Home

Archives Here...

 

January 27, 2008

The candidates: good, the bad, and the ugly

(a political digression)

The next President of the United States is already among us. It has come down to the Final Four. 

I know, I know. The choices could be better. Have you ever tried to buy a suit off the consignment rack? Ever eat at an all-you-can-eat Chinese restaurant twenty minutes before closing time, after they stop refilling the buffet line?   

Nevertheless, one of them is going to become the next leader of the free world. It’s inevitable. Or would you rather amend the Constitution so that we can have four more years of the current administration? Didn’t think so.  

I am not endorsing any candidate at this point, but here is my take on the positives and negatives of each one: 

 

 

Republicans

 

John McCain

 

Pros:

 

John McCain is the only veteran running for office. This will put him in a strong position with voting veterans who would prefer to see one of their own in the White House. Moreover, McCain is a veteran’s veteran: The Arizona senator is an ex-POW who did time in the notorious prison system of North Vietnam. Like him or not, you’ve got to admit: he is a patriot and he’s no wimp.

 

Cons: 

McCain’s policies on non-defense related issues are a mishmash of contradictory ideas. McCain claims to be a conservative. He also supports amnesty deals for illegal immigrants. This is sure to repel many conservatives, and working-class voters who are tired of seeing their real wages decline. 

Nor can McCain lay claim to the legacy of Reaganomics. The McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act would introduce a series of new taxes on American consumers---who are already struggling to pay rising gasoline and food prices. (The ostensible goal of McCain-Lieberman is to protect the environment; but the bill doesn’t include taxes on Chinese industries---now the most flagrant polluters on the planet.)  

McCain often grows fuzzy when faced with topics that don’t play to his identity as a war hero. He describes himself as a “leader” rather than a “manager.” Then he suggests that economic issues are best left to “managers.”  

A leader needs to be able to brandish his pistol when the situation calls for it; and a leader also needs to be able to sweat the small stuff. As Bill Clinton discovered in 1992, (“It’s the economy, stupid”) voters expect the President to be a manager as well as a leader. The President has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. 

John McCain dismisses his Republican rival Mitt Romney as a manager. But McCain’s comparative silence on economic issues leads one to believe that economic issues really don’t interest him that much. If elected, he would likely turn economic matters over to cabinet officials and staffers. 

This isn’t good leadership. It would also be bad management, if you want to split hairs. 

McCain’s domestic policy proposals have drawn the kind of admirers that make Goldwater conservatives cringe. The New York Times recently endorsed McCain’s candidacy. This is not an endorsement that any Republican candidate wants or needs. An endorsement from Pravda or the China People’s Daily would probably have been more helpful. Their editorial boards are both slightly to the right of the New York Times.

 

 

Mitt Romney

 

Pros: 

Mitt Romney has a solid track record on economic issues. He had a successful business career. Then he turned the economy of Massachusetts around after Dukakis’s policies caused the state to be derided as “Taxachusetts.”   

Romney is a measured, articulate speaker. In interviews he comes across as both sane and intelligent. His record indicates that he would be a moderate on social issues. (Don’t look for a President Romney to waste our time with “marriage protection acts” and other Bush-era tomfoolery.) 

Mitt Romney takes a firm line on illegal immigration and consistently supports lowering the tax burden---both of which should endear him to working-class voters. 

Cons: 

Despite Mitt Romney’s long-term record as a moderate, he has occasionally tracked to the far right during the primaries. Religious conservatives within the GOP have already targeted his Mormon faith with scurrilous email campaigns. (I think I even received a “Mormons eat their young” email alert at some point.) 

To his credit, Mitt Romney is no Mike Huckabee. Nevertheless, internal politics within the Republican Party will tempt him to curry favor with the Religious Right. If he takes the bait, he will lose his potential appeal for undecided and independent voters during the general election. 

This is what scares me about Mitt Romney. Is he going to stick to his guns on the important issues? Or will he play to the polls? Maybe John McCain has a point about Mitt Romney being too much of a manager and not enough of a leader.  

Okay, enough about the Republicans for now. Let’s move on to the Democrats…..  

 

 

Democrats 

Barack Obama

 

Pros:

 

First, he has the likeability factor. It is hard not to like Barack Obama, whether you support his candidacy or not.  

