Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman have a long piece in Politico about why this presidential campaign seems so lame. I have a simple answer for that. Our politics have been broken by a combination of Republican strategy and tactics, divided government, and the Senate rules. Simply put, the Obama administration can do all sorts of things right, but they can’t implement any policies legislatively on their own terms. That’s why you see them do things like decline to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court instead of simply repealing it, or deciding not to deport certain people rather then signing the DREAM Act. Obama can’t offer big sweeping changes because no matter how this election turns out, he won’t have enough political support to overcome Republican filibusters in the Senate.
As for Romney, he has endorsed completely radical and deeply unpopular policies that he is unwilling to discuss in any detail because it would hurt him politically. So, he’s reduced to sniping and voicing platitudes. Obama is too honest to promise large changes. Romney is too dishonest to admit that he’s proposed them.
Conservatives really don’t like their candidate, so their only enthusiasm is for voting out the Democratic president. Progressives have mixed feelings about the president, but share his frustration about the way the Republicans are able to block reforms.
If the press wants this election to be a less desultory affair, they should force Romney to debate the Ryan budget with the president. Romney will lose that debate very badly, but that is his own fault. If the press’s job is to inform the electorate, they should make this election a clear choice between two alternate visions for the country. Don’t let either candidate go day after day without defending the implications of their own proposals.
And let’s discuss why our political system is paralyzed and who is at fault for that. People need to be clear about that, too. If people prefer the president’s balanced approach to the apocalyptic Ryan budget, they should know that the president needs control of Congress to do what he wants to do. Reelecting him will prevent the worst from happening, but that alone will not be enough to break us out of this gridlock.
Something, something, care for the sick, good jobs for the jobless, ocean levels no longer rising, and a healed planet for all mankind.
Are you telling me that our nation didn’t learn to hope again? Unpossible.
Not sure what your point is.
If you’re saying he made some large promises in 2008 that have gone unfulfilled, that’s true. However, he had at least some reasonable belief that he could accomplish those things. First, he has accomplished many big things and fulfilled many campaign promises. Second, many of his promises were made before the economic meltdown which wound up both commanding his attention and limiting his choices. Third, I am talking about this time around. Not last time.
Uh huh. You can’t divorce the messianism of the past from the public perception of the President now and forever. It’s a factor.
Was their any chance of 2012 not looking small in the wake of four years ago? In 2008, Obama’s interaction with the nation of Germany was a speech in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Today, he’s impotently pleading with Merkel in Cabo not to let Europe wither and die.
You can describe the campaign change as one of necessary honesty and the constraints of governance (and you wouldn’t be wrong), but don’t pretend there wasn’t gleeful distorting of possibility in 2008 that comes with lingering effects.
In 2008, Obama’s interaction with the nation of Germany was a speech in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Today, he’s impotently pleading with Merkel in Cabo not to let Europe wither and die.
The truly hilarious part is that you actually think the former is more important, more significant, than the latter.
Oh, and nice use of “impotent,” Dr. Freud.
Different people want different things from politics, I guess.
We’re talking about the optics of a campaign here, you hack. This conversation has nothing to do with policy. This conversation has nothing to do with responsibilities of global governance. It’s a thread about how big stagecraft has given way to institutional obstruction. The issues remain the same, they didn’t get smaller, but the national conversation around them has been made to seem smaller.
2008 was a grand production. 2012 is not. I don’t have a preference between the two. I hate all elections equally until the voting can finally, actually take place. But, like, you still remember 2008. It happened. It’s a point of comparison that people remember, even those with goldfish memories. 2008 was a celebration of democracy, 2012 is an obligation of democracy.
You’re right, nobody ever used that word metaphorically to describe constrained or hapless people in power before 2009. Not once, not ever. It was strictly a medical term until it became time to psychosexually diminish the black dude. Yes.
Double hack. Hack squared.
You’re only talking about the optics of a campaign, while I’m discussing substantive actions, and I’m the hack?
Whatever, man. Step away from the computer.
