I should write about politics and culture every day—my hits counter spikes every time. J
I have a lot to say about presidential politics right now, so I’ll give my $.02 on Tuesday’s debate, but I’ll try to keep it brief.
I thought both candidates made their cases well. Obama is definitely the better public speaker. McCain tended to waste time at the beginning of questions. (I have great sympathy for this weakness, being prone to it myself.) However, we elect a president based not on public speaking ability, but on ability to get the job done. Although after Bush, I admit it’s tempting.
Anyway. I liked what both men had to say. They both sounded reasonable on health care, though I have reservations about both plans. Likewise, foreign policy. (And I’m soooooooo delighted that they both pronounce country names properly. I’m so tired of hearing “I-Rack.”) For example: Iran. (Not I-Ran.) Obama says we should sit down and talk without trying to bully ahead of time—that conversation leads to understanding. Yes, I agree, wholeheartedly. McCain says we have to bring expectations to the table—we can’t just show up and let them push us around. Yes, I agree with that, too.
Their aims are the same on almost all issues. The question before us in November is not whether or not we should fix the economy. It’s a matter of whose plan will work best. The weakness in the debate format is the need to keep control. What we need is a back-and-forth: What about this? What about that? Unfortunately, that takes too long, and gray areas overcome all clarity.
We’ll never know ahead of time who has the best plan. No matter what anyone says, no one knows the future. Different circumstances could make one or the other right. Without that knowledge, we have to make the best educated guess we can, and go from there.
Right now I’m feeling pretty sanguine about America’s prospects for the next four years, regardless of whether we go “red” or “blue.” (Yet another distinction I despise. It’s a convenient way to show graphics on TV. Nothing more. Get over it!) In fact, I think Obama and McCain are so well matched that the ideal ticket would have both of them on it. J Yeah, right. (Hey, it happened in My Fellow Americans!)
The one thing that annoyed me Tuesday night was the plethora of digs, full of partial truths and misleading insinuations, that they tacked on to the end of every speech. Aside from being completely unhelpful to the voters, it was awkward—as if these two distinguished, articulate men slapped crepe paper on their acid-free thesis papers, complete with Elmer’s glue squishing out around the edges. Every time it happened, I groaned, “Oh, not again! Just shut up already!”
I have argued this point before with campaign managers and candidates. They call such tactics “contrast,” which sounds reasonable in theory, but reality is not so pretty. In politics the word “contrast” covers a multitude of mudslinging. Obama and McCain were fairly restrained in the debate, but the ads and the phone calls are not. The way campaigns are run in America—focused 90% on half-truths and mudslinging about The Other Guy (Gal)—counterbalances my earlier satisfaction with the choices this November. Apparently, politicos think we’re all too dense to recognize fallacies when we are presented with them.
Jeez, I hope they’re not right about us!
Kathleen M. Basi 