Eenie, Meenie, Miny, Moe
Many seem to feel indifferent toward all of the present Presidential candidates. I know I have wrestled with the current choices myself.
Perhaps Michael Barone hit the nail on the head with respect to this quandry in his latest piece at Real Clear Politics.
“Pray take away this pudding,” Winston Churchill commanded one night at dinner. “It has no theme.” Our two political parties, facing the first election in 80 years in which neither the incumbent president nor the incumbent vice president is running, are similarly bereft of themes. Or, to put it more precisely, neither has a convincing narrative of where we are in history and where we should be headed next.
He’s right, at least in my way of thinking. I have seen or heard very little which convinces me this will not be an election in which many of us make our selection based on who we believe is the lesser of two evils, not the one who will lead this nation in a manner one might expect.
Barone elaborates, first on the Democrats:
Today’s parties lack such narratives. The Democratic Party is all about, well, listen to its rhetoric. It’s all about opposing George W. Bush and all his works. But where to go from there?
Domestically, Democrats seem to be reviving the FDR narrative: Expand government to help the little guy. Some thoughtful Democratic strategists argue that although this view was discredited by the stagflation and gas lines of the 1970s, voters are once again ready for more government, and they can cite some poll results in support of that proposition. And it’s true that the median-age voter in 2008 will have no vivid memories of the 1970s.
And now, the Republicans:
The Republicans are no better. Many say the party must go back to Ronald Reagan, and the Reagan narrative is at least of recent vintage. Reagan taught that government had grown overlarge and must be cut back and that America must be the assertive champion of freedom and democracy. The problem is that none of the Republican presidential candidates occupy Reagan’s place on the political spectrum, and the problems we face are not those that confronted Reagan in 1980.
We no longer have 70 percent tax rates and oil price controls; we no longer face the symmetric threat of Soviet communism. The problem of overlarge government — the threat that entitlements will gobble up the government and the private economy — is real but remote. Our foreign adversaries are asymmetric, with a small but worrying potential of inflicting vast damage, and they are not entirely vulnerable to conventional military or diplomatic pressures.
History teaches many lessons, but we should not be content with candidates running on others laurels or the issues facing those who have served in the past.
What’s necessary is that one candidate have that defining moment which convinces voters they have the vision necessary to lead this nation..so far, for me at least, that moment has not arrived.
Written by Sue
Guss Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 9:35 amVisit Guss
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Here is an interesting read.
http://books.google.com/books?id=OLlXLILz7_cC&dq=lesser+of+two+evils+bible&pg=RA2-PA438&ots=iCS9WT-Hzl&sig=RXe5NP6vlE_6X1e2qeUNScVGASg&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26aq%3Dt%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rls%3DGFRD,GFRD:2007-39,GFRD:en%26q%3Dlesser%2Bof%2Btwo%2Bevils%2Bbible&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=legacy
Sue Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 10:57 amVisit Sue
Good read Guss.
I was not using that phrase in the literal sense but if I was then this article you cite would mean those of us not sold on either candidate completely should not vote at all.
Oh brother, another reason to stay home.
Thanks for the lead, it really was very interesting.
Shirley Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pmVisit Shirley
wouldn’t it be ironic if whomever the republican candidate is, and should he win the WH, he makes the far right wish George W. was back in office. Of course they’ll never admit it.
Shirley Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pmVisit Shirley
oops I think that should have been whoever..
Sue Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pmVisit Sue
Hi Shirley:
Ironic indeed.
The strange thing about this election cycle and the field of candidates is that there does not seem to be anyone on either side who comes across as truly presidential to me. You would think with this many candidates to choose from, and for as long as they have been campaigning (maybe that’s the real problem), someone would have more going for them than simply “looking presidential.”