You’re right, nobody ever used that word metaphorically to describe constrained or hapless people in power before 2009. Not once, not ever. It was strictly a medical term until it became time to psychosexually diminish the black dude. Yes.
Dude, what are you talking about? The entire “black guy” thing – that’s all you. You just imagined all of that. I was making fun of you for your over-attentiveness to big displays of power.
You’ve now called me a hack four times by my count – once for considering substance more important than show, and three times for something you imagined.
I think you need to get some fresh air.
Oh my god, the sheer substance of those three fucking sentences! It overwhelms. Yes, real substantive contribution, joe. Those three sentences.
Hack. You’re the anti-firebagger. Same game, different objective. Pure calvinball crap. You change your story and the rules of the game on the fly because your only objective is to strike back at those who dare criticize the President in any way you can.
This thread ain’t about the G20 or the ECB or the IMF or anything like that. It’s about the media and the campaign.
Now, Booman’s theory is that the campaign “feels small” because the media is failing to accurately portray the ramifications and extremity of Republican radicalism. And I think he’s right. But I also posited my own complimentary theory that the election feels small because it’s coming in the wake of the biggest bout of political pageantry in the history of modern civilization. We’ve come back down to earth. That’s not a particularly original or brilliant thought.
A candidate can invent whatever reality they want, if they can maintain it. A president on the other hand has to deal with the reality on the ground as it truly exists. Candidate Obama gets accolades for speeches, President Obama gets headaches from hardliners. Going from insurgent to incumbent means a different campaign. Once again, not saying anything new.
Which is why you didn’t respond to anything I actually wrote, obviously. You manufactured reasons to snipe at me because I used the “wrong word” in an arbitrary example in relation to the President and that made you see red. The President can’t ever be described as powerless. Intolerable.
So you a) accused me of being a shallow sillyhead who desires grand pointless gestures in my politics, when anybody with adult reading comprehension would probably have instead noticed that I had been making fun of the soaring ’08 benediction immediately prior and not because I believed in it. But I think you can read just fine, joe. I just think you’re a hack instead.
And so you b) smugly namedropped Sigmund Freud (and his oh so obscure theories) and patted yourself on the back. And now you flip over the gameboard and back away with your hands raised saying “Why are you talking about psychosexuality? I’m not talking about that. All I’m talking about is impotence and Freud, neener neener neener. If you read something into that, that’s your problem.”
Congratulations, soldier. I’m glad you think you’re out on the frontlines here, fighting the good fight. I’m very impressed with you.
The “substance” in question was Obama’s conduct of foreign policy towards Merkel. This was being contrasted with the “big speech,” which was all about show.
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you – you were the one who brought up the contrast between those two things in the first place, remember?
But, hey, don’t let that stop you. You’re on one of those fueled-by-hate rolls you get on, and pointing out that the central premise of your argument has, once again, proven to be entirely the result of your imagination is not going to stop you.
It never has before.
I have one last thought for you: since this is the second time in two comments that you’ve just completely, utterly failed in your attempt to follow a though, perhaps you should drop out of the mindreading game entirely, and rather than write another lengthy comment speculating about my motives (as fascinating as I’m sure everyone finds your multi-paragraph rant about what you think my motives were in doing something you couldn’t quite follow, twice), and get some fresh air.
Right. Which you described as…significant. And important. That was your contribution. Those two words.
Illuminating. You are truly an impressive intellect and political observer the likes of which are far beyond my feeble understanding.
Not a contrast where one is “better” than the other. More like a contrast between an elephant and an apple. One is a thing that exists, and one is a different thing that exists. And nobody would ever confuse the two. You can eat the apple, but the elephant sure is an elephant. It’s obvious now I gave you too much credit for your reading abilities.
That’s what’s so fucked up about this. I didn’t say the President is bad. I didn’t say he was evil. I didn’t say he was duplicitous, or in thrall to bankers, or a nasty austerian. I didn’t say he was fucking up, or that there was something he needed to be doing that he wasn’t.
