Confusion About What To Be Confused About

Add me to the list of people, like Matt Yglesias, distinctly unhappy with this line from Senator Clinton last week.

Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill up your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night. My opponent gives speeches. I offer solutions.

But, chalk me up as being in distinct disagreement as to the actual point of disagreement. Matt says

And, clearly, speeches don't put food on the table. But it's not as if Hillary Clinton doesn't give speeches. Giving speeches is part of being a presidential candidate. Indeed, it's also part of being president. And, again, both candidates deliver speeches. So it would seem that Clinton is accusing Obama of giving speeches well.

And, indeed, it's not so much that I disagree with Matt. It's more that I find other aspects of what Senator Clinton had to say much more risible. Frankly, I don't want the government to fill up my tank, or to do anything about my bills. And I'm a fucking liberal!

This is the kind of thing that gets picked up by the wingnut factory. I don't know whether it actually was mentioned, but I can certainly see Hannity or Limbaugh taking this sort of line and twisting it into 'Hillary Clinton wants the government to pay your bills! Hillary Clinton wants to buy your gas! Hillary Clinton wants to make all your problems just go away...'

I'm a liberal. Proud of it. I think it's a fine philosophy, with solid underpinnings which are based with a pretty equal measure of realism about the way people actually are and optimism for what our society could become. But, I'm also aware that the word is pretty loaded. For better or worse, most people in America think that they're conservative, although I would definitely argue that point, since most people are in favor of things like equal rights for women and minorities, Social Security, and protection of civil liberties from bodies both corporate and public.

But, again, the reality of the situation doesn't matter against the perception, which is that most people think of themselves as 'conservative', and have an inherent distrust of the concept of 'goverment', even though the actuality is very different (what comes to mind is the old story of one of John Breaux's constituent's coming to him and telling him 'Senator, make sure you go to Washington and keep the government's hands off my Medicare!')

So, when Senator Clinton comes out and talks about things like how speeches don't put gas in your tank, it sounds like she's implying that her brand of government can do just that. And I don't like the sound of that. It's bad policy, something I don't really agree with - I think the job of government is to ensure equality of opportunity, not to make sure gas is cheap. But, even more seriously, it's really tone deaf to start making extravagant promises about what your administration can achieve. It's too easily parodied, too easily plays into the unjustified fears people have about liberals. And, maybe it's playing a bit too scared, but I'm still concerned about what effects such an attack could have in the fall's campaign...