Republican policies appeal to the gut-level, knee jerk response to a problem, while Democratic policies often require a more complex analysis before they make sense. Understanding the Affordable Care Act and why the individual mandate is necessary, and why a 60-year-old man can't just opt out of maternity coverage requires understanding that insurance works on the concept of pooled risk which, unfortunately, a lot of people don't want to learn about. So a Republican will say "isn't it terrible that the government is forcing you to buy insurance and your insurance costs so much because even if you're a man who is never going to have a child, you have to buy maternity coverage?" That's simple. How can the Democrats explain that we have to have a large risk pool with young and old, women and men, etc., in order for everyone to be covered in the event they get injured or ill? It's complicated. The Republicans cynically simplify complex issues to appeal to the lowest common denominator, knowing they are enacting policies that benefit very few people.
1
Professor Wu can't be blamed for wanting the best possible solutions to social problems - but our democratic republic is set up to prefer moderately good solutions with high understanding/high buy in over even better solutions with high complexity/low buy in. That is not a bug; one of the lessons I've learned in my career as a high school teacher is that the mediocre but authentic work produced by my students is more valuable than having the kids simply parrot my own expertise in a pretty empty way. This does not mean that Democrats are doomed; FDR showed that programs like Social Security could be easily understood and broadly supported even if maybe the experts then and now knew/know that the program has some meaningful defects. In a democratic republic, settling for pretty good solutions is the only way to be meaningfully inclusive of all Americans.
The Democrats’ complexity problem pales in comparison to the Republicans’ simplicity problem. Have an immigration problem? Build a wall. Can’t disprove climate change? Talk about how cold it is this winter.
1
Progressives and Democrats don't need to simplify their policies, only their messaging. Republicans have a pithy slogan for everything: 'No new taxes', 'Just say no', 'Lock her up', 'Drill baby drill'. 'Medicare for All' is a start. 'One person, one vote' might work to reform the Electoral College. It's a communication problem, not a solutions problem.
1
Build The Wall
Lock Her Up
USA
Seems like about three words is the sweet spot for getting a point across to too much of the electorate. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, forget about it, too complex for many that are looking for simple solutions to complicated problems.
And yes, it just happens that Republicans excel at this type of messaging.
1
@Charles C
You're only discussing communication of policies. The author is also discussing the design of policies, the actual solutions.
This article is spot on. The Democrats by now should have learned how the business class (i.e. Republicans) excel at marketing their message - buzz phrases, simple one liners (i.e. MAGA), and other tricks learned through marketing products. The message in politics is a product! And it needs to speak to as many Americans as possible. The author is correct that Americans have little time/attention to focus on the details of policy. The Green New Deal is an excellent start at keeping the goals clear and leaving the policy implementation details to the administration that successfully gets elected. I hope the 2020 candidates hear this message!
1
What's so complicated about:
- Medicare for all?
- Carbon tax on extractors?
- Free College?
- Minimum wage?
- Progressive taxes on the wealthiest?
- No more regime changes?
All easily explained and understood.
1
So, I've been trying to make it easy.
1. In capitalism money makes money - basically, by definition. The more you have the more you get. A billionaire makes another million like falling off a log.
2. Nobody makes money, besides government. That would be illegal. My point: The money that billionaires "make" really is only transferred - from us to them.
3. Therefore you have to have a progressive tax system to balance the playing field or the whole world goes out of whack - which we are now seeing.
The FIRST THING to do is tax progressively AND respect government for what it can do that the market is not set up to do - important things, like a national highway system, or combat global warming.
Billionaires should really not exist.
"Too often, progressive policies are difficult for Americans to understand, use and benefit from."
If that were the case this nation could not exist. To believe that sentence you have to also not believe in the basic idea this nation is founded on.
I'd say intellectual dishonesty followed closely by intellectual cowardice is more of a problem than the complexity of any issue.
2
The lesson being taught here can be put more simply. Talking points garner votes, good policy doesn’t.
So I guess the advice given is that the Dems have to package their goals more persuasively, and leave the details to those with the stomach to search for them. Like Hillary, Warner has lots of detailed plans, but Bernie knows how to put them across.
1
Democrats: Keep it Simple.
focus on making it a referendum on Trump.
everything else is a distraction.
1
@David
People need to know what the Democrats want to do, not just who they are against; that is not a good long-term strategy.
2
In addition to redistricting, voter laws, the electoral college, the two Senators per state allocation (no matter how big or small)...perhaps the greatest advantage Republicans have is a marketing one. They're the party of the short, declarative sentence. And in marketing, a confused mind says no.
1
If we all pay a little more in taxes, and a few very wealthy people pay a lot more (which would still leave them with billions of dollars), we all get 100% free health care and college, plus a solvent social security system to help us afford living post-retirement. These three things are what we currently spend the majority of our working lives worrying we or our loved ones won’t be able to afford. We would quickly unburden everyone of their biggest lifelong financial fears.
There, how’s that for a simple pitch.
2
Or the problem is that some Americans have an intelligence problem in that they have not been taught to think analytically and use information to learn about issues. Thank our really great support for public education for that and the churches for the all the time Christian propaganda that negates science etc. I think your article is wrong. These policies are not that complex. You aren't giving trump supporters any credit, just saying they are not capable. Really think about what you are saying.....
1
In the last few elections, some people didn't even realize that Medicare was a government program and that the Affordable Healthcare Act was Obamacare. FDR was considered a brilliant communicator who could get sell his ideas and proposals to ordinary Americans by explaining them in clear, understandable ways. Today, people are desperate for honesty and tired of politicians who repeat the same mindless "messages" over and over again and think we don't notice that they never actually answer our questions.
Could it be that progressive candidates offer solutions to complex problems whereas Republicans offer legislation and slogans onlyfor red meat issues? Repubs stay away from health care, income distribution and global warming, offering nothing. In prior years they have been all over cultural issues.
3
Democrats' ideas aren't hard to understand. They either involve spending a lot of money, or raising taxes, or both. Nothing hard there.
4
@Kurfco
And repubs cut taxes for the wealthy, balloon the deficit,
ignore our infrastructure, cut education funding, raise defense funding, and make life more difficult for families struggling to make ends meet. Easy as pie.
1
@Kurfco: Republicans are all about welfare for billionnaires. Nothing hard to understand there. They spend more money on the rich than Democrats on programs that serve every American.
It isn't that hard. Americans are falling out of the middle class and falling behind economically. To lift them back into the middle class, we are going to enact Medicare for All, free public college tuition and legislate a $15 minimum wage. You will pay your healthcare premiums through payroll deductions. And by the way, we are not going touch your Social Security, but we are going to make it better.
Done.
4
@Mark, back in 2016, even our kids understood these simple basic rights. Their parents told them to shut up.
1
@Mark
from your lips...
1
Yes and no. Things that are complex can be communicated in ways that the average citizen can understand, that is, without being so simplistic as to be misleading. (Just an aside reminder about ACA, the public option wasn't even put on the table.) The Republican use of simplistic distractions has been very effective, but I hope that such con games can be countered by honest, focused content just as effectively. I get so frustrated about some of what is stated with seemingly no awareness of what Sanders has been saying. In speeches (and writings), he clearly and simply communicates his policies in a very short list of things he regards as critically important. He can provide the details upon request, relating each point in the speeches to each detail. Whether you agree with him or not (but as many people do agree), I believe Sanders' effort is an example of addressing Wu's concern.
1
I agree with Tim Wu. Medicare for All is particularly obtuse. I assume that it wouldn't be free, but like Medicare now, it is paid for through payroll deductions. So, Dems, say so! Make it a choice. You think the Republicans aren't going to pounce on the free concept?
1
Democratic policy proposals are often complex because the early language has been negotiated behind closed doors with corporate campaign donors. Thus - loopholes and complexity, as witnessed in the ACA. Real politicians - for the people (corporations aren't people, in my book)- propose simpler laws that cover everyone ....Medicare for ALL. Two politicians running seem to be really working for the people, without such hidden agendas - Sanders and Warren. What a relief to have one of them to vote for...
2
I have long subscribed to this article's view that Dems produce overly complex policies. The best example is indeed healthcare -- both Obamacare and Hillarycare before it. Both of these contributed heavily to Democrat off-year election disasters. People don't want a complicated healthcare system; with health they tend to think in life-&-death, emergency terms. Much of the ACA could still have been explained better as fill-in-the-gaps measures; however, the shopping-in-the-marketplace centerpiece did not seem appropriate.
One explanation for healthcare policy is the overcomplexity of HHS, caused over time by both Dems and Republicans for different reasons. A more general reason applying to all government policies is that the Democratic Party is almost dominated by lawyers (articulate, engaged, numerous), who thrive on complexity and have an elitist streak. A third general explanation is the federal system given us by the Constitution -- inhibiting uniformity, but going too far on states rights would mean we weren't one country but 50.
@jdh: On the other hand, when you point out that Democratic healthcare proposals have been complicated, this suggests that the existing healthcare "system" has been simpler. The Republicans don't have any healthcare proposals: I guess that's simple, in a way, except that it means they are proposing we go back to the previous chaos. Until Trump finally decides to unveil his wonderful plan. (Sarcasm).
If you look a little beyond the simplicity/complexity question you see immediately that the simplest program, which would be the Democrats natural choice, single payer, is blocked from consideration by industry opposition and Republican demagoguery. Similarly, a lot of what looks like Democratic complexity in other areas results from efforts to compromise with right-wing dogma.
1
I would argue that the more progressive the idea, the simpler it is to explain. For example, Wealth taxes or higher taxes on the wealthy are very simple, and they resonate with folks, as evidenced by the speed with which they've gained support. The same is true of Medicare for All, which is backed by more than 60 percent of Americans.
It is when Democrats equivocate and compromise that things get complex. As the author notes, The Affordable Care Act is a classic example. But what makes it so complex is that it was a compromise designed to keep private insurers in the game, The Rube Goldberg construction that necessitated, never gained support until people had a year or more of experience with it.
Centrist compromises don't just make the individual programs Democrats advocate complex, they make the whole party's values murky. What were people to make of Hillary Clinton's statements on climate change when she supported fracking and an all-of-the-above energy strategy? What are they to make of Ms. Pelosi's obvious contempt for a real attempt to tackle climate change when she calls the Green New Deal a "green dream?"
At a time when people are justifiably crying for change, pragmatism makes a poor polestar. Putting trim tabs on a ship that's headed in the wrong direction seems inexplicable to those who see their government being taken over by the rich, special interests, and an out-of-touch elite.
5
We properly cites the ACA as hard to understand (although it is simpler than the program the Clinton administration tried to sell in the early 90s), so it seems strange that Wu does not cite "Medicare for All" as an example of an understandable program. Most people sort of understand how Medicare works, and almost everybody knows it has been around for a long time, so it seems familiar and understandable.
2
Absolutely true. Republicans win on slogans like “Lock her up” and “Make America Great Again”. Democrats need to do this if they want to win in 2020. Only a few of us have the luxury of reading and pondering several news sources a day.
What about Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan: Stronger Together? Was this ever connected to a coherent set of policy initiatives? Or was it chosen because it sounded nicer than “it’s my turn now”, which was how her close supporters typically represented her?
Even if Ms. Clinton believed in her slogan and her platform one hundred percent, she was continually being undone by well-wishers clamoring that “it was time for a woman president”, as if nothing else mattered.
So although it may be true that the Democrats have a complexity problem, it’s not a problem with the policies themselves. Much of it lies in the complexity of their wishes, and their inability to rally around a comprehensible and achievable program.
I write this with some sadness, since I liked Ms. Clinton and I thought she would have made a good President. But she was very much the best of a bad bunch, as the current crop of Presidential aspirants is starting to show.
4
Single-payer is extremely simple - Obamacare is not. The current healthcare system apart from Obamacare is extremely complex, with profits being taken at many steps in the process. The complexities of Obamacare stem largely from the requirement to insure that insurance companies continue to make large profits. Any program will get complicated when special interests must be satisfied. Of course those profiting from the current system as well as Republican politicians try to paint a false picture of Medicare for All or other universal programs as complex, and as involving imaginary expenses.
The problems are really political, not technical.
2
@skeptonomist: Right: Wu focuses on the complexity of a Democratic program, without mentioning the chaos of what had been before. Is chaos simple or complex? We can leave that for the theorists, but the ACA was an improvement over what had been going on previously. And the Republicans "simply" had no proposal at all.
I have a different view. The problem with most progressive policies is that they have not been explained properly and because they are frankly vague and missing implementation details. It's not that they are "complicated" it's that explanations are lacking or misleading. Let's take "medicare for all". Every single analysis focuses on the tax increase side. I have seen not one analysis of the total premiums paid by employers and employees to health insurance companies as an OFFSET to the cost. I have seen not one single analysis of how any single payer plan can reduce drug costs as a monopoly buyer. (See drug costs in Canada or the UK for examples. Where is the article detailing what the offsets are? The answer is simple - no one has any idea of how to do the transition. Some people would be able to understand a sensible analysis and transition plan. Those should be able to influence the public at large. The current situation is that no one has a chance to be an influencer since you have completely policies without explanations.
4
I have railed for years against what I call "Bumper Sticker Logic" i.e. the dumbing down of a concept until it can fit into a phrase no longer than 4-5 words, preferably fewer. The problem with this is that taking on problems like climate change, long term economic growth, infrastructure, immigration, healthcare, retirement, etc. is that these are all extremely messy concepts. The Republicans are masters at representing simplistic sloganeering masquerading as logic, and our 'dumbed down' society eats it up, whether the result of lack of concentration, willful memory loss, cynicism (resulting in a "Who cares - what's on 'Real Housewives'?" attitude), or just plain mean-spiritedness and lack of empathy for others.
Unfortunately, our '15 second commercial' society seems largely incapable of paying attention long enough to digest complex problems as presented. What the author appears to be suggesting is creating yet another division in society: one which understands the problem in all its complexities (and has the power), and one which is fed the simplified 'Bumper sticker' view in order to get their support. Yes - we need support in order to exact the better policies that liberals tend to have, but if we don't simultaneously elevate our society's educational levels (again), all we're doing is creating a division that will allow conservatives to slap a 'Elite' label on us, claiming that in their oversimplified view of the world, all is better than in our 'complex' version.
1
@JustJeff
Short, simple, understandable phrases and slogans have always been at the heart of successful politics. It's about basic human communication.
Every business person learns an "elevator pitch," that 30 second definition of what makes their business important. Not because the person they're talking to is dumb, but because he only has so much time, or expertise. Every screen writer learns the same thing.
"Jaws in space" is how Dan O'Bannon sold "Alien."
Would you rather win, or be the smartest guy in the room who loses (again)? Rather than deciding that most of America is just too darned stupid to understand, how about insisting that Democrats become better communicators?
What’s so hard to understand?
We need Universal Health Care.
We need tuition-free state colleges.
We need a minimum wage of 15$
We must control the banks, which brought
about the ’08 calamity.
4
@JFP
What's hard to understand JPF is, where do we come up with all the cash to pay for this stuff?
1
@Kurt Pickard
Just like we did before during the last golden age of middle class of 40s,50s,60s,70s,.
What is that you ask ? I refer you to FDR policies of New Deal and Bernie's platform that emulates that successful era.
1
@Tom
The golden years you refer to Tom had nothing to do with any FDR policies. WWII got our nation out of the depression and fueled our economy. The US made massive amounts of money during the war effort and after rebuilding and selling goods to Europe.
I ask for a reasonable budget, not a far flung fantasy that some left wing dreamer comes up with and has no idea how it will work or be funded.
1
Elizabeth Warren. When the GOP tried to undo healthcare, they brought nothing but noncoverage, skinny plans to the table. The problem IS complex, remains complex and merits intellectual effort. Why run for president if you lack the intellectual skill set essential to the job? Trump is the worst extreme of intellectual absence and laziness. We need more elected officials who can do the work and know that the work is exacting. If this is about translating complexity into accessible terms, that is Warren. If the public's impatience with complex issues undermines their choice of candidate, we risk another lazy fool like Trump.
4
OR~!!! They understand them and don't like them.
That's a possibility. Another one: Maybe we are wary from having been fooled enough.
Take the ACA, as cited in the article. We were able to get through our thick skulls "If you like you doctor, you can keep him/her." But then it turned out, for many people, you couldn't! We were also told it would save piles of money, for the country and for individuals. It didn't. In these two instances, the voters got the message. It was the people promulgating the laws, or the people promoting them, who didn't understand them.
4
@Trilby
or the people sabotaging them while adding over 150 amendments and getting rid of the public option whose constituents really aren't that smart, and the Republicans are relying on that, aren't they.