I said he was powerless to resolve some random situation an ocean away. The presidency is a humbling job. Candidates can set their own agenda, presidents get theirs handed to them. So…why does that scare you, joe? And why did that fear turn to anger? And anger turned to typing?
You could have not replied to the original post at all. You could have replied something simple like “The President is too busy doing important things on the world stage to run a campaign like in 2008. I wouldn’t have it any other way.” And you’d probably get uprated for it.
But you didn’t.
You made it inexplicably personal and Freudian because I used the word impotent in a sentence. So, why?
Any organizer worth her salt knows that without hope, there’s no possibility of organizing for change. And any veteran organizer (see Steinbeck’s “In Dubious Battle” for a terrific fictional portrayal) knows that raising people’s hopes is both absolutely necessary if anything is to change, and inevitably bound to lead to disappointment when all those hopes aren’t realized.
This may be the funniest thing you’ve written all year.
Or, you know, it could be about WaWa and the best way to prepare dog.
Well now, that does sound like it would be easier to write about.
It goes without saying, don’t count too much on the press to inform. Their motive is advertising dollars, eyes, clicks, etc… not informing the public. It might help when Obama is out there campaigning if he talked about the need for a change in Congress too. Or if surrogates did. But they are oddly absent from the scene. Can’t we do something to get them out there telling some truths about the republicans?
The other thing is this: In 2008 my wife and I attended our first meeting regarding the Obama campaign while on vacation at the end of June. When we got home to (then) central Florida, it wasn’t until the end of August that an office got set up in our county.
It’s very early. A momentum needs to build. All those folks who just got to stay in the country without fear (The Dreamers) can’t vote, but they sure can help organize; they can register their relatives who are legal to vote. They are desperately needed and will help rejuvenate other youth, not just Hispanics.
But the press? Don’t hold your breath.
Presidential Debate? First, someone needs to ask Mitt if he plans to debate Obama. Look at Brown in Mass…he has only agreed to do radio debates. Who listens to the radio?
Mr. Nude-in-Playgirl has only agreed to debates that are hosted by fellow wingnuts, regardless of what medium they are broadcast on.
I’m taking that you are addressing this to the media, including the dear folks at Politico, which itself is illustrative of part of the problem. To touch on that one problem, Politico became a source of supposedly authoritative leaks about what the White House was up to that later turned out to have at least some truth about them. Which gave Politico’s reporting more weight than it deserved among progressive bloggers. And created the appearance, true or not, that Politico was the White House’s preferred media for official trial balloons.
The simple answer on paralysis is that it serves the powers that be on any number of levels. It increases cynicism about government. It prevents government from dealing with the things that the powers-that-be are playing fast and loose with. It creates an electoral climate of throwing the bums out that campaign advertising can use to its advantage to support Republican and Democratic “conservative” (i.e. pro-business, pro-rich) candidates. And it perpetuates the problems that frustrate the voters.
Grover Norquist first created it with his pledge of no new taxes. Newt Gingrich brought it to power in the Contract on America. The Bush era institutionalized paralysis in the budget by running up a huge debt. And the sell-out by the conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (an Holy Joe) in 2009 and 2010 set up the current major Congressional stalemate.
And then there is the thirty years of dishonesty by the corporate media as they tilted more and more toward Republican propaganda, allowing crazy conservative ideas to become mainstreamed and moderate liberal ideas marginalized. Worshipping at the church of Drudge in 1990s and allowing the hunting of a President. Fluffing an alcoholic candidate as a guy to have a beer with in the 2000 election. And being obsessed with Gary Condit and shark attacks on the eve of 9/11. And it went downhill from there.
Finally, there is the Supreme Court, the majority politicized as partisans acting for the interests of the Republican Party. And the Republican dream of a “permanent Republican majority” whether the people want it or not.
There is not going to be any honest debate. And what debate there is will be drowned out in the shitstorm of campaign ads, which are already beginning.
And if you look to the states, the same pattern is being repeated through the actions of ALEC and the various Koch Brothers organizations.
I’m going to double my xanax.
