Out with McCain, we talked a lot about “the green gap” between Republicans and Democrats. As one of the few Republicans in the field who recognizes the existence of global warming, let alone have a plan for it, McCain is worried that Republicans are ceding the issue to Democrats as well as the votes of young people and independents that go with it.
I wonder if there isn’t another gap as well — call it the “innovation gap,” or as I have cleverly shortened it, the iGap. A notable difference between the Democrats and Republicans generally this year is the emphasis the Democrats put on technology and education and “innovation” broadly. Clinton and Obama have both introduced policy proposals aimed specifically at using government incentives to make sure the country — and pockets within it — can participate fully in the technological revolutions that are still to come. Not surprisingly, these proposals overlap significantly with each candidate’s environmental/energy policy and education proposals.
Clinton includes her $50-billion “Strategic Energy Fund” as part of the innovation agenda, as well as plans to increase funding for the NIH and the research budgets of the NSF, Defense Department, and the Department of Energy. She also wants the NSF to do research on “e-science” specifically, and fund it to the tune of $200 million a year.
Obama’s plan has a different orientation but some of the same specific suggestions (including making the R&D tax credit permanent and creating a $10 billion dollar “Clean Technologies Fund”). But rather than just using government to incentivize technological advances, he focuses a lot on government also using technological advances, and act as model for business and education. Some of the ideas are surprisingly specific:
• Make the Veterans Health Administration, the nation’s largest integrated health system, a model in the use of technology to modernize and improve health care delivery. (I think modernizing medical records is in Hillary’s health plan as well. Not only are electronic medical records part of her plan, she introduced bipartisan legislation on it in 2005.)
• Develop a national, interoperable wireless network for local, state and federal first responders as the 9/11 commission recommended
and my two favorites:
• Create a web site, a search engine, and other web tools that enable citizens easily to track online federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.
• Give the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation.
Also: blogs. (Seriously, he wants federal wikis and blogs.)
I think the different areas of emphasis between Clinton and Obama may be a result of that “different kind of politics” you hear so much about. I suspect Obama’s relationship (and that of anyone under, say, 40) with technology — and government — is fundamentally different than Hillary Clinton’s. I don’t know enough to say which is better. And maybe it’s as simple as Hillary thinking the government should give you money in order to encourage advances and Obama thinking that government should participate in technological advances — and give you money. But there’s something there.
The Democrat – Republican differences are more pronounced. Republican front-running candidates, say they not only* don’t really believe in government incentives, and they don’t really talk a lot about technology. They speak broadly about encouraging innovation through free markets, and tend to be less specific about technology itself. Ron Paul has more to say about innovation, but, of course, wants the government to stay out of it. Romney’s technology policy seems to largely consist of doing something about internet pornography and “online predators.” (A very abbreviated run down here.)
UPDATE: McCain gets asked about climate change at pretty much every town hall I’ve seen him at. His proposal is to use a cap-and-trade system to encourage reduction of greenhouse gases, and go back to using nuclear power. Grist has a good run-down on his environmental policies (and all the other candidates) here.
*CORRECTED to reflect a commenter’s point that Republicans’ rejection of government intervention is largely a talking point, not something they actually do.