Either presidential debates are getting more civilized, or my standards for
them are falling. The second one seemed a marked improvement over the first,
a three-way bicker among candidates and moderator. This one sounded more
reasonable, less rote. Practice may not make perfect, but perhaps it makes
better.
Maybe it was the town-hall format that did it, encouraging the candidates to
speak directly to a real live person rather than a television personality or
the camera's eye. Whatever the reason, politics seemed to don a human face
for a nice change. The fairest and most relevant observation of the evening
may have come from Barack Obama who, almost in passing, noted that "nobody's
completely innocent here." It was a precious moment of candor. (Politician
Recognizes Original Sin!) But then the mutual finger pointing resumed.
It wasn't the answers but the questions that lingered after Tuesday night's
debate:
Which candidate is more prepared to step in and be head of state, chief
executive, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces come January 20, 2009?
Which one would give the country more hope - which is the best kind of
fiscal credit?
Whose election would assure the country and the world, and which one would
enter the White House an unknown quantity?
Would it be better to elect a president who isn't all that predictable, or
one who is entirely too predictable?
Consider some possible scenarios:
If the markets continue to slide, whose policies would contain Wall Street's
collapse before Main Street goes, too? Which candidate would get credit
flowing and the economy moving again? Which one would lay down the best
basis for long-term economic growth, and which one offers only short-term
fixes that would make the future even rockier than the present?
Which one will reward labor, investment, innovation and honest investment,
and which one would discourage all of the above?
The challenges facing the country aren't only economic. Both candidates have
come out foursquare against genocide in the world. But which one, as
commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces, would do something about it, and where? And still recognize the limits
of earthly power? Is this country supposed to take action against genocidal
threats only after they have been carried out? Or prevent them? If so, how?
Speaking of which, in the next few years, Iran is likely to proceed
unimpeded toward becoming a nuclear power, despite all the UN's empty
resolutions. In turn the Israelis, who have learned to take threats to their
existence seriously, are just as likely to take military action to destroy
or at least delay Mahmoud Ahmedinejhad's dangerous ambitions. Just as they
destroyed Syria's nuclear installation not long ago. When that happens, whom
would you rather have sitting in the Oval Office?
Is the best way to revive the economy to cut taxes for all or to raise them
just for the rich? (As if the rich were too dense to find tax shelters for
their income.) As a practical matter, can that be done? How expropriate
capital without affecting labor? Can we really draw water from only the
other fellow's side of the bucket? And how define The Rich anyway - those
one tax bracket above ours?
Continued... |