1
How about this alternative theory: Americans have an attention span problem.
3
Oh, so the people just don't understand rehashed socialist policies that have failed every place they have ever been tired as they are too complex? Hilarious. The author can't hide his contempt for the folks who elected Trump as being too dumb to understand policies that have literally failed every time and every place they have ever been implemented.
4
What's so hard about healthcare for everyone , clean air and water, and free college tuition? You don't need a college education to understand those, but you do need one to misunderstand them. Another Dem-bashing article that confuses the voters.
1
"We criticize conservatives for relying on simplistic slogans like “cut taxes” and “drill, baby, drill” instead of nuanced, empirically informed assessments of economic growth and environmental management."
The green new deal was a debacle because it was a document of nonsense policies informed by nothing other than aggressive ignorance.
The Republican tax cut was similarly ignorant. Ignorance is as bipartisan a problem as there could possible be.
I'd be surprised if 20% of either party could tell me what the derivative of x squared is without looking it up. Or how to interpret a regression, or how explain the difference between R Squared and Adjusted R Squared.
Or how many climate change skeptics or activists could tell me the layers of the atmosphere off the top of their head, or the percentages of the gases that make it up.
How many of the nutters who are 9/11 truthers know that Aluminum can react violently with water? A small percentage I'd wager.
Ignorance abounds in such quantities that were it turned into a fuel we could switch from fossil fuels entirely tomorrow.
These sorts of mundane knowledge are absolutely crucial to making informed policy, yet so few people bother to learn it.
nous vivons à une époque sans éducation
2
@Mark F
wow, you are smart! happy now?
Republicans make Democrats' laws uneasy to understand.
Wonderful! Einstein said,
"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Trump has done is, he has made things, too simple.
He knows how to dominate the daily media, with fake drama.
I think we should give Trump credit for adding daily drama.
He has made politics interesting and personal, again.
Now, Democrats and the press have to find simplicity and drama.
(The NY Times, itself, rambles on and on and it is often forgotten.)
Take, for example, Trump's use of the OK sign, all the time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope Democrats find simple signs to push their own causes.
They might start by using the OK sign with both hands, to suggest
that we need OKness on both Left and Right in politics, again.
OK, OK?
----------
OK, OK?
1
Apparently, Liberalism 2.0 should be an app with a simple user experience.
Perhaps.
As liberals construct complex machinery like the New Green Deal and healthcare, millions of gears of all sizes are carefully placed together. This article claims that liberals are like clockmakers, guilty of obsessing about the clock's gears—when people only want to know what time it is.
Trumpers need only to wreck the gears with lickspittle and bats, since their purpose is, apparently, to drown government in the bath.
Their kind of politics is easy to sell. Just pull down the giant clock and don't worry about the time anymore.
There are times that I despair that appealing to the masses—a requirement of democracy—is not up to the task of meeting 21st century challenges.
1
Democrats think people care about such trivial things as ideology, health care and mass shootings. They don't understand that the person voters want as president must be pretty, over six feet tall, white, male, not too old, not too young, definitely not too smart, not overly educated, filthy rich, and with a name they can spell.
2
Medicare-For-All
Is that simple enough for ya ?
When asked, "well, how will that actually work ?"
Answer: "Well, you know Medicare right? Just extend it to everyone."
Next question.
"Are you a socialist?"
Answer: "if you mean USSR socialist..no, if you mean in the American tradition of ROOSEVELT socialism, then yes I'm that kind of "socialists". You know the kindThe Greatest Generation voted for four times and brought us the golden age of the middle class"
Next question
4
Another great example of simplicity. “If you like your plan, you can keep it”. Simple does not mean right or correct. Simplicity can also be used to mislead. It’s the quality of the policy that counts. Medicare for all may sound simple until a person with the employer based insurance talks to the actual retiree on Medicare and asks them about their experience. They might quickly change their mind about jumping to Medicare. Apples and oranges are both fruits but they are not the same. Offering oranges and then delivering apples with explanation that they are all fruits is just insincere.
"One major obstacle to simple, effective public policy is people like me — the expert class." - just trying to figure out what you are an expert in, besides getting academic credentials.
2
Didn't read the article because it started with a FALSE premise, that Democrats are to blame for not taking real complex problems and reducing them to-three-word slogans like "Build the wall."
The real problem is that many Americans are dumber than dirt, and that many Americans look to the past, not the present, for solution.
Yes, Dr. Wu, THIS is a real problem and it explains why the Taliban mentality of the Republican Party.
2
Conservatives make things simple. They come up with deceptions that are easy enough to state in a 5 word sentence, sometimes using rhymes! It works so well that 40% of Americans are tricked into voting against their own interests!
One thing that I will give Democrats, progressives in general, is they have never been short on self esteem. They rather enjoy looking over their glasses, down their noses at the masses contemplating what social experiment to subject them to next. One of the progressive stalwarts is a 29 year old who for $93 trillion can convert the United States into a sustainable land of milk and honey set high on the hill where the air is clean, all of our social needs are met and heck if we don't want to work the government will even pay us. I'm willin to bet that there ain't no one out there able to xplain that one.
On the other end of the progressive spectrum is a 77 year old who tells us, as he's ready to walk out the door, that he could give us free college education and healthcare to all. Just like that, no strings attached! The big rock candy mountain has been laid at our feet, we just have to be told how all this is going to be paid for. The room gets eerily quiet.
The progressives mistake their colossal failures as the masses inability to adequately understand their higher level of thinking. In reality what most of us see are used car salesmen in nicer clothes.
6
The ACA is complex because it was drafted by the Republicans and lobbyists. It was the Heritage Foudantion Plan. I never understood Obama’s willingness to waste his political capital on it instead of Medicare for All. Don’t believe me? Take a look at https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/07/30/heritage-on-health-1989/?mtrref=www.google.com
Sure progressives voted for it but it wasn’t their plan!
1
Exactly. A Democratic super majority took the republican idea and implemented it against the republicans for the good of the country. They did not have their own, so they took something of the republican shelve. What a great story.
sigh. the q is--based on what does one state that government is good and should be expanded? based on what?? the VA? DMV? post office??? the infuriating inefficiency we all face when we call the IRS? the $3000 toilets in the air force? or the second ave subway which cost 5 trillion dollars????
sigh...did it ever occur to anyone that government is a problem that should be kept at a minimum, like our founding fathers intended? its not like we are a small nordic country with a culture of exemplary efficiency that can handle a large govt and social benefits
BY DEFINITION the govt is inefficient because its a non-profit using "other people's money". there is no way on planet earth such an entity could possibly be efficient. only the profit motive can raise quality and lower price. and only when one is using one's own money.
ya think it's a coincidence that when india, china, israel and UK these past 10 years or so embraced freer markets and less socialism, that the economies went on a tear??
the problem is not that americans find progressive policies too difficult to comprehend. they comprehend it very, very well and dont like it when they understand the costs and drawbacks.
if you want to sell progressive policies-just keep telling people about all the free stuff that the evil top 1-5% are gonna pay for. free college?? free health care?? yea, baby!! sign me up!!
3
Hard to disagree with keep it simple stupid - but keeping it too simple will keep people stupid. Not many complex issues can be reduce to a simple solution. But balance and understanding often lead to thinking that the answers really are in the middle. Reactionary thinking to the far right (anti-government) or liberal thinking to the far left (government can give us everything) are never going to solve any problems. Promise.
So the article is really useless to say we need to dumb down America - that will not make answers easier or more workable. America really has been dumbed down too far I think, and needs to want to be educated by itself.
The Dems really need to get their messages down to 25 words or less...until they do, they're going to lose. They have to get their audience to grasp the nuts and bolts of their ideas quickly so as not to let the gop define them. The fuller details can be explained in follow-ups. But the mantra should be '25 words or less!!'
We will build a wall, and Mexico will pay for it.
Better healthcare, simpler, cheaper than ObamaCare.
Simple no?
1
Yeh, Progressives are just to smart for the the average American this is the simple reason people dont like Progressives
1
Tim Wu is right. The details of public policy are hard to for the public to understand -- harder, certainly, than the Republican alternative of no public policy at all. So while it's easy to remember Ronald Reagan's nine cautionary words about a helpful government, we ought hammer on the nine little words at the heart of conservative thinking: "We ain't liftin' a finger to fix yer problem."
But of course, the Democratic party is too stupid, or lame, or corrupt, or whatever their problem is to put Robert Reich's lucid and useful three or four minute Facebook videos on Trump and various progressive ideas on cable and broadcast TV, especially in the red areas of the country who could use some alternative to the Fox Propaganda Network's daily drone of lies, racism, bigotry, stupidity and Trump glorification. That would actually imply a desire to enlighten, educate and attract new voters, which would mean that Democrats might actually win elections. Far better to maintain the centralist status quo of focus group tested non positions, Beto like meaningless platitudes, bi partisan reach across the aisle nonsense and tepid non active rhetoric that has placed them in the minority for the past twelve years - along with their constant, unremitting search to find new and innovate ways to lose slam dunk elections.
So, in other words, the plans are nothing more than liberal pipe dreams?
1
And by the way.... can we stop talking about “democratic socialism” and use the phrase “Scandinavian capitalism” instead.
It’s not difficult when you actually analyze the lefts true intentions. Abortion & government healthcare aren’t about rights, it’s about depopulation. Climate change & high taxes are about stifling capitalism. Basically every policy of the left, including all social justice causes, fall into one of these 2 core ideas. The only thing that’s complex is the spin to get the sheep to buy in.
The “expert class”? The author left out “always the smartest person in the room”.
Conservatives and independents are just too stupid to understand the benefits of a government inserting itself into the minutia of our everyday life. And you wonder why Trump was elected.
1
I thought the complexity of the ACA was a deliberate feature, not a bug (c. J. Gruber).
This is a sad but true observation of the state of the American electorate. We're not stupid, but mentally lazy, over entertained and heavily advertised. Our mainstream news media is all commercial. We are suckers, ripe for the picking. Real solutions to complex problems are complicated, but tabloid journalism sells.
Hillary had over twenty position papers on her website. The other person had seven. You can still look at Hillary's . The other person's site gives you:
Oops!
This is awkward.
You're looking for something that doesn't exist...
It is certainly true that programs are unnecessarily complex. Have your tried applying for food stamps? Or even to vote?
But there is a common underlying thread: Republicans distrust poor people and love to scream fraud! Programs are complex to try to the exploits of a few, which ruins a good program for many. Democrats scurry to make exceptions because Republicans show up with posters falsely claiming widespread abuse (see voter fraud, welfare fraud, food stamps fraud). Republicans impose more complexity (e.g., welfare to work) when they're in power to discourage public benefits.
Either way, Republicans are the root of entropy.
But where are the honest Republican solutions? They claimed for years to have a better solution to the ACA ("repeal and replace!"). But when they finally controlled all three branches of government, it was revealed to be smoke and mirrors.
Finally, both parties are paternalistic, but Republican proposals are also condescending. Republicans don't trust poor and middle class people to take care of their needs so they favor the paternalistic nature of Supply Side economics—that the rich know what people want and need and "they will build it and we will come." Democrats believe in Demand Side economics, trusting the poor and middle class to spend for their needs—generating demand for good, services, growth, and jobs.
If Republicans really trusted the market, they'd trust consumers, worrying less about fraud, complication and obstruction.
It is true enough that Democrats tend to get excited about the details of what they want to accomplish in government. This makes for bad politics for the simple reason that it misrepresents the choice that is going to be put in front of voters, which is not over this or that policy proposal, but over which party will be in power.
And this is not a complicated argument at all. Democrats want the government to act on our behalf; Republicans don't. Democrats think that the free market needs supervision to avoid being taken over and abused by unanswerable corporate entities; Republicans want to hand power over to those same corporations on a silver platter. Democrats think we have common interests that have to be defended by government; Republicans don't and think it should all be private property anyway.
See, not so complicated. Democrats just need to channel some of that enthusiasm for policy into articulating why the voters should entrust us with the power to do something about it.
1
Do progressive/liberal policies need to be simplified to gain public support?
Here are some arguments to the negative.
Warren is the only candidate who even mentions how she would implement her goals; I find her explanations down to earth yet without condescension. She has my support just because she is knowledgeable and honest enough to tell us how she'll get to her goals. However, I see most candidates just repeat their rallying slogans; complexity was not even hinted at.
Both FDR and Johnson were two highly skilled Democratic presidents who were able to pass major, progressive legislation. How? I propose because they knew how to maneuver and manipulate the mechanics of government. They were master politicians. I reviewed the issues of SS when FDR introduced the idea; it sounds like the opposition was the same, branding SS to be Communist. The complexities were introduced by the opposition to dissuade the public.
Trump's tax policies were not complex, as presented to the public. (Trump couldn't even imagine such a thing as complexity of an idea.) Yet, we will be paying the consequences of the Trump tax plan and I wonder how many of us understand it even now. I would think major factors getting Trump's tax policy passed were the Republican control of Congress and McConnell's political skills. Abhorrent as it is, we could use a McConnell on our side.
So I propose it's not complexity that handicaps progressive ideas; it's lack of master politicians.
2
First of all, saying that people don’t understand the complexity of progressive policy proposals is a dog whistle for “you are stupid, we are smart, quit challenging your betters.” That is not a way to win hearts and minds.
Secondly, the policy proposals like “postal banking” are things that nobody has heard of, thanks to all the oxygen in the room going to “vote for us or the earth gets it and you had better do it fast, like really fast, like NOW!”
Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, life expectancy has… fallen. Yes, that is due to opioids, many of them illegal but yes, many of the addicted began their addiction thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
A good progressive thing to do would be to increase transparency but sadly, that is not the trend.
68
@Grillin ona
Please explain how the ACA was directly responsible for people becoming addicted to opioids. I'm a pain specialist and I'd really like to understand. From my point of view it seems to be a result of industry forces exerting influence over health care resulting in, among other things, the JCAHO promulgating pain to a "vital sign" to be treated as aggressively as possible with vitamin "O".
47
@Grillin ona
So you seem to argue that progressives shouldn't acknowledge the complexity of their proposals since its not a way to win hearts and minds. I'd disagree but fine. (Btw, Wu is saying the complexity is a problem because people don't want to grapple with complex policy, not that they couldn't if they really tried)
But then you say you never hear of certain proposals because people are too busy talking about, presumably, the GND and other climate change issues. Well I hate to break it to you, but complexity involves trying to understand more than one thing at a time. So by saying people don't understand certain policies because they are too busy evaluating other policies, you are essentially proving the author's point.
And no, people did not begin addiction thanks to the ACA. Opioid addiction is usually the result of a variety of factors; and while access to healthcare is often a necessary precondition for obtaining opioids (except for the black market of course), it's not a cause of addiction.
28
@Grillin ona Incorrect. The opioid crisis began in the 1990s. The pain as a 5th vital sign campaign came out in 1995 and Oxycontin 1996 and changes to how providers and hospitals were paid if they did not treat pain by 2001. Heroin took off and became the major driver of overdose deaths in 2010 which is also the year that prescription opioids peaked. We still have three times as many prescription opioids out there as in 1996 but it has peaked. Fentanyl came in 2013. You can easily confirm this yourself if you view statistics on the CDC site breaking down deaths in the opioid epidemic by type of drug exposure. In fact, without medicaid expansion, which is in part due to the ACA in many states, even fewer would have access to opioid addiction treatment. I live in a non-expanded state and if you don't have insurance you pretty much don't get treated. Also suicides have driven this and even current Medicaid/Medicare don't adequately pay for mental health treatment, much less unexpanded states. So trying to lay the decreasing life expectancy (of whites) at the feet of the ACA is incorrect on many levels.
26
To be motivated to vote Republican all one needs is to feel fear.
To be motivated to vote Democratic, both empathy and analysis are fundamental.
Anger can swing either way. Angry people vote.
Democratic candidates' messaging and campaigning need to (excuse the pun) progressively adapt to these truisms that Hillary ignored.
3
Basic principles of decency aren't that difficult to understand.
The argument against medicare for people younger than 65 is that it might increase the deficit in 20 years to the amount of...
... well, it's the amount of the increase that Trump just managed to cause in 2 years.
Why are we even buying the load of insipid nonsense that the GOP is throwing out there? Because they are confident that we're ALL willing to buy the load of garbage they're spewing.
Except that we aren't.
306 people in the electoral college were apparently even willing to regard Trump as capable of doing a good job as president even while he was buying his way out of 3 class action lawsuits filed against him for fraud and racketeering.
