Election 2012: Bland Candidates but Vital Issues

After the American Century

There was a New Yorker cartoon some months ago showing a lawn sign with a caption that ran, as I now recall, "Well, OK, its ROMNEY." It captured the faint enthusiasm for Romney among Republicans, and also suggested his lack of affect, the pasteboard quality of his persona. His wife has tried to breath life into his stiff frame in her speech at the Republican Convention, but can his persona really be changed this late in the campaign?

We have entered a strange political twilight zone where apparently only bland politicians can stand for a year or even longer the overexposure of 24/7 media attention. A strong personality apparently is too much to take these days, and a man with weak convictions who flip flops on many issues and who seems to have no large emotions becomes the nominee. (Instead, the VP nominee, who arrives on the scene in the closing months, has the job of being colorful, dynamic, opinionated.) Imagine Romney laughing with his whole body, a real belly laugh. Or try to imagine him really sympathetic to a poor person. Imagine him telling a story so well that it becomes fascinating. Imagine him without his handlers speaking freely through an open microphone without making a blunder. Hard to do.

By the same token, the 2012 Obama seems more buttoned down and less inspirational than 2008 Obama. His pragmatism and unflappability have been assets in the day-to-day grind of being president, but the lofty rhetoric seems largely to have deserted him. He has more empathy than Romney, but that is not saying much. 

Ideally, candidates should inspire an election debate that focuses soberly on the issues. But instead, we are being subjected to a massive amount of advertising and spin. It is quite possible that this election will be one of the most important in decades, but it may be decided by negative advertising and impression management.

The debates are one of the few times where the voters get a glimpse of these two men in a (somewhat) unscripted discussion. In the second debate, they took off the gloves and had some pointed exchanges. Both were articulate and well prepared. They were by no means bland that night. Their encounter helped to underline the choices the United States must make during the next four years, choices that will have an impact much further down the road.

Will the country return to taxation high enough to pay its debts, or will it follow the Republican program of un-financed tax cuts?

Will the US really regulate banking or not? Right now it does, but Romney would roll that back.

Will the US keep the new health program created by the Obama Administration, or will Republicans dismantle it?

Will the country commit to green energy or remain locked in the carbon fuel economy, and fall further behind the curve and let other economies reap the benefits of being first movers?

Will the US again invest in education or will it fall behind the best systems in Asia and Europe? Already the US is behind in public schools, as measured by the PISA tests, but the challenge is beginning to come at the university level, too.

Will the US definitely reject the use of torture, rendition, and imprisonment without trial, which were routinely denounced under Bush but have become more "normal" under Obama?

These are vital choices that will determine whether the US remains competitive and strong in this new century. Unfortunately, Americans do not seem entirely to realize the situation, and they are being encouraged to think that the election is about such issues as Obama's birth certificate, gay marriage, teaching evolution, immigration, and the supposed "socialism" of the Democratic Party.

What the Press Must Find Out About Palin

After the American Century

Sarah Palin remains largely an unknown. But some disturbing questions have arisen since her nomination. She must be judged in the court of public opinion, like all other candidates. Voters have a right to know what a candidate actually stands for. All of the following statements now appear to be true, but we need further investigation by the press to be certain.

(1) Palin is a Prevaricator. She lied about her support for the Bridge to Nowhere, and actually did support it and ultimately did get the pork: $223,000,000 from the US Treasury that Alaska did not need.

(2) Palin attempted to censor the books in her town library, and to fire the town librarian without cause.

(3) Palin holds extremist views on evolution, global warming, and biological research, and would use her public office to promote her views, for example through giving large sums of money for conferences devoted not to scientific research but to promoting her views. [As governor she has given $2 million to a conference seeking to discredit the reality of global warming.]

(4) Palin has fired public officials guilty of no wrong-doing, misusing her power.

(5) Palin has little knowledge of the law, specifically the Constitution of the United States, and might not be a reliable guardian of its provisions concerning the separation of church and state.

(6) Palin and her husband have given support to a party that is working for Alaskan independence, on the grounds that its accession to statehood did not meet UN guidelines.

(7) Palin has been a member of an extremist church that holds views many other Christians would not find acceptable.

Again, these statements appear to me to be true, but the evidence is sketchy, and the candidate has not been forthcoming. To date, she has not given a press conference or a no-holds-barred interview. Such seclusion is inappropriate for a someone running for Vice-President.

For more questions rasied about Prevaricator Palin, see this piece in the New York Times. Or have a look at this editorial in the same newspaper.

Compared to Biden, Palin Beyond the Pale

After the American Century

Compare Sarah Palin with Joe Biden. He went to the University of Delaware, majoring in history and political science, and then completed a law degree at Syracuse University. He was elected to the Senate when just 29 and now has served there for 35 years. He has been fully vetted by the press, as a result. There is little likelihood that there are any skeletons in his closet.

In contrast, Palin's shorter life remains largely undisclosed. Several blogs back I said that she had attended the University of Idaho for her BA. This was what it said on her official website, and I was silly enough to believe it. In fact, she attended four different schools, moving five times in the space of five years.

