Bigfella

"the sheer vibrancy of this campaign I find very heartening." - Parihaka

Regular contributors to WAB may have detected a touch of irritability in some of my posts on the US election. I felt it worthy of an explanation, because therein lies the story of a truly remarkable campaign.

My snarkiness has largely been aimed at what I see as a string of attacks on Obama by targetting friends and family, rather than the man himself. I should explain that I would actually be wading in just as hard if similar attacks were being made on McCain or Clinton. Negative campaigning shits me - it is poison to democracy.

One of my motivations here is a genuine dissappointment at a negative political discourse that is obscuring something that every American should be trumpetting to the world on volume setting 11 - the highest quality Presidential race in years.

It is in the nature of democratic politics that remarkable, talented people don't always rise to high office. Sometimes we end up with mediocrity, or worse. This is not necessarily a disaster. Remarkable people can sometimes be remarkably bad in other respects, while inconsistent candidate quality compels us to ensure that systems of government are the basis of the system - not the personality of a given politician. Ultimately, however, talent is better than mediocrity. That is what makes this election such a joy to behold.

Consider this for a moment: There are now three people with a good shot at becoming President, and each of them is a remarkable, talented person. They are not without flaws, but their positives are unusually high. How many of the 15 Presidential elections since WW2 can claim one quality candidate, let alone 3? I'll do a little follow up post to illustrate my point, but I just want to re-emphasize what a remarkable year this is with my take on each candidate.


McCain: I struggle to think of a candidate with a record of public service greater than John McCain. Dole, perhaps Eisenhower? What I admire about McCain is his courage. The personal courage is obvious. Having had the chance to chat with an uncle of mine who spent most of WW2 in Japanese hands, I have endless admiration for anyone who can survive the mental & physical trauma of prolonged captivity.

I detect elements of this courage in his preparedness to stand against his own party on issues he believes in. In particular his attempts to remove some of the money that has become such a dangerous narcotic in American politics. Positive signs for a Presidential candidate.


Obama: While Obama has the slightest political record of the three, I actually believe that his ability to inspire does matter. Lets be honest here, pick out your worst 2 or 3 Presidents of the postwar era - each had the 'qualifications' that Obama is supposed to lack. And it it not as if he has no experience in government.

What he uniqely has is the ability to inspire people to action across traditional divides in American society. OK, so young people & students may be an easy touch, but Obama is the first black politician on the national stage to have a genuinely broad appeal among whites. I think that he more than anyone in American history offers the possibility of bringing black America out of its defensive posture & into the mainstream. His proud proclaimation of the possibilities of America for blacks is a genuinely transformative message for all Americans. I think that it will help to foster a genuine enthusiam for participation in American society that is needed every generation or so. I also believe that he offers unique & positive possibilities for dialigue with the Muslim world.


Clinton: There are few people who have worked longer or harder for the Presidency than Hilary. Someone whose outstanding abilities were apparent even as a law student - placing her in the middle of Watergate at an age when most people are more interested in having a good time. In an America yet unready for talented women in the executive, she formed one of the most successful partnerships in the history of American politics.


Hilary has paid a high price for the failings of her partner, and she showed her own brand of courage in the way she dealt with that. She has also put up with a level of sustained & public personal abuse that few elected officials have had to cope with. Having begun to assert her distinctive politcal identity, Hilary has been able to harness her talent to a set of positions more broadly appealing than anyone thought possible. Interestingly, on another board I saw a very conservative Republican argue that as a member of Congress she had not once voted against her views for a special interest.


As with Obama, Hilary is breaking down barriers to office that have stood for centuries. Her run for office offers a sort of symbolic finality in the journey of women over the past 2 generations.


Each of these candidates has negatives, and they need to be taken into account. They should not, however, be allowed to dominate the debate. In 2008 America will elect a person of genuine quality to the most powerful office on earth. Focus more on the positives my American friends - the world needs to see more of it.

__________________
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

Bigfella

I just wanted to point out what I meant by it being a remarkable year in terms of quality candidates, especially for the last 40 years. I'll just give my personal estimation of how many (out of 2) quality candidates there have been in elections since WW2. Obviously this is broad brush, top of the head & highly personal.

1948: 2

1952 & 56: 2 (this could be a 1, not sure if Stevenson was still up to it)

1960: 1

1964: 1 (Goldwater would be the 2nd if not for his vote on civil rights)

1968: 0

1972: 0

1976: 0

1980: 1

1984: 0 (Reagan was literally losing it by '84)

1988: 0

1992: 0 (I don't think Bush or Clinton were bad Presidents as such, just not very good)

1996: 0 (Bob Dole would have been a great candidate in 88, past it by 96)

2000: 1

2004: 0

2008: 2

dalem

In large part because the man himself has no easily-accessible political history to speak of and has not yet taken many hard positions. So you "attack" or criticize what you know, which are his associations.

Positions he has taken, instant withdrawal from Iraq, class warfare, childish and weak foreign policy, etc., are assailed as soon as they appear but no one seems to want to defend or explain those for him very much. Certainly he doesn't do it himself.

So your analysis is incomplete and insufficient.

-dale

lwarmonger

Personally I hope that this campaign ends up as McCain against Hillary, even though I am coming to the belief that Hillary is the stronger candidate.

I think if Obama were to lose (especially in a close election) it would be bad for the country, however if he were to win it would also be bad for the country (for his policies, if enacted in full, would be disasterous). Obama losing the primary would merely tear apart the democratic party.

gunnut

That's how the game is played. Both sides look for vulnerabilities to exploit. If there are none apparent, then we look for his associates and attack his credibilities.

Have you ever sat on a jury? I did. It was a vandalism case in an apartment complex. The defense lawyer, instead of arguing for his client's innocence like "that did not happen," attacked the credibility of the prosecution witness. It was remarkably effective. If the prosecution witness's story is suspect, then we cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

In elections, we question the history of the candidates since we really don't know the candidates on a personal level. If he hangs out with questionable people, people of ill repute, slimeballs and sleeze buckets, then that says something about his personality. General rule of thumb, we hang out with people similar to us. Rarely do KKK members hang out with civil rights activists. We normally don't see conspiracy theorists having a beer with a square.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

dalem

You are known by the company you keep.

Like it or not.

Life usually boils down to the simple things. In general, this Obama issue is no different than the one I harp on sometimes of supposedly "moderate" Muslims acting as apologists for the head-choppers.

-dale