They're lack of intellectual curiosity has more to do with their lack of decency than anything else.
1
Policy is complicated, no matter whose policy it is. Liberals don't have the corner on complexity. You cannot tell me that the tax cut - which raised most peoples' total tax bill in my neighborhood, and is likely to harm the fragile real estate market -was simple.
The MESSAGE was simple. The reality was Rube Goldbergian.
Liberals need to simplify their message, and fix problems incrementally.
Try : "HEALTHCARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT! No one should die because they were laid off." Fix healthcare with universal coverage - allowing people to buy into Medicare or state and federal employee plans. Then fix the cost side, starting with one or two areas - vertical integration, exploitative drug pricing.
Message that "THE GOP HAS THE ULTIMATE DEATH TAX!" They are leaving a dead planet for our grandchildren in their last will and testaments.
Message that we need qualified, responsible guns owners not crooks, psycho terrorists and idiots. "GUNS ARE FOR RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS _ LICENSE AND REGULATE!" Who wants to admit that they think they are too irresponsible to own a gun?
But liberals are awful at messaging. "Medicare for all" is a terrible message because we can fight the solution and ignore the problem of universal coverage.
The policy can be hard to explain. The goal should not be.
1
Excellent column and dead-on about the ACA. Most highly educated people that I know support it but haven't a clue about how it works. Liberals need to get over their love affair with "choice" and "nuance".
1
It is unsurprising that the complexity of sophisticated programs would present extreme difficulty to a constituency carefully nurtured by the GOP to respond only to abject superficiality: “Lock her up”......”Build the Wall”. Any attempt by Dems or progs to explain alternatives requires receptive language skills, an understanding of nuance and the patience to determine which argument is accurate - each of which has been systematically bred out of the “base”. Viewers of Fox News, for instance,not only believe that it’s actually news, 78 percent of them believe Donald Trump is the country’s best President ever. This doesn’t feel like it’s going to end well.
Mr. Wu makes a good point in this piece. I love the intellectual rigor Democrats utilize to assess and address complex problems. But they do themselves a disservice when they show again and again their inability to communicate at a basic level and make the solution easy to understand and use. K.I.S.S. (Keep I Simple Stupid) is a concept that should never be far from any communication or solution presented to the public.
1
I think the remark, by Irving Kristol, is in fact " a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." Subtler and more insidious than the popular version.
ObamaCare is complex because it was configured and distorted in order to be passed by Congress to satisfy as many special interests (money) as it could. However, Obama when he was a Senator from Illinois was for a single-payer plan. Everyone in, nobody out. Not a difficult concept to understand until money, greed, and racist tendencies interfere.
2
I'd rather we have a "complexity" problem and have meaningful discussions about them, rather than a lying/bait & switch problem which the Republicans continually offer.
2
Is it the actual policy or the messaging which the American 'public' want plain and simple? Any health care plan is going to be complex by it's very nature. The 'message' for the ACA was not simple but the GOP 'message' regarding it was - You will lose your doctor. Now in 2019 the message of 'Medicare for All' is much easier for the American public to initially grasp. The details will come later, hopefully easier to understand.
This is why trump rules by tweet. Only 140 words which necessarily brings brevity and simplicity to the thought or idea.
Is that ALL that the American public understand? Some fear that yes, we are that dumb.
I will give it to the GOP. They are far more adept at their messaging. Simple, short and often brutal. Trump's narrative can be summed up as White=Good, Brown=Bad or Democrats are Evil. Democrats should double down on their messages such as
A Living Wage and Fair Taxes. No need to explain the details every time.
2
Mr. Wu, I am sure that starting this off with "you're nuts" is not a sure way to get you to read this, but I think it would help you. To begin with Progressives have not been around for decades. Do not confuse them with the Democrats who passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA). That was actually a Republican program and the only thing that made it "affordable" was the taxpayers picking up most of the tab.
The Green Deal is NOT rocket science. Medicare is NOT expensive, especially when compared to the ACA. For the Government to egregiously profit off of students borrowing money to get an education which enriches our country is unconscionable. A bachelor's degree is the equivalent of what a high school diploma used to be. A high school diploma is as outdated as a $7.25/hr minimum wage and both need to be updated. The progressive platform is logical and easy to understand. As for the knuckle draggers, the only thing they understand is white supremacy or Hillary Clinton.
1
You are saying the people are too dumb to understand how much the elites want to help us? I was against the ACA because it is a love note to big pharma and healthcare companies. As someone who has Obamacare, I don't make enough to be able to afford to use it and I don't make little enough for subsidies. I would be much better off paying out of pocket and having just catastrophic coverage. Of course, I didn't go to a fancy college so I'm sure I'm missing how wonderful it is.
1
I don't think "Free stuff for everybody!" is that difficult to understand.
Alternatively, America has a simplicity problem.
2
The Green New Deal is a case in point. A simple aggressive plan to combat climate change with green jobs would have been simple, exciting and popular. Instead, the liberals tossed in every lefty idea of the moment, giving the Republicans endless stuff to pull out of context and hammer away at.
The real national emergency is that, as a group, Americans have become stunningly stupid, lacking in critical thinking skills and attention spans, and intellectually lazy. The GOP, which has been an absolute disaster, between trickle-down economics, the Iraq war, the Bush Recession, and now Trump, keep winning because they know this and speak to Americans like one speaks to a three year old...including the lying because they know they won't be questioned. I've said for a while that Hillary's problem, along with being female, was that she spoke in full sentences and spoke to us like we are adults capable of grasping the meaning of what she was saying.
2
Anyone who believes that the Affordable Care Act was progressive legislation, must be using a unique definition of the word "progressive".
Much of ACA was written by insurance industry lobbyists, and a CEO whistleblower referred to ACA as the "health insurance industry profit protection act".
http://healthoverprofit.org/2017/02/05/obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history/
And Obama jettisoned the only progressive part of ACA, the public plan, when the industry protested that it could not compete with the public plan, and the insurance industry has been reaping wonderful profits ever since. https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-insurers-are-making-a-mint-from-obamacare-20160216-column.html
1
It is important to remember that, by definition, 50% of voters have IQ's below 100.
There are few Progressives on Madison Ave and fewer in sales! This is a lack of salesmanship and the writer is correct, a lack of ability to appreciate the lives and the pressures of real everyday Americans! Marketing is important and Democrats stink at it!
If every american citizen, from the age of twenty, pays 5 dollars
or maybe 8 dollars per week, into a health fund of a kind, you
could have free healthcare like many countries in the modern
world......
1
More fundamentally, the D's have a STUPIDITY problem.
Our ship of conditions for human life on Earth has giant growing holes in the hull, from our causing climate change and devastation of biodiversity. Yet the flood of D candidates divert their and our attention and efforts to rearranging our society's deck chairs as our ship of human civilization and life on Earth goes down.
1
In other words, according to Professor Wu, Americans are just too stupid to be able to figure out what's good for them and have to have "government solve problems for them."
In a sense, Professor Wu is right, a lot of Americans probably are too stupid to solve their own problems. But the unforgivable mistake the "Progressives" keep making is assuming we're all too stupid. For many of us, the reason Obamacare is "much less popular than it could be" is that it was rammed down our throats and exposes us to two or three times greater expenses. Nothing to do with "complexity," though, of course, it's a typical government bureaucratic nightmare.
"Real respect for the public involves appreciating what the public actually wants and needs."
Like every member of "the public" has an identical set of "wants and needs?" And only "experts" like Professor Wu are capable of discerning and meeting those universal wants and needs? The arrogance of that assertion is astonishing.
And that, not "complexity," is the Left's killer problem. Professor Wu seems to think we're all, or ought to be, or ought to be forced to be, urban Liberals who want government to solve all the problems we're too stupid to solve ourselves--and who are willing to pay handsomely for that "service." Professor Wu needs to climb down more often from his Columbia ivory tower and visit the 99.99 percent of the country that isn't Manhattan Island.
1
Sorry but we do understand what they're proposing - stacking the Supreme Court, Medicare for all so you lose your private health insurance, open borders, reparations, lowering the voting age to 16, and now Gillebrand saying illegals should get social security. Notice how NONE of them are talking about the economy(other than to call it racist), North Korea, ISIS, Syria.
As a lifelong Democrat I fear that the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party will push us into another 4 years of Trump by making unrealistic promises that American taxpayers cannot possibly afford.
Look at all the reasons Bernie Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their merry band of socialist Congresspersons (and quite a few announced Democratic Presidential candidates) are giving the electorate to vote for Trump in 2020: free Medicare for all, free college for all, confiscatory taxes, open borders, late-term abortions, anti-Semitism, a Green New Deal, reparations, etc. etc.
The ultra-left Democrats (socialists) seem to think that those in fly-over land (and quite a few on the elite coasts) are stupid and won't realize that these pie-in-the-sky dreams are fiscally and politically impossible.
Isn't it time to admit that "progressive" really means "socialist?" And, as Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
Multi-millionaire Bernie Sanders has made an expedient pledge to run as a Democrat, thus almost masking his true socialist identity and intentions. The old-guard Democratic leaders seem totally flummoxed by the likes of Ocasio-Cortez.
I really hope the moderates can take back our party's platform and return the Presidency to the Democrats.
94
@Mal T Until 2017, Sanders was one of the least-wealthy members of Congress. Due to sales of a book he authored, his total income for 2017 just broke $1M that year. This does not qualify him as a multimillionaire. What's more, the fear that progressives like Sanders will scare off swing voters, frequently trumpeted by moderates, does not stand up to polling data. In May and June of 2016, Sanders outpolled Clinton and Trump among all voters in the US. Sanders was far more popular among swing voters than Clinton was.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-now-loses_b_10102664.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-does-sanders-do-better-clinton-against-trump
35
@Mal T,
It would be just as easy to say I really hope the moderate Democrats get out of the way so we don't keep hemorrhaging congressional seats and state governments to republicans.
25
I used to agree with you but with climate change combined with this administration I’ve swung way left. Time is no longer on planet earths side.
32
I have to disagree. The policies and issues themselves aren't that complex. The causes aren't even that complex and Americans fundamentally understand this.
The problem the Democrats have, which the Republican's don't, is effective communication and branding. The Republicans also have way more discipline - though that's a natural outcome of that whole political philosophy appealing to people who are more likely to be authoritative/authoritarian in world view.
The Democrats have already coalesced around a set of policies and prescriptions with some of the details to be worked out. What they now need to do is find ways to communicate them well and allay fears of the dreaded SOCIALISM.
They'd do well to take a page out of Robert Reich's book. His videos are excellent, they're clear and concise and are not condescending. He's an excellent educator and anyone running for president should take note.
I think the major thing they should communicate is what the incremental costs or savings should be for people in America. We have an allergy to increasing taxes here but a quick description that the incremental effect on your paycheck will be more take home $$$ as your deductible health expenses go down even though your taxes went up puts your family in a much better spot would be immensely helpful. I think they also need to help people wrap their heads about increasing marginal tax rates and that no, nobody is trying to steal 70% of what rich people make would also be a good idea.
Rather amusing it is, that it takes fewer characters to say 'simplistic slogans like “cut taxes” and “drill, baby, drill”' than it does to say, 'nuanced, empirically informed assessments of economic growth and environmental management.' The Conservatives really have the Progressives pinned under a log in a corner.
I suppose it is a pitfall for people involved in the making of law, that they may unintentionally end up using language to obfuscate rather than clarify things. Remember there is beauty in simplicity.
I think that Elizabeth Warren "gets it." What could be simpler, and more effective, than the "wealth tax" she is promoting?
Proposing to use the revenue from that tax for specific, targeted purposes to help close the inequality and income gap is a simple and elegant comprehensive solution that is easy to explain and to grasp.
1
No, the Democrats have a simple-mindedness problem. All their programs are slogans. Green New Deal, free college, Medicare for all, 70% tax rate, pack the Supreme Court, etc. The fact is, that it would not be that hard to add just a little information--complexity--to these slogans. A few sentences would be adequate to outline approximately the policies that these slogans advocate, and give enough information on the pros and cons of them to make a fairly informed decision. Each candidate should have their staff do a little research on each policy, so that they can answer questions with a bit of detail.
In the long run, for most Americans, taxes are the the best investment they will ever make. The Return On Taxes investments are great if communicated clearly and correctly. Things most Americans take for granted like; education, streets, sidewalks, environments, parks, fire protection, policing, medical care, and public safety to name a few cost billions. Those billions come from taxes.
Few members of the political class can explain ROI of taxes in meaningful way because they take America for granted.
Prof. Wu, this is spot on. Democrats have a huge translation problem, made worse by the Republicans' incredible talent at generating language that clinches their message -- from "just say no" to "build that wall." By manipulating language effectively, they have engineered our huge national shift to the right. For years, instead of learning from the Republicans, Democrats have created an unhelpful binary between complexity and stupidity. People are not stupid, but not everyone is highly educated. We need fully complex policies and simple, not simplistic, ways to explain them.
176
@MP It's not just the language. It's the discipline to repeat the same simple message over and over and over again. And the ability of the messenger to come across as passionate, whether the feeling is genuine or not.
4
The trap that so-called progressives so easily fall into is of their own making. They have the same problem in Europe. In a doomed attempt to improve they try to address all the possible concerns of all the voter-blocks they consider worthwhile (i.e. anything that calls itself a minority) and to include safeguards and exceptions to cater to them. No-one can benefit from the improvement more than anyone else. Now, because "benefiting" is to a very large degree subjective, translating its guarantee into rules and regulation renders this impossible to use and, hence, frustrating. In the end, even the intended beneficiaries feel flummoxed end bewildered. Progressives are indeed their own worst enemies.
People, with many notable exceptions, are dumb, no doubt. But there is no benefit to making things more complicated than necessary. The US government is a chimera of the state founded in 1776 and its conjoined twin the Global Corporate Empire, GCE. As the servant of two masters there is a natural tension that makes it impossible to craft simple clear solutions to problems. The GCE always has it foot on the scales, doing everything it can to pour profit into its gaping maw.
Can you imagine all the rent seeking accommodations that would be stuck into Medicare for All legislation.
1
The American electorate is poorly educated when it comes to economics and politics. Both the media and the education system fail miserably at educating members of society either by design or the lack of understanding by educators and those who control the news room.
The complexity also is essentially a tax on the poor as they are the ones often trying to navigate the however well intended but too complex solutions. The poor have even less time to sort through these sorts of issues. If you wonder why people vote “against their interests” it is often not due to the many republican lies (I agree there are many), but the difficulty of understanding why the policy is in their interest when married with potential past bad experiences in dealing with government programs.
Actually, this is not a complex problem. Let me simplify it for the Democrats: Single payer Medicare for All. Go to the doctor of your choice. Go to the hospital of your choice. They submit their bill for payment to the government for reimbursement. No monthly insurance premium. no co-pay, no deductible. Sick? Go to a doctor. Need surgery? Go to a surgeon. In other words, do what every industrialized country is already doing and even what we already do, for those over 65 years of age. It's not complex. It IS complex however if you try to keep the for-profit private insurance industry in the equation as the insurer.
215
@FXQ - it is exactly the simplistic understand of healthcare that yields an answer that would destroy our economy. You clearly do not understand that the government already controls 50% of the insured market, already establishes the rate and structure of the healthcare system, decides what to pay doctors. The entire structure of what is already a system of massive regulations pays providers multiples of other countries, is fee for service in structure and yet, restricts growth on doctors, nurses, etc. Yes, just keep watering the weeds and more weeds will grow
8
@FXQ
I agree with adding medical care to the list of things that are already socialized in this country (a long list that includes the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the police, the FBI, the CIA, and a whole lot of other things that conservative Republicans love and for some reason don't consider socialist.)
But "free' won't, and shouldn't happen. If you can't find $50 for a co-pay when everything else is covered, you don't need a doctor. A $50 co-pay would cut the needless visits down significantly.
10
@FXQ All public and all private, aka socialism and libertarianism, are appealing because of their simplicity. They are also both guarantees of mediocrity. Synergizing between the different control surfaces, as it were, has the greatest potential for both really good or really bad outcomes. And the best way to work synergies is not to try to micromanage them but find the right place to cut with the grain and just work the feedback. Mixed solutions also have the potential for simplicity, but also for that special kind of simplicity called elegance: great output per input, like a theory that implies so much from a simple equation.
1
The New Green Deal is an example. It is an aspiration, not a plan on how to do it. We should separate what it is from how to do it. Democrats like or need to explain everything while Republican just say it and leave the how to others behind the scenes. Unfortunately that's okay for Republicans, but Democrats like to know how it will be done.