Hawaii Pacific University fall, 1982, in business administration
North Idaho College spring and fall, 1983, general studies
(whereabouts unclear) spring of 1984
University of Idaho fall 1984, spring 1985, broadcast journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College fall 1985,
University of Idaho spring 1986 to spring 1987, broacast journalism.

It seems difficult to uncover good reasons for all this moving around. In my more than three decades of teaching, I have found that such peripatetic students are rare, and usually there is something wrong. A student who moves that many times cannot build lasting friendships and usually there is something amiss when someone never settles down for long . It can be problems at home, poor grades, a stalker, a death in the family, pregnancy, or any number of things. College students can have a huge range of problems. Palin studied for nine semesters over a space of five years to get a four year degree. So either she failed some courses or some of them were not deemed transferable. There may be good explanations for this moving around, but it would be nice to know what was going on before election day. Even if the explanations are convincing, her education could not have been particularly coherent, being a mishmash of courses from different curricula.

None of the schools Palin attended is an educational powerhouse. They lie on the outer edges of quality. There is some meaning in the ratings of universities put out by various independent organizations, notably Business Week. None of the places Palin attended is in the top 400 institutions of higher learning in the United States. To bounce around in this educational nether world is not encouraging. At the very least, it suggests merely average intelligence and lack of focus. Her record is quite a contrast to Joe Biden's, who completed both his BA and law degree in the minimum time - 7 years - attending just two universities, both of them well-regarded.

Imagine that you have a job to fill. Not something as exalted as Vice President of the United States, but a mid-level position at a fortune 500 company. Imagine that Biden and Palin applied, and imagine that the selection process was blind. All you have to go on is their educational transcripts, with no idea of whether the candidates are male or female, old or young, experienced or not. Which one of these applicants would set alarm bells ringing, and which one would seem a good prospect? Biden alone stands for stability, rapid execution, and quality. Palin stands for uncertainly, instability, slow execution, and mediocrity. Palin just doesn't measure up.

There is a clear connection between having a second-rate, mishmash of an education and many of the policy positions Palin holds. How many well-educated people think that "creationism" is a valid theory that ought to be taught in the schools? She does. How many well-educated people think that global warming is not a problem and that it is not caused by human activities? She does. How many well-educated people would agree with Palin that there is never a good case for abortion, even when the mother's life is threatened or even when she has been raped? She does. Is there any pattern here?

It seems unlikely that Sarah Palin actually has any ideas beyond what she reads on the teleprompter. She merely has opinions that she has received uncritically from others. She is passionate about unexamined notions, and she has the self-righteous certainty of a poorly-furnished mind. Putting her a heartbeat away from the presidency would be the worst mistake the American electorate ever made. (And I make that statement with a full knowledge of some impressive past mistakes.)

Sarah Palin's Clichéd Acceptance Speech

After the American Century

Many people felt that Huckabee was an inexperienced, right-wing, findamentalist Christian who would be completely unsuited to be President. Sarah Palin is Huckabee with less experience and wearing a skirt. But in her acceptance speech last night she downplayed her more extreme views to appeal to the mainstream. She did not say much in her 38 minutes, and indeed there was not a single idea in the first 17 minutes, as she introduced her children, her parents, and her husband, and presented herself as a typical "Hockey Mom" who got into politics at the local level.

She also presented herself as an opponent of the oil companies, who nevertheless pay most of Alaska's expenses. It is quite a good joke for the Republicans to pretend they are against big oil companies, who contribute to their campaigns. Both Bush and Cheney are former oil executives with close ties to the industry. But the current administration was erased from the speech. Were it the only document of these years to survive into some distant age, a historian would not be certain who was president or vice-president.

Palin presented herself as a fiscal conservative who kept the budget balanced. News flash: Alaska, like oil-rich Norway and Kuwait, has long had a budget surplus. She came close to claiming that the US could produce enough of its own oil and gas to avoid dependence on unstable foreign supplies. Not true, of course. As is typical of Republicans, her claim was that all the US needs to do is produce more and more power of all kinds. This failed "policy" has been the Republican mantra since Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Republicans always focus on enlarging the supply, forgetting about the far more easily achieved possibility of reducing wasteful demand.

Palin also attacked Obama, of course, the usual task of vice presidential nominees being to attack the other side. She said that having run a small town of 6,000 was more valuable experience than being a community organizer, because she had real responsibility. She did sink to a new low, however, in ridiculing the idea that people of accused of terrorism have legal rights. This sounds like the Bush approach to human rights. Of course she did not mention that she has at best a sketchy idea of law, having never been the law school. Obama has taught constitutional law at one of the finest law schools in the United States, the University of Chicago, and he was editor of Harvard Law Review. McCain finished in the bottom 2% of his undergraduate class and has no further education.