Better off keeping the telly off for the next seven months. (It’s not going to end with the election. The lame duck session is going to be a doozy.)
Even in an electoral system broken in so many ways, the “debate” process stands out as prime evidence that we’re no longer a functional democracy. The old-style TV debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters left much to be desired, but the sick parodies that now pass for media-sponsored debates make the old days look like a golden age of the winnowing and sifting the Founders imagined. The media debates are designed as entertainment for those who enjoy shows about people getting kicked in the groin or falling down for money. They’ve been less than useless for a very long time.
Like so much that’s wrong, there are simple solutions, lacking only the will and the power to implement them. First thing is to reestablish non-media sponsorship of the debates and mandate the media to carry them without necessarily participating. If that’s too draconian, put them on PBS and offer to let the rest of the networks carry them, complete and unedited for free. They don’t want them, fine.
Second, stop making them optional for candidates. We may not be able to force them to be there, but we can offer the free TV time to whichever candidate meets minimum qualifications and agrees to participate. If that means it’s Obama, the Socialist, and the Libertarian, whatever, fine — That would probably make for better information and entertainment anyway.
Third, reset the standard to the original point of debates: the candidates talking to each other with little or no “journalistic” participation. Provide a variety of formats: townhalls, one-on-one around a table, panels of questioners with extensive followup and fact checking, and so on.
There’s no reason we have to accept the inevitability of electoral campaigns aimed at the lowest, laziest impulses of the audience. We have no memory and no attention span because that’s how the media/advertisers/PR hacks want it. We don’t have to take it anymore if we don’t want to.
You are truly an impressive intellect and political observer the likes of which are far beyond my feeble understanding.
I think you’ve already demonstrated that.
Not a contrast where one is “better” than the other.
You know we can still read your comment, right? You:
Nope, no judgement there. Calling Obama’s actions “small” and “impotent” – I’m sure you meant those in a good way.
BTW, watching you go into “why does that scare you?” and talk about anger after your performance so far brings up another of Freud’s concepts: projection.
So, why? No, I’m not going to try to have a discussion with pissedo-off-and-trying-not-to-lose Bazooka Joe. Sorry.
No, I meant them as a statement of fact.
The sky is blue. It’s 97 degrees outside. And the administration is powerless to make the eurozone do stuff. Presidents are not all seeing and all powerful.
And this is the first sentence of Booman’s original post.
Lame. Small. Less sweeping. He calls it “desultory.” Whatever. All the same thing. If you disagree with that characterization, so be it. But you’re not disagreeing with anything. You’re playing calvinball. Again.
Never claimed to not be angry with you, chief. I called you a tedious hack. I meant it. Your schtick degrades my enjoyment of this website’s comments section. I would prefer you not reply to any of my posts in the future, and I will do likewise.
I don’t know why you’re still talking.
Are you going to look back at your last three comments tomorrow and say, “Damn, I’m really proud of that! That’s the guy I want to be!”
I don’t think you are. Why don’t you just stop?
Because I find you genuinely offensive. Not in a “oh no, you flamed me online, how horrible, how will I live?!” way. I’ve seen you act the same way across countless comments sections on countless sites, and I find you obnoxious. It’s not trolling, what you do, it’s honest. It’s white hot condescending fury. You double down, then triple down, then quadruple down, then quintuple down, and next you know, you’ve posted 20-30 times in a single thread. Over and over. And then you have the gall to act like you’re above it all.
All this over an adverb. A single adverb. You’re fucking poison.
You called me a sexually threatened/jealous/whatever, starry-eyed, unserious, emotional moonbat who gets off on the fucked-upedness of the global economy because I want to see the President “fail.” Ha, ha, he (and everybody else) is getting nowhere with Europe. Serves him right. We should’ve primaried him. Public option 4EVA.
You get off on smacking around baby boomer leftists and poseurs. Great. Not interested in that game. Not interested in you.
So I repeat myself one final time, don’t respond to me anymore. And I won’t respond to you. Do your business elsewhere.
will the two of you give it a rest. You both actually make good comments when you leave out the insults.