I cannot overstate how much I hate this article—partly because it is (to some extent) spot on. Americans are absolutely running short on attention. I would personally blame that on football and the Lifetime and Hallmark channels... not on legitimately taxing lives.
It’s no coincidence that Republicans nominated and elected a man who has never had a thought so complex that it couldn’t be fully expressed in 140 characters. And it is the sad truth that most of his base could not follow it any further even if he did.
The truth is that in a nation of 320 million people, our most pervasive problems are (understandably) complex and unwieldy. It is no coincidence that any feasible and adequately thorough solution is also irreducibly complex.
The problem is not that liberals speak some esoteric dialect. We don’t bury the solutions in legalese to obfuscate our true meaning or purpose. Smart people aren’t “hiding something.” The fact that an average man cannot understand something is a reflection upon the shortcomings of the average man. If we have correct and complex answers—even if they take time to wrap your head around—then those are still infinitely better than the inadequate and inaccurate oversimplifications pitched by the right.
What are their fundamental answers? How? God. Why? God. Their entire platform is a bunch of simplistic nonsense. Its inadequacy is plain as day, but for lazy people who champion simplicity, simple and wrong is better than complex and correct.
If you want to beat Trump and peel off some of his supporters come 2020. Reduce your message down to a bumper sticker, a slogan, and a crowd chant. His base carried him to the White House because he kept it simple, short, and mean. Examples: MAGA, Lock Her Up, and Build a Wall. Didn't require his base to think, ponder, or choose beyond a gut emotional level.
1
Here's an example of using an easy to understand policy to take control of a complex issue--climate change.
Buy an electric vehicle, get a tax break.
American motorists will belch almost a trillion lbs. of CO2 into our atmosphere this year. This has to stop because it's killing us.
Buy an EV, get a tax break.
All tax payers except those in the top 20% (they don't need a break) can enjoy a one year tax holiday from any income or payroll taxes whenever they want. What's the catch?
Buy an EV, get a tax break.
The goal is to sell 250 million EV's over 10 years and create massive employment opportunities while saving the planet.
Buy an EV and put Americans to work.
The tax break (for the folks who need it most) will amount to just under $2 trillion. How can we afford this? By imposing an $8,000 tax on each new EV sold, this plan will pay for itself. How will customers be able to afford this tax? With the money--about $25,000 over 10 years--that they won't be spending on gasoline!
Buy an EV, get a tax break.
Buy an EV, create thousands of new jobs.
Buy an EV, save money.
Buy an EV, save the planet.
Attention Democrats: there's your winning campaign issue. You're welcome.
@WDG
Plenty of used Prius vehicles for sale. Worried about eventually needing a new battery? Why worry when you can get refurbished one or have the same company replace the spent cells inside your older battery.
Are you afraid of buying a house that isn't new in case you'll eventually need an electrician?
Don't listen to fear-mongering ignorant Republicans who get bribed by the petroleum industry to scare you.
Innovation is good!
@Jbugko Exactly! And most Americans probably aren't aware that gas driven vehicles can be converted to electric. The price for conversion has been dropping. I would tweak my plan by making conversions from gas powered cars to EV's eligible for the tax break. An enormous industry will almost certainly spring up. I do worry we won't have enough car mechanics to meet the demand. I wonder if any experienced mechanics are seeking asylum at our southern border. We'll need them!
Republicans win because their message is simple. Democrats struggle to explain policies and issues and the average voter tunes out because they lack the attention span and/or intellect to “get” the message. The solutions may be complex but the message needs to be simple to win voter suooort.
1
The complexity problem derives from the aspirational conceit that we can be all things to all people.
There was an interesting case in Birmingham England recently. Parents protested at a school because it gave lessons to youngsters that promoted inclusion and acceptance, including the fact that some kids may come from homes with two Moms for example. The parents were predominantly Muslim. They felt this teaching was a form of indoctrination about homosexuality. The course was stopped. LGBTQ activists were upset. What it illustrates, albeit simplistically, is that as much as one wants to be friends to all you may find your platform runs afoul of how divergent diversity can truly be. Like the feminism versus anti-semitism wrinkle of the recent women marches. When we are for all causes, what causes matter the most? People and groups tend to be self interested. If one cannot find or represent a unifying thread we become a nation of cultural silos. The ACA further illustrates the point. The poorest benefited. The middle class were pinched, and often felt they got less but paid more and were angry to be penalized if they failed to sign on. Those were voters.
The complexity is not that Democrats today are obtuse so much as they are playing to so many divergent groups and will struggle with finding common threads. Eventually the real risk with oil and water politics is losing control of the message. We just may create more complexity. And lose credibility.
I am not reading any more navel gazing articles about 'problems' with Democrats.
I am an independent who has voted R and voted D.
And in less than 2 years I will vote for WHOEVER runs against Trump.
When he is in the dustbin of history, I can read all about problems with Dem policies, imagined and otherwise.
(PS- you claim that libraries were a model policy. Fact check - it was robber-baron money (a heartfelt thank you to Mr. Carnegie, the Bill Gates of his day) that started public libraries, which Congress then supported. Can you imagine trying to use tax dollars today, in Mute Mitch's Congress, to try and create something as 'socialist' as free access to books ?)
See you in 2020.
1
Gee thanks Professor Wu for explaining why all your progressive policy proscriptions are a good idea. Keep up the good work and enjoy your tenured perch at Columbia. Wish I had one!
This is an important and useful insight. We need the press to do a big part of this job. And fo that we need a much broader selection of center-left newspapers.
I do not for one minute want to see a dumbing down of the NY Times or the Washington Post. But I'm convinced from personal experience that we need additional newspapers written on the reading level of the average reader.
To gain support for progressive ideas, progressive thinkers need to learn the science of readability measurements -- something well known in the field of education. Writing in shorter sentences with fewer subordinate clauses would make even complex ideas more accessible to a broad range of readers. This need not insult the reader's intelligence if it is done properly.
Oh come now! The reason for the complexities in policies and programs put forth by 'Progressives' is mainly due to the way they have to be so skewed and misshaped to get the Republicans to buy in on them.
2
I disagree. America has an ignorance problem, a serious lack of critical thinking skill that has been deliberately withheld in modern day educational setting. Time for a reset.
Tim Wu
You wrote this article to help us DEMS do two things; #1.) create a clear and simple message and #2.) to legislate in ways that are simple to understand and affect citizens by simplifying everyone's lives.
I agree. I've always attributed the complexity to the diverse thinking group who we are as liberal progressive democrats AND the fact that REPtiles are not interested in our way to improve society. The result is complexity because we are forced to work with REPS in their domain and in their way of thinking.
When DEMS are in command and control of HOUSE SENATE and PRESIDENCY we better do what you are helping us with. This child potus may have done more to help us that just how we do it simply.
The ACA was NOT a progressive solution. It was a conservative proposal implemented by a Republican Governor and a center right Democrat President, negotiated with healthcare lobbyists for the for-profit sector.
Getting heartily sick of all these op-Ed pieces with deliberate dishonest framing.
1
I can -- and often do -- say the same thing about Republican communication. Extremists and thoughtless followers on both sides grab onto slogans, disengage their brains and happily repeat myths and propaganda. This gets us nowhere. I wish I had a solution to propose.
The most important piece I’ve read in the Times in 5 years.
So the problem is we're not smart enough? I might not use this as a campaign slogan.
1
So Tim Wu's answer to complexity is to make things simple? How simple! Too bad it will never work.
Our society will always be complex and so we need to deal with complexity. Good ideas will be important, but there are always plenty of good ideas. The problem is not ideas but execution -- finding out which ideas work.
A complex system is by definition one in which cause and effect are hard to predict. So how do you know that a government measure is going to have the effect that you want? It's not simple, but you need to combine design with an iterative process of trial and error. You need experiments. You need failure and learning from failure.
Today's Democrats are terrible at this. They run on ideas, not execution. But you know who is good at it? A person Tim Wu thinks a buffoon: Donald Trump.
Donald Trump knows how to execute. He has ideas, but they are vague. He knows generally what he wants to do but not how to do it. So he goes out and tries something and then, in his signature phrase, says "we'll see what happens".
That works. Sure, Donald Trump has had his failures. Plenty of them. But he is comfortable failing. He learns from that and tries something else. He's a unique politician, in that he actually gets things done.
Learn from that, Democrats. That's how to execute. That's how to get things done. Ideas are not very important. Not as important as experiments. Not as important as failure.
Will they learn? We'll see what happens.
1
Tim Wu writes: "Too often, progressive policies are difficult for Americans to understand, use and benefit from."
Yeah, so is Change.
Mr. Wu - a huge part of the problem is this: progressive policies can be a hard sell not just because they can be complex, but because an entire political establishment opposes them.
They use disinformation and distortion to discredit them (Remember death panels?) They reject fact-based policies that contradict their ideology or threaten their power and wealth. (Climate change denial) They also use distraction, to change the subject and bury the debate in trivia.
Senator Warren has a knack for putting her ideas in plain language - so instead they attack her over here heritage. AOC raises challenging questions - so they attack her on anything they can find or make up.
And then some people choose out of misplaced fear. (Anti-vaxx)
Not all ideas are that complex. America needs to get off carbon as rapidly and fairly as possible. Here's a simple idea:
• Electrify the nation's rail corridors
• Power them with wind and solar
• Use those corridors for power transmission - get that clean power out to the rest of the country.
• Do it with Public Private Partnerships between government and industry.
• Higher Speed Rail HrSR using existing corridors and technology
• Restore fast, frequent freight and passenger rail to bypassed towns.
Jobs, economic growth, clean power and transport (www.solutionaryrail.org) - it's not hard to sell.
Problem is, it requires people to trust government. Conservatives have spent decades making government the enemy. And that's the real problem.
You mean kind of like "You got more money in your paycheck due to the tax cut, but you have to pay when you file or you don't get the refund you got last year because you did not have enough withholding taken out of your check for taxes". That kind of complexity? It's not a matter of communicating. The communication is accomplishing exactly what the writer intended. It's a matter of making it look like you are getting something when you are not. It's trying to hide the fact that someone else, who doesn't really need it, is getting that "something" when you are getting far less. But you are told it is the exact reverse. And, like with the ACA, you are only able to see what "they" truly "meant" by what "they" said when you can see what "it" does. And lots of people buy in over and over again even when the numbers never even come close to adding up. Think Trump saying "I am not getting a tax cut from this bill" even when his is far bigger than yours. or " The Mexicans will pay for the wall" and then finding out not only are YOU paying for it, it is coming out of the military budget until YOU put that money back. They convince themselves that "I knew that it would happen that way all along" . And then they put on their red hats to head out to the rally for the next thing to wrap their heads around.
I think it’s a lot simpler than all that. Americans by and large do not want the Federal Government doing all of this stuff. One size fits all approaches are bloated and wasteful use to size and scope. Let States handle these issues and if the people there want them they can have them. If they don’t, they can move to states that are of their own thinking.
I agree completely. When an private company or Government entity tells me I want more choice, I scream “NO I DON’T”!
Two words: single payer.
"Too often, progressive policies are difficult for Americans to understand, use and benefit from."
Yep - those "deplorables" just couldn't possibly understand the great thoughts of the elites.
3
I am 64 and planning to go on Medicare next year, and I'm doing research. What I found is that Medicare is not one system but 4 systems (A,B,C,D) and that D has a wierd coverage formula which has been nicknamed "the doughnut hole". A textbook case of a system that is far more complex than it needs to be. And progressives want to expand this into "Medicare for All".
Whatr's complex?
Compassionate Democracy encourages Life worth living.
whereas
Unchecked Capitalism fosters Life nasty, brutish, and short.
That's not so hard.
Complexity is even a problem for me, a highly educated liberal. I often come away with "Huh?" after reading the often tangled arguments of, say, Ross Douthat in this newspaper. One of Trump's advantages is his anger and limited intelligence: both pare down messages.
When Nancy Pelosi had her Obamacare gaff - and said we need to pass the bill to see how it will work, she was more or less right. Democratic politicians jobs are not to get into the weeds or be policy wonks on certain subjects. That is up to the attorneys legislative councils on the state level, and policy analysts on the hill who are trained in economics and law. Donna Brazile and Debbie wasserman schultz were so demonized because of their messy electoral politics, but that's the way to win! Democrats need to worry about winning and selling bumper stickers, period full stop! When Jonathon Gruber lamented that there's a large swarth of the american public who's just too dumb to get it--he was right. You have to sell it in framing, memes, sometimes underhanded political maneuvering and get into power--at which point you start to move the levers of power and implement well-thought-out policy. That's why Bernie Sanders was so popular--he made mainstream democratic policies into easily digestible one-liners! Republicans are not above-board on this - they will frame, and obfuscate real issues to win. The key here is: don't be a policy wonk; we operate under first past the post. You're there to win, not to explore nuance--it hurts you.
Perhaps some of progressive complexity comes from a need to disguise the inherent contradictions and inapplicability of the so called 'solutions'.
1
Here's one problem: without elaborate intellectual justifications, the Democrats' two big motivating ideas, socialism and identity politics, are problematic with respect to the basic notion of equal treatment under the law. They can easily be simplified, or explained at a "common sense" level, in ways that cast them in the most negative possible light.
For example, unless you've had a college education and been thoroughly trained to see white supremacy everywhere (like the students at Yale, or Evergreen State), affirmative action means "given a choice between two equally qualified candidates, employers and colleges should pick the one who's not a white male".
Redistribution? "Take money from people who work, to give it to people who don't."
Reparations? "Take money from white people and give it to black people."
New Title IX guidelines on sexual assault? "For men accused of sexual assault, the burden of proof is on the defendant."
Abolish ICE? "Stop enforcing our immigration laws."
Even recycling! It used to be "wash your garbage, so we can send it to China, so they can send it back to is as tainted baby toys.". Even that was better than "wash your garbage, so we can throw it in a landfill anyway."
See how easy it is? Try to argue against these characterizations without falling into the traps of "vauge hippie," "pedantic Liberal elitist," or, in 2019, "true-believing Cultural Revolutionary."
How do progressives compete with, small government, free market, 2nd amendment and take away choice? The rights agenda is a bumper sticker that fits perfectly on a pickup.
1
What happens when the explanation is part of the problem? Not because the details are "complex," but because the explanation is misleading? Rush forward, how is it "misleading" when the ACA was fraught with confusion and fear--when Ocasio-Cortez's green energy New Deal has regular folk concerned about whether airplanes will continue to fly, when the highest elected official is wondering in front of audiences if you have to check the wind--before making a cup of coffee? Did you see it? The evidence is right before you! The opponents misrepresent, stir fear, tell blatant lies and even use supporters who commit the most common logical fallacy of the 20th century: Alfred North Whitehead's "misplaced concreteness."
Let's make it simple: Whitehead says what we see depends upon our location, whether it be physical, social, political, or wealth. I know people who fear blacks, New York, dogs, sidewalk cracks--none are a problem is you live where there are no blacks, cities, pets, or sidewalks. But Whitehead points out misplacement is also three-dimensional. Imagine the giant 60 foot waves surfers embrace; a position on the top of the peak is different than the bottom, or even moving along its tunnel--its formation, speed, sustaining force are different and changing at every point!
So a marginal tax suddenly becomes 70% of every dollar--misleading and a lie! So Obamacare is embraced by families and a Republican government could damage it but not take it down.
(Part 2 below.)
1
(Part 2)
The best way to misplace the truth is to put the lie in the premise—to begin with a tilt from the truth, an easy falsehood that conjures old paradigms, old language with familiar stereotypes, old failures arising like zombies. “It's too complicated.”
No, it isn't! Anyone on Medicaid can tell you the system works! They will also tell you it is not “free” or “government run.” Medicaid recipients pay a premium. (Something I didn't know until I was enrolled!) Your private, self-chosen healthcare provider is reimbursed for fees and services. Social security works. Its administrative costs are lower than private plans. It guarantees its payment no matter the state of the market. (The recent Trump market bump took away billions in family net worth.)
Let's ask the concrete questions: does student debt literally take away some of the benefits of education? Yes, my own daughter was unable to obtain a mortgage due to her debt! Can we lower tuition? Yes. I have seen online courses with difficult assessments taught by leading practitioners and professors, at no cost. To put costs before the process is to misplace the outcome and beg the question: can a new paradigm make this more efficient!
Can every one be insured? Yes! We have a large successful working study that only needs to be enlarged. Can justice be reformed? That is difficult. But make no mistake: progressive goals are mainstream. That's why they poll well.
