More of the Same

I don't claim to be an authority on anything, and I certainly don't claim to be an astute political observer. But, like most other twenty-somethings, when election time rolls around, I try to keep up with political developments, I try to educate myself on the issues, and I try to make a decision as an independent, critical thinker.

Here are my initial thoughts about tonight's debate:

1) More of the same: Even for someone like myself, for someone who is not a political junkie, these two presidential candidates sound like broken records. Both candidates made the same attacks on each other, the same arguments about the same issues in the same words. I bet that if you took the transcript from the first presidential debate and simply jumbled the words around, you'd end up with something very similar to what we heard in the second debate. Value added: zero.

2) "Speak softly and carry a big stick": So McCain cites Teddy Roosevelt as a role model and uses this quote to say that Obama is dangerous because he is all talk and no walk. Then, in response to a question about Russia, McCain says something like: "I looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and I saw three letters: K-G-B." Jeez. Tell me: is it diplomatically okay for someone vying to be the President of the United States of America to say something like that? That doesn't sound very diplomatic or tactful to me. A lot like: "I looked George W. Bush in the face and I saw one thing: well, okay, that's a lie, I couldn't discern a single thought."

3) I don't want to hear about voting records or even about the details of policy proposals anymore. It's too much "he said, she said" business, and it requires too much effort to figure out who to believe on what. Obama says that he wants to cut taxes for the middle class, McCain says that Obama will raise taxes for the middle class. Obama says that McCain wants to give all sorts of tax breaks to oil companies, but McCain says that Obama voted in favor of legislation filled with pork for oil companies. Back and forth, back and forth, who could possibly know what to believe?

Instead, I would rather hear about values and what principles will guide decision-making. That's why I think the question about whether health care is a right, a privilege or a responsibility was such a good question. If you look at the candidates' answers to that question, then you can begin to understand what the fundamental differences are between the two platforms.

4) The economy. Both candidates claim their respective policy proposals will create jobs and move the economy forward. How does one know who to believe or whose policy would be effective?

And, on the economy, I am confused. Both candidates talk about reigning in government deficit. McCain goes so far as to recommend a spending freeze on certain governmental programs. But it is precisely when an economy is in recession that a government should be deficit spending. Isn't that standard Keynesian economics? The US got out of the Great Depression riding the tide of FDR's New Deal, which was deficit spending. The important thing to consider is the composition of the deficit spending, whether or not the spending is productive and will yield returns in the future. Money spent on nation-building in Iraq should be diverted to nation-building projects at home. The usual suspects: infrastructure, education, green technology. But the point is to change the composition of government spending and not necessarily to cut back. Right? Or is my understanding of economics horribly askew?

5) Strategy vs. Tactics. What is the goddamn difference? McCain, who claims superior knowledge on this, seems to use the words "strategic" and "tactical" rather loosely. I understand the difference between strategy and tactics to be very similar to the difference between ends and means. Strategy belongs in the realm of politics whereas tactics belong in the military. Understood in this way, the surge in Iraq was a military tactic designed to fulfill the strategic objective of establishing a sustainable democracy in Iraq.

So the strategic difference between Obama and McCain is drastic. Obama wants the strategic objective of the War on Terror to be the elimination of bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, McCain's strategic objective focuses on installing a friendly democracy in the Middle East. If the candidates could talk about strategy more coherently, I think the American public would benefit.

-----------------------------------

Well, I think the debate tonight was a big disappointment. As a viewer, I want to see the two candidates engage each other in a serious way. I don't want to hear the same campaign trail slogans being rehashed over and over again. In these debates, the questions asked seem irrelevant. Instead, each candidate seems to have answers before questions are asked.

The questions are made to fit the answers (already preprepared) rather than the other way around.