Palin accused the Democrats of preparing to raise taxes. She managed to avoid mentioning anything about the Bush Administration's large and unfunded reductions in taxes, most of which went to the wealthy. She managed to avoid any admission that the largest dificit in American history was created under the present Republican administration. Listening to her, it seemed that the Democrats actually were responsible for the deficit and unbalanced tax system.

In a particularly Orwellian moment, Palin presented McCain and herself and the Republicans in general as the enemies of special interests! But which candidate has accepted their contributions and filled his staff with lobbyists? Which candidate has voted with George Bush more than 90% of the time? It is absurd to pretend that McCain is an outsider who is against the establishment, against lobbyists, against Washington. His father was a 4 star admiral, he went to the Naval Academy, he has been a Senator for decades. McCain is the insider in this election, though you would not guess it from Palin's speech. And indeed, that is one of the reasons she was selected, because she is from the place farthest away from Washington. (Except Obama's Hawaii, of course.)

There was little content in Palin's 38 minute speech, often punctuated by wild cheering and sign waving, as is the custom. At the end she stood on the stage with all her children, holding her baby. The crowd loved it, and went completely wild when McCain made a surprise appearance on the stage.

Conclusion: this was a successful speech for the party faithful, but an empty Orwellian moment for anyone who thinks about it. There was not one new idea anywhere in that speech. Palin made it sound like the Republicans had not been in the White House the last eight years, and that she was running against the party in power. She scarcely mentioned the terrible state of the economy. She wrapped herself in the flag and ran against Washington. The old cliche is that when a politician has nothing else to offer, then it is time to campaign on God, the flag, family values and apple pie. That is all we got from Surah Palin.

Palin's speech illustates once again H. L. Mencken's aphorism, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Ameican public." Palin will appeal to many precisely because she has no new ideas, because she repeats clichés with enthusiasm and apparent conviction, and because she has five children.

The Forgotten Issues

After the American Century

The endless Obama-Clinton duel has now devolved into a contest of errors. Hillary made a huge one recently, by talking about the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as an example of how campaigns may be decided in June. Was she saying, stay in the race, because your opponent might get whacked? Surely not, everyone agreed, after she apologized, saying she "misspoke." Perhaps the worst part of such episodes is that they take attention away from the issues. Why talk about the people dying in Iraq or the soaring price of gasoline or the thousands of foreclosures, when you can discuss pratfalls and stupid remarks?

There are real issues in this campaign, however, even if the media often reduce it to a popularity contest that focuses on who is the best bowler or who said something idiotic last week.

Will the US stay in Iraq until at least 2013 (McCain's plan) or for as short a time as possible (Obama's plan)?

Will the Bush tax cuts for the rich become permanent (McCain's plan), or will the US return to something like the tax arrangements of the 1990s? To put this another way, will the US again start to pay off its national debt, or will it assume it can keep borrowing money from foreign creditors forever? Also indirectly involved in this issue is whether the dollar will be backed by a government that lives within its means and that can protect the dollar from falling further?

Huge balance of payment problems are not a good long-term economic policy, either. Will the US continue its massive oil imports, or will government force automakers to produce more fuel efficient cars? Students have built experimental cars that can run an astonishing 300 kilometers to a single liter, roughly 600 miles to a gallon! But neither the American SUV mad consumer nor Detroit is going to get there without some leadership. The Republicans have had eight years to provide it and failed.

Will the next appointments to the Supreme Court further tip the balance in a conservative direction? McCain is now on record as being a firm opponent of all forms of abortion, and if elected would likely be able to tip the balance on this issue.

Will the US really embrace efforts to curb global warming? McCain is better on this issue that Bush, rhetorically, but the Republican Party is not. The only real chance for the US to take a responsible role on this issue is if there is a Democratic Congress and President.

Will the next president be beholden to lobbyists who have donated to his campaign (McCain) or will he only have received support from ordinary voters (Obama)? This has implications on a host of issues.

Will the next president try to solve world problems by using the military (McCain) or by "soft-power" and diplomacy (Obama)? McCain evidently agrees with Bush that negotiating with an enemy is a bad thing, a sign of weakness. Obama does not want to be another cowboy president.

Finally, McCain now backs the use of some forms of torture, which is quite astonishing in his case, because he was tortured himself while held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Obama unequivocably rejects the use of torture. This is a serious issue, because recent news reports indicate that the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture have been more widespread that previously disclosed. The American military appears to be infected with this undemocratic practice, which is appropriate for sixtenth century witchhunts but not for any civilized nation today. McCain's treason to his own earlier convictions on this issue makes him a deeply problematic candidate. If he can reverse himself on torture, one can only ask, does he believe in anything?

Of course, none of this is as much fun as hearing about a tactical mistake or silly remark made by a candidate. But these and other issues are what the campaign should be about. Looking at these contrasts between McCain and Obama, I find no reason to support the Senator from Arizona. I am not aware of a single issue where his positions appear to be the wise choice. On the contrary, McCain's election could easily be a disaster even greater than the Bush Presidency. It may be hard to believe that something worse is possible. But it is.