Identity is such a problem in the USA . One guy says that socialism wants to take away your hamburger and a politician immediately reacts by saying : " I have 20 cows, can she try to come and take my cows ! I have 20 guns ! And the Constitution to defend my guns . " And my hamburgers .
It seems comical but this is about the intellectual level of the real political debate in the USA every day .It does not get much higher than that. Sure this is a very complex problem...
1
What progressive policy wonks need is a good editor, someone who can take complex information and distill it into clear, concise terms.
Academicians, philosophers, any person whose career is dedicated to a certain idea or policy, have a difficult time expressing their ideas clearly. I should know... at one time I edited artcles and books for academic publication.
Many authors are immersed in details, tortuous to follow. Their ideas were sound, but getting them in writing is difficult.
I usually read the article, then asked the author to explain their point in layperson's terms. This was difficult for them. So, through a combination of persistent questioning, and their responses, we would arrive at a clear version of what they had set out to say.
I believe that if an idea cannot be clearly articulated and written in layperson's terms, then the writing needs a crack editor. This is not to say the detailed and exhaustive underpinnings of a policy are muted...a lot of thought goes into this work.
But for general consumption, a short, concise, even bullet-point summary must be provided, with references to underlying research.
"No one has to work anymore! Free stuff for everyone! Don't ask where goods and services will come from! Look at the economic miracle in Venezuela!"
Progressives are really not too difficult to understand. They're just really difficult to agree with.
Mr. Wu, You have confused your terms. Something that has many parts that are not well integrated is complicated. Something that has many parts that are well integrated—simple when one sees the whole—is complex.
Democracy fails when voters are ignorant. And in this modern age, the medieval mindset is undergoing its renaissance across the American heartlands.
There can be no compromise. We cannot create 18th century policies for the 21st century simply because the majority of our population can't understand the latter.
It is all about marketing. Obama said Yes We Can and people understood him. Democrats have to simplify and market their message in such a way it becomes a jingle that everyone hums, in their sleep, in the shower and whistle while they drive to work.
3
One needs to look no further than our ridiculous tax code that wealthy people are able to exploit to avoid paying taxes.
1
Rather than prove his point, Mr. Wu has demonstrated why pointy-headed 'progressives' may given us another four years of Donald Trump.
No, Mr. Wu, the problem is not that most Americans are too dense to understand policy ideas and proposals that are longer than 280 characters long. The problem is that people like you and the Justice Democrats have absolutely no clue about people outside of your coastal bubble.
Go ahead folks, nominate a democratic socialist or someone of that ilk and watch them join George McGovern and Michael Dukakis in the heap of forgotten history.
Mr Wu is correct The Democrats in Charge think they are smarter than the rest of us and overcomplicate things.
Albert Einstein: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Occam's razor: The simplest solution is always the best
Could not have said it better...and simpler... myself!
1
So we are all too stupid to understand what progressive politics mean to us. I would say some but not all. But the first thing one must do is read and comprehend the subject matter. Now I know that is a difficult task for the President, but the rest of us should at least know the alphabet.
What is so difficult to understand about universal health care? We don't need to know how it will be administered, leave that to the pros. We do need to know cost and how the costs will be shared and what will be covered.
The population doesn't need to be dumbed down any further than where we are today. Fox news is simple and effective, but not truthful. Do we want more of their ilk?
This op-ed is true at one scale.
At larger scales, it is false & even ridiculous.
"So what was irrelevant at one scale can become dominant at another. The challenge at every level of observation is to abstract the important variables that determine the dominant behavior of the system.” Geoffrey West—Scale
The dominate phenomenon of our era is: Exponentially Accelerating Complexity—(includes exponentially accruing knowledge).
Briefly, add ~6 billion people since 1900, give billions access to exponentially more powerful tech which expands human reach to unprecedented levels in-and-across Geo Eco Bio Cultural & Tech networks & across Time.
Our problems are vastly more fundamental than policy edits can address.
Here's one fundamental: Code.
Code is physics efficacious relationship infrastructure in bio, cultural & tech networks—genetic, epigenetic; language math moral religious legal monetary etiquette; software, etc.
Complexity increases weaken the efficacy of code.
We've generated environs so unprecedented that our coding—biological & cultural—doesn't fit. It's literally non-selectable.
We’re coded to interface with local environs in a relatively short-term manner with mostly linear dynamics.
We’re not coded to process complex global relationship information with exponential dynamics & myriad, emergent, long-term consequences.
Fundamentally, we have a global Code-to-Environs mismatch that human processors wielding legal & monetary code can not sufficiently address.
"The reality is that most Americans are short on time and attention and already swamped by millions of daily tasks and decisions. They would prefer that the government solve problems for them — not create more work for them."
Gosh, this is an authentic revelation. I expected to see a study or studies buttressing this sweeping statement, but no.
It's just an opinion disguised as fact.
Editors: be more vigilant to this sort of sloppy writing.
By the way, I greatly prefer that the government not solve my problems. Nowadays, interaction with the government too often means digging into my pockets to pay this fee or that tax. The only thing positive thing the government does for me is pay me my Social Security retirement monthly payment.
Trump is making the Democrats look bad on the nations security. They are falling for the trap.
I spent the bulk of my career helping governments to solve problems. Mr. Wu is right. We used to say, "If you can't explain it to city council, then don't do it." Except that sometimes you have to do it. Complex problems too often are not amenable to simplistic solutions.
Other commenters pointed out the need for educating the public. And Mr. Wu's underlying argument that the simplest solution (a variant of the Occam's Razor rule) should be the preferred choice. But there is another problem.
Mr. Wu's solution assumes good will on both sides of the question. That is not the world in which we live. We live in a world where racism, class hatred, and nativism drive policy. These are external factors to the assumed problem, but are used by one party to stall progress to benefit their donors and elements of their "base." The one thing of which a proponent of a progressive policy can be assured is that the policy, and probably the people behind it, will be demagogued by the right in terms completely unrelated to the underlying policy problem.
If we cannot achieve a public arena where ideas are debated on their merits, then no amount of simplification or packaging will work.
1
Dumbing down progressivism is not the answer. Of course, it would help if liberals would not introduce their ideas half-baked(the Green New Deal). It is not the complexity of the ideas that is the issue but the inherent nature of progressivism that purports to surrender our freedoms to the left's magical Wizard of Oz, the government. The left can keep it simple or complex because the answers lie in the middle, otherwise known today as No Man's Land. Preach cooperation and compromise, not simplicity.
16
@dudley thompson No, it's the penchant to prefer clunkiness over elegance. We can't just tax the rich to help the poor, we have to have a committee weight everyone's historical origins. We can't just tax carbon, we have to have a five year plan to build high speed rail etc... We can't just offer public health insurance, we have to set up these complicated quasi private entities. In every case, clunkiness is chosen over elegance not for its results but specifically because it is clunky. We don't want to guesstimate broad effects and adjust in flight, we want to litigate the nitty gritty in detail.
2
@dudley Thompson cooperation and compromise? That takes a rational honest partner. Here is the real answer: Liberals need to play tit for tat. That is the only strategy that subdues a dishonest partner. So, use all of the tools of government to subdue the GOP. Pack the courts to prevent conservative court extremism. Beat them in the polls and block all of their efforts to cheat. Then let them come crawling back to have a fair exchange. Power is all they understand. Wizard of Oz? That is a GOP anti-science, anti-fact staple. Face it, the GOP has declared war on democracy and half measures will only reward them. Now, lets get on with massively punishing the GOP's partners in crime, Putin and his oligarchs, by seizing their assets and melting down their hacking infrastructure.
7
@Robert David South
You can't do this and can't do this but you can handover everything to the privately owned corporations. They will take care. Isn't that your mantra?
Taxing the rich in the same manner we tax the poor (appropriately) in the manner our Republic did since tax laws were created until Reagan came around. During the Depression days, the top tax rate was incraesed to 94%. Top tax rate was 90% until Kennedy reduced it to 70% (1964). Our economy boomed even at those tax rates and created most of the world's wealthiest corporations and advanced technology. Then came Reagan who reduced the top tax rate to 50% (1982) and to 28% (1988).
Of course, we can't just offer public health insurance and we don't even want it. We want to offer Universal Health Care just like all those other wealthy western civilized countries funded by the public treasury, of course! It is not just taxing carbon, it is about apportioning the costs of degradation of environment and public health on those who cause it. In other words, stop the gravy train for those who cause destruction of environment and public health but own all the profit privately. You break it, you pay for it. That is the basic policy. It is not against anybody or for somebody. It applies to all universally and equitably.
1
Why is there such reliance upon the government to solve all of our problems? Perhaps Progressive policies are not to difficult to grasp or apply, but simply do not reflect the will of the majority of Americans.
1
Progressive politics isn't complicated at all. It starts from a few simple principles:
1. Justice for everybody matters. It's not OK to simply shrug off injustices as "well, that's what happens sometimes."
2. The status of our society is determined by the condition of the poorest and most wretched among us. We all gain by making their situation better.
3. The rich don't need their money as much as the poor do.
4. The more powerful you are, the more responsible you should be, and the higher the standards of behavior you should be held to.
5. Science is real, and matters.
Everything you see progressives advocating for policy-wise, like $15 minimum wages, health care for everybody, policing reform and oversight, and addressing climate change, stem from those ideas.
2
The complexity is in how it would be done. Why is it that this is an important issue to talk about when Trump only gave a slogan and had no idea how it would be done. Fortunately or unfortunately Democrats need to explain things while Republicans just say it.
I wholeheartedly agree with the basis of this article, but also think it's overlooking one significant influencing aspect:
Learning, growing, having productive relationships... these are all mutual responsibilities. If someone fights tooth and nail against these things, the chances that they will succeed are very close to 100%.
Making every effort to manage change and complexity is a worthwhile and valuable use of time. Infantilizing fully grown adults is not.
No, they have a "our ideas are often contradictory and won't even work in many cases" problem. Like refusing to fix our immigration system while complaining about wages/income inequality. Or trying to solve climate change without implementing fair trade which will just lead to the reducing good jobs in the US without meaningfully impacting pollution because everything possible will simply be outsourced. To try to avoid these obvious contradictions they spout meaningless platitudes and call their opponents names, which of course explains nothing and is therefore very difficult to understand.
3
Excellent Article.
Hostility sowed during Regan time against Government and it become a Conservatives most recited verse " Government is the enemy" ultimately paved todays government dysfunctionality.
Progressives must produce a long lasting slogan and it must be filled with very real action.
American people after Reagan years they get quite a lot experience , It is not only Government but Banks and Big corporations are also the enemy (i.e. Enron, Lehmann brothers, Goldmann Sachs, AIG etc. ).
Our Faith is shaken. that is true.
Obfuscation of the central societal issue - obscene inequality - by raising a a newly muddying problem of "complexity," is not helpful.
Not when there's extreme inequality in the media: No major distributor of news has been onside with Bernie Sanders' crystal clear call for a return to FDR's political solutions to corporate greed in our grandparents' time.
2
The problem Democrats face is that they have to survive in the same corrupt political system as the Republicans, a system run for the profit of large financial interests. The Republicans have the ideology and the slogans to rationalize the corruption ("big government" vs. free enterprise, bureaucracy vs. freedom, "free stuff" vs. self-sufficiency etc). The ideology is completely self-serving and dishonest, but it is hugely effective for several reasons. It's simple. The dysfunction of government, when advocated by legislators, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The right-wing media train people daily to see everything through that lens. The Democrats have little power to counter the narrative, and absolutely no financial incentive to do so. Thus we get schizophrenic legislation like the ACA, which set out to combine the goal of making health care available and affordable, with the contradictory goal of guaranteeing the obscene profits of a private insurance industry whose business model was based on excluding some people for the benefit of others.
148
@Martin
Add the public option to the ACA, and all the problems will be solved. Private insurers will be seen as unnecessarily expensive, and all their customers will abandon them. Single payer achieved with zero fuss.
President Obama was smart.
11
@Martin
You are absolutely right about the Republicans. But the problem is that so many voters don't even understand that what they believe and support by voting for them IS an ideology. The believe those slogans are the truth.
I'm not sure how anyone can ever change that.
4
@Martin....very well put--- a schizophrenic medical system. Extend HC to all, while guaranteeing obscene profits of the medical industry--- 'whose business model is based on excluding some people for the benefit' --and profits -- of others.
It's how our incentives are set up. Reformers are climbing a huge mountain.
Systems that contradict that profit motive, in order to represent the interests of citizens in a democracy---are called anti American big govt interference in Freedom. A propaganda coup for US corporations---who can legally dominate our elections with their money.
Other capitalist democracies think HC for all is a right no matter one's income. They also limit private campaign donations, using more public funding for elections.
Crucially, they ban 2 things that inundate Americans---paid campaign ads, and paid pharma ads on their media. Obvious cause/effect here.
This shows a completely different attitude toward private profit vs public interests----and they are capitalist systems.
The psychology of that contrast is what we need NYT columnists to repeatedly analyze, and then connect to all the public problem they discuss and criticize.
8
Building the future is a complex task for the progressives no doubt. But tearing down past accomplishments and destroying the institutional fabric of the nation is easy - not to mention fun - for the wrecking crew in the GOP!
"The Democrats’ Complexity Problem" is a real thing. It gives Republicans a decided advantage in appealing to voters.
Whether it's the ACA, Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage or other policies to benefit the people, Democrats find it hard to succinctly sum up and sell the policy. Meanwhile Republicans are great at trashing every policy Democrats advocate with derogatory bumper sticker slogans.
For instance, Democrats (those brave enough) are currently wrestling with how to explain "democratic socialism." First you have to get the people to pay attention long enough to understand that democratic socialism in not your grandfather's feared Stalinist socialism. Then you have to walk them through what democratic socialism actually IS.
Democrats struggle to get people to follow along, when all along, Republicans are yelling their bumper sticker slogans: "Democrats are socialists," "Democrats want to turn America into Venezuela." Republicans simply resort to schoolyard bully name calling.
And that is the difference between Democrat and Republican style: Democrats feel compelled to explain, Republicans simply give it a name.
This Democrats' complexity problem isn't going away. Democrats do not have a single candidate who wants to use Republican style tactics of name calling. And what makes the problem even worse, Republicans have a bully with the biggest megaphone: President Man-child Trump. He is the Name-caller in Chief.
Democrats' only hope is intelligent people.
Another way to express this problem might be to say that governing the United States in modern times is a complex issue, and most Americans are too fat, content, and lazy to take the time to study and understand what it takes to make government work.
Now, it's true, some things could be simplified, but the simplification process will be complex … if you know what I mean.
2
The author makes really good points. Better messaging is really needed. There are a couple of other points, however. Smarter people quickly discern the complexities and often fail to realize that lesser minds do not. Also, too many persons in our society are either too lazy, too cognitively incapable, or both to grasp the issues. These facts explain much of the success of Trump and the current Republican party.
2
Part of the problem is when people deal with government, the experience is usually bad. The IRS, motor vehicle bureau. permitting, zoning. We typically experience some combination of incompetence and arrogance. More progressive polices mean more government with more power. If you don't think they do a good now why would you give them a bigger role in your life?
4
Hmmm. Most of my interactions with government, even in not under pleasant circumstances, have been kind, respectful, helpful and efficient. I wonder if the difference is where we live.
A lot of what we see as incompetence and arrogance comes directly from being under staffed. The staffing problems cut training times, generates stress as workers try and keep up. This is aggravated by antiquated systems and policies.
@Jim I think there is some truth to that. But I also think that government agencies have no real incentives to improve customer service unlike the private sector. When you need them or are compelled to interact they are the only game in town.
Regarding the ACA, it was _intentionally_ made complex by its own authors. Why? Because the great unspoken truth about these policies is that voters just don't want them. The authors of the ACA had to literally blind voters in order to fool them to pass it -- in the dead of night, on Christmas Eve, if memory serves.
Once again, the left has a policy problem that they explain away as a messaging problem. Good luck with that.
2
Untrue. Voters do want affordable healthcare available even when they don’t have an employer that provides it. ACA was a conservative compromise rejected by republicans because it was presented by a democratic president. Let’s not confuse whether or not people want healthcare that is reasonably priced and available. I’d love not to have to pay $14,000 a year through my employer for a medical plan that STILL has deductibles.
Clarity is good. On that old quote though, let be said that "Conservatives are liberals who've been irritated by reality."
I disagree. It's not complexity, it's the fact that policies like the Affordable Care Act help one group of Americans and inevitably hurt another group of Americans. I supported the ACA and the goal of expanding health care to all Americans. I didn't anticipate that I would lose my health insurance as plans became unaffordable. I believe this helped cost Hillary Clinton the election. I voted for her but many did not.