Everything about Barack Obama just screams fun, hip, cool, etc. Obama is a phenomenal public speaker. He can dance at campaign rallies and not look like a dork. His message is upbeat. And he’s young. (Obama would be the first President born in the 1960s.) As a relative newcomer to national politics, Obama can effectively position himself as the candidate for “change.”  

For liberals, Obama is the only major candidate who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. While by no means an old-line liberal, the “Issues” section of his website suggests that his administration would be more activist and progressive than any we have seen for a long time. (Obama would expand the federal government’s role in education, for example.) 

Cons: 

In a recent editorial, The New York Times heaped praise on Barack Obama, but concluded that Mrs. Clinton is “more qualified right now” to be president. Obama’s youth and relative inexperience have helped him to energize Generation Y voters during the primary season. (“Hey, have you guys downloaded this Barack Obama ringtone yet? Cool!”) 

In the general election, however, voters may favor a candidate who has a bit more experience---and years---under his or her belt. Youth and inexperience may be cool; but are they what we need for these serious times? The war in Iraq and the faltering economy are issues that might make voters wary about electing someone who has such a short resume---whether he can dance or not.  

And just wait until the mud starts flying. It is presently far more politically correct to be anti-Hillary or anti-Mitt than it is to be anti-Obama. Obama’s affable personality (and possibly his race) have made him the candidate that no one wants to go on record as attacking openly. No one (except for Mrs. Clinton) has really gone after Barack Obama yet in the public forum.  

The kid gloves will come off if he becomes the Democratic candidate for President in 2008. Obama’s history of drug use is a factor that could be exploited in a general election. Spin doctors on the Republican side could easily portray Obama as an untested candidate who has skeletons in his closet.  

Hillary Clinton

 

Pros: 

Hillary Clinton is intelligent, highly educated, and she spent eight years in the White House. She knows the Washington establishment and can likely manipulate it to get things done. 

Once decried as a far-left liberal, Mrs. Clinton has evolved into a moderate during her years in the Senate. She won’t please conservative Republicans; but no Democrat is going to get that vote anyway. Her signature issue---health care reform---now appeals to a wide cross-section of voters. (The health care crisis has become much more acute since 1992.) 

Finally, there is the Bill factor. When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the country was suffering from Clinton fatigue. (Remember all those sordid congressional hearings about Monica Lewinsky’s dry cleaning bills? And what do you think about when Uncle Harry lights up a Cuban cigar these days?)  

But times change. Eight years of George Bush, uneven economic growth, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made many voters nostalgic for Bill Clinton. We miss having a president who knows that the residents of Athens aren’t called Grecians. We would even be willing to forgive an occasional peccadillo with a White House intern, so long as we don’t have to listen to the details on national television. 

On the whole, America was more prosperous during the Clinton years than it is today. (Reasonable people could debate whether the 1990s were prosperous because of Bill Clinton or in spite of Bill Clinton; but let’s table that one for the moment.) There is reason to believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency could recapture some of the good times we had in the 1990s. Back to the future, as they say. 

Cons: 

Whereas Barack Obama is effortlessly likeable, Hillary Clinton is brassy and in-your-face even when she tries really, really hard to be nice for the cameras. She just can’t help herself. Whenever she speaks, I am always waiting for her to start wagging her finger at me. There is something about Hillary Clinton that is inherently annoying; and it has nothing to do with her political views, party affiliation, or gender. It is simply who she is.    

Hillary is quite possibly the most intelligent candidate in the bunch. But can we really handle four years of her scolding the nation like the homeroom teacher from hell? And what about that crying fit during her television interview? How’s that routine going to play with Russians or the Iranians?

 

Summary

 

Each of the leading candidates is interesting in their own way. I think it would be a blast to hang out with Barack Obama. I want Mitt Romney to manage my investment portfolio. And I’d like to sick Hillary Clinton and John McCain on every single person who has ever seriously wronged me in my entire life.  

But I don’t see any FDRs, Ronald Reagans, or Margaret Thatchers here. What I see is a pack of fodder for Jay Leno and David Letterman. And another four years of inept leadership.  

I tell myself that it can’t be that bad. I earnestly want to believe that one of these characters would make it easier for us to sleep at night in a troubled world. I regard myself as an optimist, really I do.  

But this campaign season is testing the optimist in each of us.