May 4, 2008 11:56

Welcome Back, Tom

Commenter Kathy R writes that there are two very strong op-eds in the New York Times today, by Tom Friedman and Frank Rich.

Friedman is back from a book leave--and he is excellent on something that most Americans sense, but don't fully realize: that we are falling behind Asia and Europe in terms of research, development, education and infrastructure. He writes about the lost "Asian" values of our parents and grandparents--the hard work and sacrifice, the habits of citizenship that we've lost through Affluenza. A young diplomat I know, returning from four years in Asia, recently said to me, "People just don't realize that we've become a second world nation."
I don't know how politicians, especially those in the midst of a campaign, can make this problem real to people who have real problems--like buying the next tank of gas. Barack Obama is surely trying. I'm in Indianapolis today and Obama has an excellent ad on the air about the Clinton-McCain Gas Tax Holiday flummery. But Clinton was very effective selling immediate relief on the stump when I was with her in North Carolina yesterday. In my experience, immediate relief of a perceived crisis beats long-term action against a crisis not yet generally perceived. That is where leadership comes in--and leadership, the ability to ask people to defer gratification for a better future, is something that has been entirely missing in the current Republican era. Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" But "How are we going to be better off four years from now?"

Meanwhile, Frank Rich raises an interesting point about the vile pastor John Hagee:

In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.)

Obviously, McCain doesn't agree with Hagee's nuttery about Hurricane Katrina as retribution for the sins of New Orleans--but there is, shall we say, a community of views between McCain and Hagee on the middle east. Obama shares a community of views with Rev. Wright on the alleviation of urban poverty, and especially on the need for black men to step up and meet their responsibilities as fathers--and yet he's been forced to repudiate Wright, correctly I believe, because of that pastor's ugly excesses. Should McCain be held to a lesser standard with regard to Hagee? I don't think so.

No, Hagee is not McCain's pastor. But, by accepting Hagee's impramatur, McCain is giving currency to anti-Catholic, anti-gay and, ultimately, anti-Jewish bilge. (Hagee claims to be a Zionist...but that's only true up until the Rapture, when non-Christians will be incinerated.) There should be no place for such dangerous nutballs--and yes, you can throw in the oleaginous telecharlatan Pat Robertson, too--in presidential politics. They should be rejected, one and all.

May 4, 2008 10:51

This Ain't '88

I remember 1988 well--a dismal campaign, which Robin Toner recounts well here. But there is an essential difference between this year and that one--there are huge issues at stake this year. In 1988, Reagan was coming off a period of low poll ratings because of the Iran-Contra scandal, but he was, essentially, a popular President, enjoying a good economy. This year, we have a historically dreadful incumbent President, who has made the most grievous errors overseas of any American President and who is presiding over a bad-to-iffy economy. There will be enormous policy differences between the Democratic nominee and John McCain in the fall.

So why are we getting all this frantic low-information signaling and skeezy character assassination in the Democratic primary? Because that's what happens in an election where there are no huge policy differences between the combatants--it turns on character, personality and trivia. Whatever you think of them, Clinton and Obama agree on most matters of substance.

My guess the tone will shift as soon as the Democrats get a nominee. Iraq will be a huge issue. Bush's economic policies--tax cuts for the wealthy, the slavish devotion to the interests of oil companies--will be huge issues. No doubt, there will be trivial pursuits. There always are. But they are more likely to be kept in perspective in an election where Iraq and the economy (and, I hope, the environment) take center stage.

If you're looking for an electoral analogy, try 1980--a year when lots of Democrats jumped ship, tired of the party's post-Vietnam ennui. Back then, I saw lots of Dems showing up at Republican meetings...just as I've seen lots of Republicans showing up at Democratic meetings this year. The general election that year, between Carter and Reagan, presented real policy choices to the public. This can, and should, be an election like that one.

In sum, just because the primary campaign has been about flag pins and crazy pastors, it doesn't mean that's what we're looking at in the fall.

May 4, 2008 10:28

I Just Knew This Was Going to Happen One of These Days

During this morning's security sweep of press corps gear, just before we boarded the Obama campaign plane in Indianapolis, the bomb-sniffing dog urinated on my laptop bag, purse and raincoat.

[Insert metaphor here.]