It's the same with Medicare for all. We will rightly expand health insurance to even more Americans but how do we pay for it? Are we going to ask those who have been paying into Medicare over a lifetime of employment to now pay taxes to fund Medicare? Rage will result.
Support for this type of progressive programs drops dramatically when people realize they are among the inevitable group of losers or their taxes will rise, or the program is going to be means tested.
3
The complexity of the Affordable Care Act is entirely the result of trying to keep the health insurance industry from torpedoing any health care reform. Once you decide that instead of providing health care for all, you want to require and subsidize health insurance for all, the various carrots and sticks that must be applied to our already-complex health insurance apparatus can't help but be even more complex. Medicare for All is really simple -- and would never have passed Congress in 2010. To suggest that the complications of progressive policy solutions are due just to the wonkiness of progressives misses the point. No one chooses complexity for its own sake. It is usually required by the challenges of creating policies that legislatures will pass and that will still work.
2
Progressives are their own worst enemy. They alienate voters with their insistence on ideological purity, their inability to compromise, and their insufferable arrogance. If Democrats nominate a progressive candidate then all is lost.There is no progressive majority in America & never will be. The numbers are simply not there. And there certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in America that could get to the needed 270 votes. This point can't be emphasized enough: almost every progressive candidate in whom Democrats invested tremendous time, money, & emotional energy—Beto O’Rourke in Texas, Andrew Gillum in Florida, Stacey Abrams in Georgia— lost. Almost every significant progressive initiative on the ballot in this country was voted down. What progressives & their co-dependents will never understand is that far left mobilizes it's opponents to an even greater degree. Anti-left” will always beat “anti-Trump” in most places in this country. To working class voters Progressivism means trigger warnings, vile college protests & obnoxious academics who posture as their will on earth. They hate these people to their very core. Why shouldn't they? The far left has been mocking them for decades. You are bad for eating factory-farmed meat, owning a rifle, & driving an SUV. You are bad for speaking the language of micro-aggressions, patriarchy & cultural appropriation. There's no way to bridge this gap. Our best chance for victory in 2020 is to run a moderate.
88
@Bill Brown
From your lips to the Democrats' ears!
If a sensible, normal Democrat who simply wants to give every average American a fair shake, who focuses on the economy and economic fairness, great.
If it's a progressive sneering at middle Americans and their values and traditions, obsessed with the fact that there are not enough red-haired, unauthorized trans women of color running Fortune 500 companies, they - and we - are doomed to another four years of Trump.
18
I disagree that the Progressives are wanting ideological purity. And I disagree that we don't have the numbers. We ARE (as a group) motivated by bold ideas and when they are proposed, we go to the polls (Obama election). And I think progressive will be voting bigly in 2020 to rid ourselves of Trump. However, too many of us defer voting when we feel things are going good, as if nothing can stop progress.
It's a "get out and vote" issue.
16
@Bill Brown
Polls always show clear majority support for progressive economic policies (progressive taxation, universal access to health care, etc). But political campaigns gets framed differently, so that people vote on meaningless issues like border walls & micro-aggressions. Republicans win not because people agree with them on important issues, but because they have the power and the will to frame the debate according to their interests. Democrats lose even when they occasionally win because they follow your prescription to submit to the Right's narrative.
12
This article is right on the money. And it is true for candidates for President too. They campaign on issues that many voters do not care very much about, or even understand. Shall we break up Apple and Google? Should that really be a campaign issue? It has no motivational benefit except to DC wonks.
2
Please explain how virtually every other developed nation has universal health care for its citizens AND spends far less of its GDP to provide it compared with the US.
What is so complex about providing a public health care system given there are so many functioning models to copy and even enhance?
Could the problem lie in the questions being asked - when new legislation is proposed, the question should be "Is it right for a flourishing successful society?" instead of falling back on the discredited mantra: "It's the economy stupid".
Does he who dies with the most toys really win?
73
The explanation is simple. The government programs are much better at imposing cost controls, so it may seem obvious that that could be the best way to go. Cheaper is better all would say, at least at first. But is it? Look at the VA program. Government controlled healthcare, with long delay service times due to underfunding. Check the other systems in those countries with free healthcare. Wait times, sometimes up to a year for simple procedures like MRI. Limited list of approved prescriptions. If those programs were so great than then people in those countries would not be buying private insurance plans as they do or pay cash in order to cut the line. Example, a friend in Canada needs MRI. His choices, wait 11 months for the government program or pay cash and get it done in two weeks. I am not proposing that the current US system has no issues, it does have big cost control issues, but before we jump into what others do let’s first examine their outcomes. We might conclude that theirs is not the solution we would enjoy.
3
@Martin Your "friend" has had a bad experience since it's way outside the bounds of what studies have shown to be the wait times in Canada. The example lacks detail as well. I can wait a long time for some things without any real effect on my health and the spending is 1/2 per person than what we spend in the USA. So, there's plenty of room to both reduce costs AND not have length waiting times.
14
@Martin if you believe commercially available insurance does not ration healthcare you are not well informed. The current system is stacked against the people in favor of big business. Time to exercise our votes and scale the insurance mega corporations to handling the fringe that want an add on above and beyond basic coverage. This will take better messaging (less facts more emotion).
13
This is something I've been worried about for years! How's this for a novel solution:
What if each major department used some of their budget to buy commercial airtime? Make some simple, relatable and maybe amusing PSAs aimed at letting the public know what they do, how it benefits the public, and how people can get in touch.
Would that be so hard? Imagine a goofy PSA during a football game bragging about all the cool things the Department of the Interior does! I hope that this isn't too offensive and socialistic to the conservatively-inclined. My hope is that such a campaign would A) make it easier for people who need these programs to make use of them and B) make the government less of an abstract, alien thing.
3
Unfortunately, our system of divided government often forces complexity. The ACA was designed the way it was not because it was the most elegant system, but because it was the only one that had any chance at all of getting through the byzantine labyrinth that is our Congress. For a health care expansion to pass, it had to preserve private insurance—maybe even expand private insurance—so rather than the extremely simple solution of having the government pay to cover the poor and unemployed, we ended up with complicated exchanges where people could buy private policies with subsidies.
That said, progressives should pay attention to the "interface" between their programs and the public—making everything as simple and comprehensible as possible.
At the same time, we live in a complex world. For democracy to work, the voters need to accept the responsibility of educating themselves—or they need to trust others with more knowledge to govern for them. Unfortunately, we don't demand much from the American public. One party even encourages stupidity as it makes the people easier to manipulate with emotion-laden slogans. And ultimately, this dumbed-down public is susceptible to embracing an authoritarian con-man who promises easy salvation with simplistic formulae. That is where we are today.
79
@617to416 So what's the solution? What's the way out?
@Robert David South
He said what the solution was: an educated public is less likely to fall prey to the whims of a con-man.
4
@Robert David South All roads continuously lead back to a propaganda problem. For as long as entrenched moneyed interests have a route to "persuading" vast amounts of Americans to vote against their own interests - the current landscape rife with pitfalls and land mines will remain the one we are forced to navigate, whether through careful winding complexity or blind straight runs where we hope for the best (with a prayer).
5
I agree. I have a masters degree in social work and worked in human services. When I retired I ran into the complexities of social security, Medicare and health care. Even with my knowledge I found the system daunting. I did not retire so that every fall I could create a spread sheet of insurance plans, providers and medications so I could pick the best plan. When I am sick I want to call my doctor follow his advice and have my insurance pay for it.
2
I was in advertising...I learned the public needs to hear a message in sound-bite form....easily repeatable...like the chorus of a song...many times over from many different outlets.
Just like Donald Trump and the whole Republican Congress were able to repeat a single simple party line....while Trump's followers were fed a perfect example:
"Lock her up"
Chanted by Republican crowds, the terms evoked warm feelings of belonging and acceptance until it formed a strong political base.
Could late-night comedy writers, who are so good at branding things in short, "catchy"terms, pitch ideas boiled down to a clear platform...?
Make it a challenge to all the Late-night hosts---"Who can come up with a realistic Democratic Platform?" ....John Oliver, Seth Meyers, Colbert?
1
Simple lies often win out over complicated truths. This is a reality. When progressives have tried to simplify their message they have been burned. Remember, "if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan". This was not true before the ACA and turned out to not be true after it either.
2
Anyone remember what Alexander the Great did when confronted with the Gordian Knot? He didn’t painstakingly untie it, like a bunch of tangled Christmas lights; he took his sword and sliced right through it.
1
The ACA is not a liberal creation. It should be called the Insurance Company Relief Act. Its complicated because it could not pass without conservatives being persuaded that they could make a buck off of it. The ACA did have some merit insofar as it laid the ground work for socialized medicine, which should come after Medicare for all.
Mr. Wu has taken the conservatives' bait that liberals are too smart for their own good. All liberals want is to help one another and that isn't too complicated. Republicans always say that Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, but it just ain't true.
1
Meme: What's good for all of us is good for you. Start policy discussions with this , and tag the end policy with it.
By the examples Mr Wu offers as "progressive ideas" like wealth taxes or postal banking I fully understand the uphill struggle "progressives" are facing in the US. The US has had antitrust laws since the 1890', so breaking up Tech giants isn't really progressive.
From a European perspective all these proposals are not progressive, but mainstream.
If you can't convince people to vote for solutions that will help them, then what is the point?
In 2016 a man who played a succesful businessman on TV was elected president. By his own admission, he loves the poorly educated voter. He used slogans and dumbed everything down. Used racist and sexist slurs, yet got elected anyway.
This apparently is what works in America.
2
This complexity problem has always been an issue for Democrats. On the flip side, the Republican's notion of conservatism is easy, uncomplicated. It's based upon a mythology that's simple to understand and compelling to those who don't like the messy, complicated nature of science and the way things work in reality. Community, economic theory. social responsibility, and conscience can't fit on a bumper sticker. It's a lot easier to stay ignorant and spout out a folksy "common sense" aphorism without having to explore an issue or educate oneself.
3
I've been so excited to hear candidates like Warren and Buttegieg speak in clear, understandable, detail about their policy ideas. The media calls that being "wonky" but I call it knowing the issues well enough to speak in depth about them. PLEASE stop trying to dumb down our elections. Sound bites are useless to people who want to know which candidates will be the best leaders. People who can't understand a candidate's plan to fix the country's problems should just vote for the candidate who 'looks presidential', the rest of us will vote for a candidate who is truly qualified to do the job of leading the U.S. and being a good leader on the world stage.
2
The Democrats' "Affordable Care Act" is a perfect example--as this says--of complexity trumping a good idea. But that whole thing also points to bigger issues about Democrats. 1.) They failed to thoroughly and relentlessly explain and sell the good idea to the American people. 2.) When they did talk about it, they often lied or hid the truth, that some people would lose their private insurance, that funds supporting Medicare Advantage would be raided to support ACA. 3.) And they ran a legislative scam pretending to create a public option as part of the ACA, but came up a few Democratic votes shy of approval, because the insurance companies supporting ACA had already been promised no public option. All the lies soon emerged, and what was already complex also became perceived as untrustworthy.
The Democrats should confine their aims to two which accord to what is acceptable on heaven and on earth. (Complexity is the basis for obfuscation, confusion, and hypocrisy.) All Democrats need to be for is nonviolence and fairness. They can admit when challenged that to improve in these areas requires no policy at all. It requires agreement by enough to pass laws. If you do not want fairness or nonviolence then vote for the other party. Get real.
The premise of this article is spot on. One can trace the degenerative decline of political hate (toward lots of governmental things: taxes, opponents, laws, etc.) to one main event: Ronald Reagan saying over and over the mantra of the Republican party, "Government IS the problem". That's right, one emblematic line by one charismatic man turned us around and kicked us down that slippery slope. We need a big fat message like that now, with a big believable voice saying USE GOVERNMENT FOR GOOD. It starts with the simplest of resonant rhetoric.
1
Please give it a rest.
It's up to those proposing such plans to make them workable and don't try to hide putative aspects of any such plan in the guise of "it's just too complex for Joe Sixpack to understand"
Let's look at Obamacare. What isn't complex is the fact that higher wage earners who must purchase health insurance are paying much more than they did in years past and they are paying a premium based on their earnings. For all the benefits of Obamacare (and there are some) there is no hiding the latter under the mantle of complexity.
When Judge Roth attempted to foist his busing scheme on the Detroit Metro Area he said in part:
“Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of 45 minutes, one way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way. ...kindergarten children should be included in the final plan of desegregation.”
There was no complexity there. That was an attempt to a weaponize the judiciary by a liberal appointed by JFK.
One thing is for sure, when the OP-ED writers and commentators use statements like "old white men" as an invective they are appealing to a non-critical thinking audience. There's no complexity there.
I think the expression your are really looking for is: "too smart by half".
Americans are trapped in labels .Tags .Progressives, conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, etc... Everything is about identity. Is it because the citizens of the USA don't have a proper name ? Or is it to avoid real causality ?
There is no conceptual debate . Democrats are too left and Republicans are too right . Left and Right in politics come from the French National Assembly of 1789 . Royalists sit on the right side .Girondins, Jacobins on the left .
What does it mean in the USA in 2019 ?
Declaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen
du 26 Aout 1789 .
First law voted declaring abolition of slavery : in France 4 Fevrier 1794 .
Democrats hope to convince themselves the reason people don’t agree with them is that their ideas are too complex and the rubes are not smart enough to get it.
The reality, however, is that people understand Democrats and their ideas all too well.
2
You sure hit the jackpot on this one. There are so many ways to parse it that I can only list a few.
First, consider the next-to-last paragraph. Government regulations are odious and complex because they try to curtail cheaters, but cheaters are clever; they quickly work around many regulations. The biggest cheaters even hire lobbyists to insert workarounds as part of the law. Small business owners have to contend with rules designed to thwart high-priced corporate lawyers.
Next, consider Apple and it's user interfaces. I'm glad you mentioned Steve Jobs because they could use him now. Their user interface has become harder to use than Windows and Android since he left, and those are not as easy as they should be. At least I can plug my Samsung phone into my Windows computer and see my files.
Engineers should not design user interfaces; usability experts should design the UI and send it off to engineering to be implemented.
Finally, it says that public policy can actually be elegant and simple to understand. That's a fine idea. Try these:
Do not lie, steal, or cheat.
Make your money doing something useful. Otherwise you're a leech and we will tax you to death.
Treat everyone with respect unless they prove they don't deserve it.
No one shall gain so much control of resources that they can fix prices.
Additional items added as necessary.
These things are easy to say but harder to implement. Get the big picture right and the details will fall into place.
2
1. Not Medicare for all, but Medicare for more. Medicare already covers dialysis, at any age. Let people with other chronic diseases enroll in Medicare too, regardless of age, without having to go on permanent disability.
2. Raise the age for social security and Medicare for those who are healthy. Number 1 above is the safety net.
3. Lower wage-based income tax rates to the same level as the capital gains tax; then make all taxes progressive.
4. Better infrastructure, especially to deal with the New Climate: dams, roads, elevated trains. Also 5G, of course.
5. Have students pay back college loans based on income: 3 percent of your annual income each year over 30 years.
That is probably enough for now. Obama only passed Obamacare, and was the a lame duck for six years. Trump only got his $ 1 trillion tax cut for the rich; now he is a lame duck too, at least for another two years, and even for 4 more if he gets re-elected.
Keep the list short.
Stay focused.
And hit the ground running.
I'm still waiting for the post card size tax form the GOP touted.
So true. That's the real reason Hillary lost. No one could remember what she stood for other than "I'm with her" -- an ego stroke and not a promise.
2
I would argue that Americans have a simplicity problem. Our problems are complex and require complex solutions; it's the easy, simplistic promise -- "build the wall," "Muslim ban," "drain the swamp" -- that leads far too many of us to be conned.
Having said that, I haven't found the Democrats' proposals too difficult to understand. The Green New Deal is about fighting climate change while providing jobs and making sure disadvantaged communities aren't left behind. Tax reform is about making sure the ultra-rich pay their fair share. Medicare for All is about... extending Medicare to all. All of these ideas will require complex behind-the-scenes machinery in order to come to fruition, but the ideas themselves are graspable, if only we have the will to grasp them.
1
Speaking of unnecessarily complex, look at the concluding sentence.
“This generation of progressives, to achieve lasting success, must accept that simplicity and popularity are not a dumbing-down of policy, but rather the unavoidable requirement for its success.”
The sentence would be much stronger if “to achieve lasting success” was deleted. The phrase adds little (if any)) meaning and muddies an otherwise strong statement. It’s fairly easily implied that progressives want lasting success.
2
And “but a requirement for its success”.
It's frustrating that Republicans have consistently out performed Democrats when it comes to marketing ideas. Framing complex policy positions in easily graspable language (however misleading it might be) is a skill that most progressive politicians have yet to master. Taxing wealthy estates becomes a "death tax". Repressing reproductive decisions becomes "pro life". Union busting becomes "right to work". Reagan said that "government is the problem", and two fifths of the country still live by that deception.
An inherent reluctance to mislead or to dumb down may be the Democrats' stumbling block, but they need to come to grips with their messaging problem.
Trump has proved that campaigning at the fifth-grade level can work. Governing at that level cannot.
117
@Ron I totally agree. Trump and the Republicans have reduced very complex issues to simple binary choices that I think is attractive to a lot of people.
I don't necessarily consider myself politically progressive across the board, but I really agree with the point this article makes: simple v. complex.
6
@Ron Well put.
@Ron
So true. How to you sell Medicare for All to people opposed to government programs?
It's not "Medicare for All" it's "Universal Health Care" or "Guaranteed Health Care for All."
It's not an estate tax, it's a "Dynasty Tax."
It's not a "Wealth tax" Liz, it's an Excessive Accumulation Tax"!
Come on Dems, it's marketing 101.
7
Nationally, Democrats keep winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college. That's the problem: tyranny by the minority.
Democrats have to fix the voting problem which includes changing the culture on the left. Just because someone doesn't "excite" you or agree with you 100 percent on every policy and every strategy doesn't mean you're entitled to stay home or vote for an independent when it's clear someone like 45 can get in due to your choice.
Support your representatives by educating them on important topics, doing research and meeting with them. Canvass for them, donate to their compaigns, and keep them informed instead of treating them like the big daddy who is going to rescue you by waving a magic wand when they get into office.
3
We got the "Affordable Care Act" because Obama was trying to get something passed he thought Republicans would vote for. So he used their ideas. If he'd gone with "Medicare for All," I think it would have been a much better plan and would be a law that the people would defend from the dismantling Republicans inflicted on "Obama Care." The mistake was trying to get Republican votes when they'd already decided to obstruct anything Obama put forth, regardless of where the ideas came from. The current crop of Democrats it would seem, have learned from that mistake. "Medicare for All," "Green New Deal," these are slogans that can rally back the several thousand in swing states that handed Trump the Electoral College.
3
The ACA is complex to use? Maybe in states that didn't support it adequately, or maybe the federal government's website is complicated.
I signed up through California's state website and it was very simple and took my maybe 12 minutes.
3
Complexity is essential to any real program that applies to a diverse group of citizens. However, the teaching of the program should be done using good teaching techniques like analogies, examples etc, so that the citizens understand the essence of the program. There has to be a number of nerds behind the scenes working out the details so that there are no gotchas, but front men and women are required to simplify the subject matter for easier comprehension. I think that is all Tim Wu is saying.
2
You are right.
Many years ago as an engineer I constantly encountered other engineers touting "sophisticated systems". Reviewing them I invariably found that what they really were was unnecessarily complicated. The fact is complexity is easy to design. Simply is not.
Simple is easy to sell; complicated is not.
4
As a retired psychology prof, I've drifted into reading about studies of people's political thinking, understanding of economics, taxation, and such. It's pretty scary. People have not gotten dumber, but issues have become more complex and fewer people can comprehend them. We've never had a high percentage of the population who could grasp anything abstract, a understanding something like the tax system requires that. Republicans have done a much better job than Democrats of getting their program down to simple phrases. They are for tax cuts and against socialism, by God! That these ideas have produced a Gilded Age level of income and wealth disparity and a trillion dollar structural deficit has somehow evaded the notice of most voters. Democrats need to develop their own set of simple minded slogans; they can do the right thing after they can win a few elections.
10
Tim Wu is spot on with this analysis. Democrats are their own worst enemy. Sure, our problems our complicated but so is much of business and life. It is the ability to communicate and explain in a way that people can understand that is key.
And of course the obsession with political correctness and identity politics are also Democrat's weak spots. If they played politics half as good as republicans do, they would dominate.
7
@Jeff L
There are two types of people that vote Democrat. Those that believe anything they're told, as long as it's a supposed Democrat speaking to them. Those that want to control those that believe everything they're told. Complicated, by things the minions have been told, that were only meant to be rhetorical in the moment, but have become central to doctrine, even doctrine itself. Instead of walking back the rhetoric, those wanting control maintain the position, for fear of not being trusted further. E.g., climate skimming that became scamming; 'the sky is now falling'; $ trillions are need immediately. Rightfully, even willful minions have doubts.
Mr. Wu has not heard Elizabeth Warren break down economic issues. There are complex policy statements on her website, but her in-person speeches make her proposals very clear. This is not an endorsement of Ms. Warren, but not all the candidates are using "professor speak". I hope no one comes up with a slogan like "drill, baby, drill". Americans should be able to understand concepts just a little more complex.
3
Capitalist, free market ideas are easy to sell because they're popular, creative, voluntary answers to widely felt needs. Capitalists make money if they produce products people want, if not, their ideas fall by the wayside and die a natural death, un-mourned. Liberal ideas are usually a fundamentally uncreative redistribution of other people's wealth by a combination of legally sanctioned theft + compulsion. such ideas are hard to sell, they're typically marketed as "free", which of course they are not. Law being difficult to change, government programs die hard. The ultimate housecleaning in a sclerotic society hobbled and encrusted by Kafkaesque government programs is collapse and revolution, usually followed by an extended period of rapid economic growth in an atmosphere of capitalistic freedom. Both wisdom and experience suggest avoidance of well-meant liberal ideas.
5
@Ronald B. Duke. Then you approve of income inequality as the capitalists take more and more of the profits and pay less and less to the laborers who produced the product because they can?
In the 50s and 60s income taxes were very high on the top levels of income. The choice was to either pay 90% of that top tier income to the government or share those profits with your employees, raising their level of income out of the level of subsistence that so many "middle class" people are in today.
The wealthy are still very well off....seriously - how many billions are needed to be happy? - and a far greater portion of the population are too. Instead of feeling like modern day serfs.
The definition of redistribution to you is taking from the wealthy and giving it to the undeserving worker whose labor produced that wealth. While I see the redistribution going from the pocket of the worker to the wealthy millionaires and billionaires who have more than they can spend while too many hard working people live paycheck to paycheck.
@Ronald B. Duke
Kafkaesque programs are also found in capitalist corporations. They can abuse people, sell dangerous products (jets that crash, products that cause cancer), cheat, deceive, and use their power for selfish bad ends.
And there are also very good things accomplished by government and very good things accomplished by capitalist corporations.
The interesting issue is how to do more of the good and less of the bad. And that is what is talked about by Prof Wu. Wouldn't it be nice to engage this conversation rather than just be nasty.
Professor Wu, have you heard of "Medicare for All"? If there's a simpler way to market universal healthcare, I haven't heard it.
Elizabeth Warren is both a policy wonk and an expert at marketing policy solutions in an easy-to-understand way.
Your argument would make more sense if you included some real world evidence besides the ACA.
4
You haven’t heard it because it doesn’t explain the obvious, i.e., how to realistically pay for it; a salient point that is characteristically missing from almost every progressive agenda these days. Try it the next time someone asks you something for nothing.
There are plenty of liberals in ad agencies in NY and LA that can solve this problem. Simple slogans that are adopted by every Democrat they summarize the solution in a bumper sticker level phrase. They repeat them in every interview until interviewers start asking GOP members about them. You need a handy, neat, shorthand for bundles of ideas in order to ask others about them. This is so simple it defies belief that Democrats are still struggling with it. Contract with America, Norquist's tax pledge - what are the Democratic equivalents?
5
Are the policies that complicated ? (Note DataDrivenFP below and his list could go on.) Or are the thought processes and presentations i.e. communication to blame?
I would argue the latter. Case in point the recent law passed in the House of Representatives-HR1. No, I have not read it because it is over 500 pages long (some say 700 pages). How many good ideas are in there? How many talking points? How many parts are favored by the general public? How many parts would it be embarrassing for the Republicans to vote against?
The House could have looked like it was doing a lot more by rolling out each measure at a time and done more good than HR1. When the Republicans want to put the Democrats in a tough spot they make it simple, concise and tweetable. Sorry you cannot tweet HR1. If you cannot explain a law in tweets it don't pass it.
3
Let's start prgressive reform with the federal income tax--not higher rates, but simplicity. When I prepared my first income tax return in the 1970s, the JK Lasser tax guide ran about 160 pages--still far too long. Today, I looked at the current publication. It's 800 pages.
My accountant can rarely answer a question for me without running numbers through a computer software program.
2
@Gerry Professor
In fact, the IRS now states on its website that 90% of tax filers now employ a tax preparer or rely on computer software.
How can such a bizarre situation not find its way to the top of the news--and the top of a reform movement.
The modern a go go world is complex. Live it or atrophy
@Michael Valentine Smith--
As a long-time research scientist and systems analyst, I can live with complexity. But legislation and regulations that are deliberately written to defy comprehension by even a person of above-average intelligence deserve to be thrown in the trash can.
Live with it.
Professor Wu is incorrect when he says Social Security and medicare were easy to understand.
When Social Security was introduced, there were many who opposed it based not only whether the services were needed but the issuance of an SS# that opponents claimed was the beginning of a road to dictatorship. In fact, that is why on your SS card it says not to be used for identification; that refers to the # which is only supposed to be used for SS purposes and not for any other type of transactions.
And Medicare was widely attacked as the beginning of socialized medicine that would destroy the American healthcare system. And this was from the American Medical Assn.
The need for SS and Medicare may be easy to understand now but not when they were introduced.
3
This complex solution problem and the difficulty of selling it to voters results from several things. Problems like healthcare, financial regulation, and antitrust policy are complicated to begin with and solutions involve multiple trade-offs, intended and unintended consequences that can be short or long term, and value or ideological preferences. In our system of government, solutions are also often partial or piecemeal, and are political compromises, involving concessions to people or groups with power and focus on particular interests. (The ACA is a good example of this).
And, with regard to the voting public, understanding things requires not only time and effort, but also a fairly high literacy and education (self-taught or obtained from schools), and often money (access to multiple sources of information is not free). And, on top of that, we have the problem of psychological bias and the fact that people's views and reasoning are often influenced, if not determined, by emotional transference and projection. (This is what Trump, on some level, grasps).
2
In order to pass the ACA, Obama had to re-iterate and compromise until the Republicans would vote to pass it. This involved adding complexity. This was the reason for it, otherwise it would've been very simple.
To blame complexity in government on anything other than the need to compromise, seems to be a mistake, at least sometimes.
2
@Todd The Republicans did not vote to pass the Affordable Care Act. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, and held the presidency. The Affordable Care Act was passed exactly the way it was designed, a complex beast that even Nancy Pelosi conceded no one in Congress understood prior to its passage.
3
@John Smithson The first part of your statement is indisputable. The second half is indisputably incorrect and a misrepresentation of Nancy Pelosi's words--one that I'm tired of hearing. She stated a truism that in order to truly know what the effects of the bill would be that is would have to be passed first. Unfortunately, it got twisted immediately into political drivel.
Here’s simplicity. We take care of our people’s basic needs for food, shelter, medical and education. Then at the end of the year we pay for it - and with a no loophole progressive tax. Period!
The more people work and the more they make the less this yearly tax will be to cover the poor because there will be less of them.
So besides incentivizing good paying jobs so people can pay their way, exploitation will thereby be dis-incentivized.
How much will it cost? Whatever it takes to take care of our people, which will vary from year to year. Trying to predict this amount is impossible. We just need to commit our country to this moral cause.
5
There are many bad progressive ideas running amok, some espoused by Tim Wu. Net neutrality is a classic example. Yes, sounds "simple", but still bad.
@John Wu
And there are a lot of bad so-called conservative ideas running amok.
Saying this does not move the conversation or lead to any agreement or solutions.
Professor Tim Wu is trying to engage in interesting topics.
Saying that some simple ideas are bad hardly is interesting.
Why don't you explain why you think net neutrality is bad? It might lead to some interesting give and take.
10
Conservatives want solutions that don't impede their freedom. In many cases this is impossible (e.g. gun control). In others there are simple, market friendly reforms that progressives have shied away from as not being sufficiently radical, but that are much easier to justify to the skeptics out there.
Let's start with carbon taxes and stay away from highly interventionist policies that are proven political and practical failures.
1
Democrats have never seemed to understand strategy. They (we) do not understand the game of politics. The best of them did. The best candidates knew that you have to sell big ideas as simply as possible. Bernie Sanders gets this, which is one reason why his ideas resonated. They were, perhaps, unrealistic, but they stuck. Democrats don't know what they (we) want right now. We have have never been more divided. Selling our policies simply will mean all of us coming to the table and agreeing on them, which we don't right now. We are in the midst of a civil war. This is what happened in 1972, after the fracture in 1968. We tried too hard to reach too far with George McGovern, believing all of America was ready for that kind of "greening of America." We lost in a landslide. It took us years to recover. We finally regained real power only when Bill Clinton came along because he was able to make his ideas easy to understand, repeat and remember. I guess the lesson is - you can't give a massive consensus too much to argue about. You will end up ceding power to a guy whose entire campaign was just four words on a red hat.
3
Re: new conservatives: "Today she’s a liberal who tried to pay a babysitter without breaking the law"
It isn't that how to pay the baby sitter was complex, she had trouble about having to pay the babysitter a fair wage.
2
@Glenn What about Social security, Medicare, workman's comp? Also, how many hours does she have to work until they kick in? The paperwork and the W2's? That alone is enough to make one think of abandoning the baby at the local police station.
I don't want government programs simplified or with a friendly interface. I want government programs that don't force me to do something I don't want to do and aren't financed by taxing me. The unpopularity of progressivism is not due to its complexity. It's due to the neverending desires of progressives to shape the rest of us to fit their ideas of good--always with the use of force by well-intentioned government officials.
2
@jrd Government programs by definition are programs that are financed by taxes.
8
@jrd One, sorry but life often forces people to do things that they don't necessarily want to do. That's the price of living in a society with millions of other people. Two, how exactly do you expect things to be financed? People like you seem to think that personal freedom is unlimited and that you can live on a metaphorical island. No, there must be a balance between the needs of the individual and society. You can look somewhere else for a place that satisfied the conditions you have enumerated. Lotsa luck.
7
@jrd
I have no idea how you plan to pay for government programs without taxation.
I have also noticed that many Conservative approaches reduce freedom of choice, such as being anti-abortion, anti-gay rights etc.
I always find it odd that so many Progressive policies give people choices, while so many Conservative policies seek to reduce choices.
Has any individual actually read the estimated 20,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act? Of course not - and that's a problem.
A 10,000-word limit on legislation would not only force legislators to choose their words carefully when they write new bills. It would prevent them from sneaking in cutouts and bonuses for special interests; it would turn bills into documents which could be read by anyone.
If too technical, judges would interpret the law as it might be understood by someone without a degree from Harvard Law School - and establish precedent which serves the common good.
Maybe Barack Obama was right in that we need a secretary of explainin'.
Jefferson said the keys to a democracy are a well informed public and a vigorous press.
What I seem to remember about the ACA getting built was a press paying attention to what tea partistas and republicans were saying about it, instead of giving people the basics of what they were trying to do.
We have a Nation that stretches across a continent, composed of 300 million people of vastly different backgrounds, traditions, and needs and we hear "simple" solutions like small government, no taxes, and religious whatever they are selling this week.
Maybe we just need to accept the fact that this Country is just too big to govern as it is made up today.
4
@Bob Laughlin
Yes, please "accept the fact that this Country is just too big to govern as it is made up today." That was true even when they wrote the Constitution and that's why, except for a very short list in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, they left everything up to the states. What's right for Colorado isn't necessarily right for Oklahoma.
@Bob Laughlin
"Jefferson said the keys to a democracy are a well informed public and a vigorous press." Afraid not Bob, that piece of rhetoric came from a letter written by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (15 July 1817). Many years later this morphed into, "An informed consumer is our best customer."
1
That's why the founders created a federal republic.
I think Mr. Wu is spot on.
I have a background in branding, marketing, and advertising.
Too often, Democrats have the right policy ideas but they fumble the sale - They expect all Americans to make well-researched, data-driven decision like they do. This just simply isn't the case.
To juxtapose, Republicans tend to have all the wrong policy ideas but they are very good at selling their arguments. They are good at branding their bills. Ex. The Freedom of Liberty Act. Who can argue with that? Who cares if it actually takes money from our schools and gives it to oil barons? Well, we do, but many people simply vote on the name alone.
It would behoove Democrats to swallow their pride and get on the branding train. No, it isn't beneath Dems to put just as much effort into selling their ideas as they do coming up with them. No, it is not cheating or lying or fake. It is simply finishing the job. It is solving the second half of the problem.
12
@Aaron K.
I do make "well-researched, data-driven decisions"--and have concluded that Democrats seldom "have the right policy ideas."
The problem isn't your sales pitch, it's that what you're selling is over-priced junk.
1
While things are indeed complicated, that's not the problem. It's the Democrats' inability to explain themselves properly. Life was different than it was 50 years ago, but things were just as complicated then. What's really changed is that the Democratic party has lost the ability to communicate clearly. The GOP has no such problem. That's evidenced by the GOP's ability to keep Democrats on the defensive, even when the Republicans are completely in the wrong.
One of the hallmarks of mastery of a complex subject is the ability to explain it in a non-complex manner. Hiding behind topic-specific jargon or adding complexity to a description is what people do when they don't feel competent in the topic themselves. Until the Democrats appreciate the value of a good, clean explanation they will be perpetually outmaneuvered.
6
I disagree. Progressive policies are very easy to understand, as follows: (a) all societal wealth belongs to the state, and the government knows best how to distribute that wealth among its citizens; and (b) government is all good and all knowing, such that the public sector (not the private sector) should regulate/dictate all human activity and interaction. Life is unequal and unfair, but if only everyone listened to progressives and did what they said, when they said to, and acted the way they were told to, and not any other way, all would be good. In the bargain, people would not have to think for themselves, simply obey. The progressive creed is a very simple one.
7
@Richard And herein is a perfect example of Mr. Wu's point: Progressives argue for neither (a) nor (b), yet their policy proposals are continually subject to simple and false caricatures by the right-wing. It's easier to believe the simple lies (cf. much of what Trump tweets) -- especially when engaging in motivated cognition -- than to consider seriously proposals to improve our lot.
3
@IC -- it would be far easier to believe that "Progressives argue for neither (a) nor (b),..." if Ms. AOC and Mr. Markley had not blithered out their "Green New Deal" manifesto.
There is really no other way to describe it than "Bolshevik" ... incompetent inchoate Bolshevism at that.
And though I doubt it will forestall any of the comments that will rage against me, I'm quite far left -- it's just that I'm also competent and know shameless pandering drivel when I see it.
Too many "Progressives" are acting out the rage that Trump channeled on the right: just smash it, make the capitalists pay, it doesn't matter how, and you don't really need a plan.
@Richard It really bothers me when this argument gets made, mostly because it's a lazy attack. In what universe does the private sector have your best interests at heart and not their own profit? The US pays double what every other developed country does (source: https://bit.ly/2AtOaYs), but I'm glad you find comfort in the fact that it's a private company that takes your money instead of the government; you really owned the libs with that 1984 joke.
The world is complex. Policies solving significant problems are also going to be complex. There is no way around it.
Of course the messaging to the public needs to be simple and concise (and honest...ahem). What concerns me is that a lot of the folks voting on these policies don't appear to have the desire or the capacity to comprehend the complexity. That opens the door for the lobbyists and monied interests to embed self-interest in the middle of the complexity. The result has been a system that increasingly favors institutional freedom and gain over individual liberty and protections.
5
I’m glad this topic has come up, because with focus, the answers aren’t all that...complex. Take any good idea, as complex as necessary to work. Step one: come up with an easy to remember mnemonic. E.g. “brand” it like the GOP is so good at doing. Something that hooks into our psyche’s. (E.g. positive, punchy). Step two: utilize consultants familiar with the science of graphical communication to create a high level diagram (pictures and words) to highlight the main components of the idea. Make a video if necessary and post online. Step 3: have an “official” but universally available detail document that details the idea. These three levels of complexity will appeal to different personalities, but hopefully get the message across to more people.
2
No. What's complex, complicated is our current system.
For example, our current healthcare system is an expensive, inefficient maze-like, multi-layered labryinthe that still leaves over 30 Million Americans un-or-under-insured. The simple solution: Medicare for All.
After one mass shooting, New Zealand easily, quickly, and simply bans assault weapons. Dozens of mass shootings later, we still can't get universal background checks.
Congress and lobbyists are the ones making and keeping things complex and complicated.
14
@GeoJaneiro Agreed, that's what keeps the lobbyists, lawyers, accountants, and pundits in business making the true practices, causes and effects completely opaque, it makes one's head want to explode.
2
Programs based on POPULAR values are simple:
Prevent Poverty in Old Age => Social Security
Prevent Poverty in Old Age due to Illness => Medicare
Prevent Financial Manipulations that Crash the Economy=> Glass-Steagal (="You can't DO that.")
Polices based on UNPOPULAR values are complicated, because they're full of smoke and mirrors to obscure their intent.
Protect the Super-Rich from Taxes => US Tax code.
Protect Big Corporations from Competition => Most Federal Financial Laws
See? It really IS simple, when the goals are understood. When programs are not simple, they're designed to confuse.
13
Thanks for making a great case for tuition free education. Perhaps Americans could understand more complex policy, if critical thinking and education were prioritized like military spending is.
4
For those who argue that complexity is required due to the nature of the problems such as healthcare, remember Einstein said if you can't explain simply enough you don't understand it. So while the problem and solution may be complex the explanation must be simple and fair so it can't be used as wedge issue. Here's an example of a simple solution for healthcare, instead of Medicare for all make Medicare an option for all. Provide the exact same means tested subsidy whether someone buys a private plan or whether someone buys into Medicare. Let's see private insurers (who really don't want free markets and preexisting condition protection) compete freely on real value.
9
@Alan -- Einstein didn't say that ... it's one of the zillion fake Einstein quotes.
I'm a PhD scientist and I even took a course in Gravitation (taught from Wheeler's text) ... and General Relativity is very hard ... I only understood about half of it ... and I strongly doubt that were Einstein alive he could have explained it better.
As to medicare for all -- the concept is superficially until you look at some issues:
* I'm 67 so I know something about medicare and almost everybody carries some insurance on top of medicare ... do you understand why and for what? Is that your intent?
* Medicare reimbursement isn't good, so a lot of Drs refuse it. Your plan for that? Another aspect of the same thing is that medicare rates would cause most hospitals to fail, if that's all the hospital could get. Your plan for that, ditto?
@Lee Harrison Good points but you failed to see my central point and actually I am very much focused on healthcare policy. As you know we spend 2x most other developed countries and get mostly worse outcomes while paradoxically having some of the best care in the world. One of the problems is access to care for many of the sickest and most vulnerable. Also a huge problem is the poor connection between quality and cost (aka value) and individual responsibility for ones health.
Part of increasing personal responsibility is getting everyone on some type of insurance, Corporations after WW2 providing insurance subsidized through tax breaks, SS in the 60's and Reagan's EMTALA means that we the people already subsidize most of healthcare. Reagan the original socialist with regards to healthcare opened up free healthcare via the most expensive means ERs.
It is true that healthcare claims to lose on average 2% on all Medicare patients which is cost shifted to private insurance. But there truly is so much fat in the system, & CMS is putting in place programs to truly cut costs while improving quality.
All I am saying is simplify the political debate, allow imperfect medicare as an option for all and the let the chips with regard to the market fall where they may.
The complexity of most programs can be traced to industry demands (like the ACA) and to safeguards to ensure that only the “deserving” can participate in programs.
For the latter, consider, for example, the many forms and programs we have to pay for university- we have private loans, private federally backed loans, federal loans, merit scholarships, need based scholarships, scholarships tied to a particular demographic group, work-study, Pell grants, and form after form after form, all filled out under penalty of perjury.
It’s a mess. All to ensure that the “right” people get the “right” assistance. And after all that, we have a student lean crisis.
Other countries simply have free university for all.
Simple.
Are we willing to take the risk of a rich kid going to college for free? Apparently not.
And that is key to America’s policy complexity problem.
10
Free college for all may sound great but it is not that simple. In those European countries that offer free college the admission rules are much harder and more complex than in US. They do not allow anybody to go to college. In Germany for example that decision who can take the college path and who does not is made in the early years of the middle school. Opponents of free college idea will say that it is unfair for those who did not go to college or will not go to college to pay and subsidize someone’s else higher education. The real issue with the college costs these days is the impact of the federally supported programs that opened the floodgate of additional money leading to increase in cost. If we look at the times before these programs were implemented we will clearly see that the average college cost was much, much cheaper and affordable to most. The student loan debt is a relatively recent phenomenon that did not exist on a current scale in the 60’s and 70’s. It all boils down to inflationary pressures created by inflow of easy money. Take that money away and the cost of education will drop accordingly.
2
@Objectively Subjective The system doesn’t need users to jump through so many hoops to ensure that the right people who qualify are the ones who are approved. We have a fully digitized society now, including government. As long as someone can securely prove their identity, the government could run a backend verification system that provides and cross reference all the needed data in seconds.
Our public library system was created by Andrew Carnegie, a private philanthropist. Today it is mostly supported by government, but government did not invent it.
2
@Jonathan Katz. Public libraries had already been in existence for nearly a century when Carnegie began donating funds to build structures. You might look it up at your local library.
Some valid points, but complexity is not the problem. The problem is messaging. Good, progressive policy can be as complex as the issue demands. The key is in translating that complexity into terms that the largest percentage of US constituents can understand and appreciate.
4
Complexity isn't the problem. Information on programs and policies that benefit people needs to be explained in a simple and straightforward manner. All too often this information is given in an overly detailed way with obscure references to Congressional bills. This tries one's patience. This is a communication problem.
4
@Jim Benson
As he said--the interface where the policy meets the public needs to be much simpler.
1
Sigh -- Tim -- you are a law professor. I'm a physical scientist.
You write that "Too often progressive policies are difficult to understand..."
Look at the "Green New Deal:" it's not even policy, just a compendium of Big Rock Candy Mountain thinking ... and reading all the comments by those styling themselves "progressives" none of them agree what policy it actually proposes, but they all agree that it must be done immediately (whatever "it" is), and that Ms. AOC deserves big credit for "forcing the issue to attention."
If you ask them what they think of HR763 ... a real bill (a carbon tax bill), they hate it. They don't understand it, almost never understanding that the 100% per capita rebate makes it quite progressive ... but even if they do that gets no consideration among their much broader hatred of anything "corporate" and their determination that capitalism must die and be replaced by "something new."
Ms. AOC and Mr. Markley conspicuously DON'T support HR763 ... not even as an intermediate step toward their "after the revolution comrade" nirvana? One might ask them why?
Upton Sinclair's remark about "It is difficult to make a man understand..." applies to all the denialists fearful for their stranded capital, but we don't have a nice epigram for the refusal of progressives to accept anything except something they will never get.
It's not too much complexity, it's too much rage and magical thinking.
8
@Lee Harrison
You keep harping on this.
The Green New Deal is an intentionally vague proposal, suggesting what the problem is oin general terms and what sorts of things might be used to solve it.
Some of those proposing or supporting it want to focus on it for a while to get people to see the scale of the problem and the scale of possible solutions. So some of them dismiss the carbon tax as too little and not worth the fight. Or they just don't want to have the issue diverted to that partial solution. And many disagree with this dismissal of the carbon tax and would like to support it as well as talk about the Green New Deal.
Ideology, politics, conversation, voting, legislating, etc. are all complex highly nuanced things involving psychology, philosophy, social organizing, public relations, trade-offs, short-term vs. long-term planning, projections, judgment, etc.
Just saying, "here is a bill, support it and then shut up" does just not cut it. If only life were simpler and there were easy direct answers and simple direct means of accomplishing them!
How do you think things get done politically.
2
@Lee Harrison it’s so much easier to deconstruct society and its benefits for all with lies, than it is to construct it for the benefit of all with truth.
@JustThinkin
"Some of those proposing or supporting it want to focus on it for a while to get people to see the scale of the problem and the scale of possible solutions."
Meaning not do anything. Even though they are screaming "do it now!"
"So some of them dismiss the carbon tax as too little and not worth the fight."
So, not do anything except talk-talk.
"Or they just don't want to have the issue diverted to that partial solution. "
Meaning that CO2 and climate is not their concern; that is only greenwashing for their other agenda.
"And many disagree with this dismissal of the carbon tax and would like to support it as well as talk about the Green New Deal."
Fine, that's rational. But AOC and Markley DON'T.
"How do you think things get done politically."
By electing politicians and putting real bills into legislation.
There's a hard reality here: nothing about climate and CO2 will pass in the Senate or survive Trump's veto, so any progress on anything will require defeating Trump at least, and probably gaining a majority in the Senate. The latter looks harder than the former, right now.
We do have about a decade in which to make BIG changes that face major resistance. How are we to get those senate votes?
Do you expect to get 60 votes in the Senate for the "Green New Deal" ... ever? Really? Really?
Are you making any effort at all to put workable bills on the table and trying to garner support for them?
Wu is 100% right....the simple policies such as tax cuts and deregulation makes the Republicans appealing to many voters.
In reality, conservative special interests, their lobbyists, think tanks like ALEC, and legislators draft complex laws which provide loopholes and roadmaps to serve their purposes. Do you think the new tax law simplifies the tax code? Republicans always sell tax reform as simplification...but he result is to make the code complex so it is impossible to understand public is fleeced.
4
This is why precisely why we need education in this counrty, and why Trump said his his 2016 campaign, "I love the uneducated".
5
Complexity has a well known Progressive bias. Similar to Reality, Truth, Common Sense and Common Decency.
12
@Michael W. Espy
..and 'unwillingness to work'
1
Thank you for making this point, so sorely lacking in the general discussion, and for keeping it simple.
There is a larger problem that needs to be addressed. Your argument illustrates the "what"(is wrong; needs to happen), and that is good. But the source of the problem, the "why" of it, is that the fetishized complexity among the expert class is not just a bad habit; it is strategic and self-perpetuating.
Because the Liberal/Progressive Movement (LPM) has become the new Institution. It has become, in our time, what the Church was in the time of the Reformation.
Like Latin-educated clerics who refused to allow literacy for the masses, lest they no longer require a priest class to elucidate the Gospels, the LPM, convinced of the rightness of its mission, prioritizes its own growth and ideology over genuine communication and debate among the citizen voters it claims to champion. Complexity-over-simplicity is essentially a control mechanism for elites (who are often the heirs to Republican fortunes) who manipulate younger voters by decrying the "privilege" of others.
They may holler and preach like Savonarola, but they operate like Vatican Curia.
4
Mr. Wu, thank you for your observations. Yes, Democrats have a terrible time communicating with the electorate. The only Democratic pol who could really communicate the Democratic agenda well in my recent memory was Bill Clinton.
4
There are no simple solutions to very complex problems like healthcare (which has insurance, services, medicine, machinery, privacy, and more...).
The fact is, it is much easier to write a bumper sticker for something that is already entrenched than for a new system that must transition from an old and also complicated one.
The fact is, if you were forced to explain how many of our current systems that are already in place, like banking and investment work, it would be next to impossible to explain to the average person.
And the fact that these new systems ARE complicated makes them easy targets for those who want to stop their implementation.
The challenge is to be able to explain the big idea in broad strokes for those that only want that level of detail, in such a way that the explanation is still true and appealing.
3
@Michael M. The solution doesn’t have to be simple. The message and the implementation are what need to be simple. Your doctor doesn’t have to make you his or her intern to provide you with good medical care. Health insurance may be complex but anyone who gets it from their employer knows that it can be distilled down to a few minutes of actually signing up.
3
@John That is what I am trying to say - there needs to be a way to explain complicated things simply in order to sell those policy changes, but I feel the author here keeps flipping back and forth between saying it is about the need for simpler solutions and simpler explanations. He says the public does not want to be exposed to complexity, but this can only be avoided to some extent because when the policy is up for debate those both in favor and opposed use the details to sell or make it look unattractive.
And while signing up for healthcare with an employer can be simple, when it actually gets to the point of being sick and navigating the care and billing and payment details, it can suddenly be a lot more complex.
I suggest that Professor Wu look at the Glass Steagall Act - 4 pages that put all risky activities into partnerships with unlimited liability - that means that whatever assets a partner owned were at risk whenever one of the partners' committed the firm. Nothing like having a "little" skin in the game to make people a little more diligent about managing risk.
As for complexity, part of the blame is due to our dummying down our educational system while the world gets more complex and flatter.
8