A lot has happened in the past weeks: a Vice Presidential debate, two presidential debates, and a finance bill that turned the Secretary of the Treasury into the most powerful member of the cabinet. The markets are still collapsing – now across the globe, not just stateside. Instead of discussing any of these things in depth, I will mention them briefly here:
The VP debate was far and away more entertaining and more enlightening than the first two Presidential debates – it’s sort of a tossup between the Veep debate and the third Pres debate. Joe Biden was succinct and sharp, Sarah Palin was cute but doesn’t know anything about anything and didn’t answer a single question or pronounce a single g at the end of a word (how can anyone think that she would be a good choice for VP?! With McCain at the top of the ticket, you’re essentially voting for him and his replacement after his heart fails two years into his term…).
The 2nd Presidential debate made me realize that Barack Obama is a pensive and incredibly intelligent person that will likely become one of the greatest leaders this country (and the world) has ever seen – if we elect him. It also revealed John McCain to be a bitter, hostile old man that cannot sit for any length of time. How can a man that yells at fellow senators be expected to hold discussions with foreign leaders that disagree with him? He referred to Senator Obama as “that one” during the debate.
The final Presidential debate showed McCain as having learned a great deal about economic policy and how to talk about it (here is where I falter as a Democrat because I am absolutely a fiscal conservative and believe in the power of markets to run efficiently. And yes, I’ve been paying attention to the news, but I, for one, agree with The Economist in thinking that this crisis was caused more by misguided regulation than deregulation. McCain started strong and had lots of energy, but as the debate wore on, McCain seemed to lost both steam and energy, turning back into the crotchety old man we have all grown to know. Obama, again, looked incredibly intelligent and pensive. And he also demonstrated his ability to remain calm and collected despite McCain’s cavalier attitude, half-truths and attempts to get a rise out of him. Watching this debate made me realize how desperately I crave an intelligent President that will weigh his options, make well-thought-out decisions, and not lose his temper.
Another note from the debate, upon answering the question of why their running-mates would be qualified to take over as President, Obama touted Joe Biden’s political accomplishments while McCain seemed only able to say that she is a reformer, fresh, and that he is proud of her. That endorsement really leaves something to be desired.
The “bailout” is being spun and perceived entirely wrong. At its best, it’s an investment that will earn taxpayers a profit in the long-run. At its worst, it’s wasting taxpayer dollars on self-important sultans of excess that will eventually cost close to $1,000,000,000,000. What it’s turning into is a hastily thrown together plan that grants one man incredible financial power and discretion – while causing little boost to public or market confidence in the economy. Here’s the deal: the markets are driven almost entirely by perception – people need to stop panicking and allow the market its usual ebb and flow. Sure, this is a down time, and the whole world seems to be falling apart, but things will turn around. That’s what the market does. Have faith in it. Give the recovery plan some time to work. It’s a long-term fix, so in the short-term, have some confidence. Thank goodness I’m not retiring any time soon…
What I’d really like to talk about is the fact that the campaigns and the debates have really made me start to dislike both candidates. I think there is something terribly wrong with our ridiculous two party system. Here are some suggestions to improve the American political system:
Create Campaign Term Limits
I know left
Modify the Two Party System
This is related to the campaign time limits. If there is a time limit to the campaigns, there can no longer be a ridiculously long primary season. I see two potential changes to be made here:
1) Instead of eliminating candidates in the primary season, allow all of the candidates to run in the general election. They can remain Republican and Democrat. That’s fine. Let the Republicans run Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and the rest. Let the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and anyone else. This way, the extreme right can have their candidate, the extreme left can have theirs, and the vast majority of voters – those that fall somewhere in the middle – can get back the political clout they deserve. Sure, there are a lot of potential issues with this: how many people can run? Who decides who can run? Won’t the far left/right win out if there are too many people in the middle? How will the debates work? etc, but it would certainly make for a more interesting general election…
2) Get a big name Democrat (Hillary) and a big name Republican (Romney) to run as representatives of lesser parties or as independents. This way there would be four legitimate candidates for president. Other parties can join the fray as well, giving progressives, conservatives, leftists, rightists, isolationists, libertarians, separatists … everyone can potentially be represented.
In a perfect world (the world inside my head), the multi-party system would include debates between all of the candidates, last four to six months, and force candidates to focus on issues. In a race between more than two people, policy issues become paramount. Again, though, there would have to be lots of oversight and regulation to prevent candidate collaboration, coordinated attacks of leading candidates, etc.
Born of this idea (and one that I haven’t really fleshed out): force the elected official to choose his/her VP from the pool of presidential candidates. Just a thought.
Eliminate the Electoral College
There are arguments both for and against this idea, but they focus on a two party system of elections. In an election with six or more people vying for President, the Electoral College becomes a completely ridiculous idea. I tend to agree with the Founders that the general public probably is not intelligent enough to elect their leader, but the multi-party system would necessitate its elimination. Let’s make
Bring Back Real Debates
Enough with the coddling of candidates in national debates. It’s embarrassing to watch moderators toss up easy questions only to have the candidates dodge them and respond with scripted, barely related answers. How about letting moderators go after candidates for dodging questions. Or, better yet, let the candidates go at each other, debating about issues. Another thought: have a ticker across the bottom of the screen doing real-time fact checking – we have the technology. Fox News can run its version of the “facts,” CNN can run liberal facts, and PBS can run the Truth. Watching Obama and McCain trade falsities without anyone correcting them was painful. The entire debate was painful. Bring out all of the candidates (we’re in a multi-candidate system, remember) on stage, and let them duke it out, primary debate style. Now those were entertaining – candidates showing emotion, getting passionate, calling each other out, fighting about policy … bring that kind of energy to the actual election.
4 comments:
It has been too long. Great to hear your input on the current political/presidential campaign climate.
I do have a few things to respond to.
First of all, saying you're a fiscal conservative suggests that you might be a a proponent of deregulation before any kind of regulation, however, it also does not disqualify you from being a democrat or a good democrat. Being a fiscal conservative has more to do with with government spending than directly with financial market regulation. I haven't read the Economist article(s) you refer to, but I would venture to say that whatever regulations that failed to prevent our current economic crisis had more to do with the regulators not understanding the current dynamics of wall street and not having the technical know-how to keep up with the newest fiduciary formulas that pop up in every banking firm everyday. Also, there hasn't been any fiscal conservatives in the U.S. Congress/White House since Richard Nixon (probably even before then). President Reagan claimed himself as one, but he doubled the national debt and turned our country from predominate creditor to a debtor. We need real fiscal conservatives in both parties to tighten their belts to get our house in order.
Secondly, I think your suggestions for improving the American political system are spot-on, in my opinion. They are fantastic concepts that would benefit our country in infathomable ways. There is an idea, that I find kind of interesting, that was posed by the late great Senator Paul Simon. He offered the idea of imposing a term limit on the Presidency to one 6-year term. I know at first it seems kinda funky, but...think about it. I would love to hear your thoughts.
want to make sure I can now actually post a comment before I take the time to compose one. It was great to read both Paul's and Art's comments. You two should run for office together. Excellent ideas! Just remember, this is not my actual comment, and I will be voting for a democratic president for the first time in my life!
You're right about my fiscal conservative comment. I think what I was aiming more for saying that I believe in efficiency of the market and shy away from strong government intervention. I do believe that some intervention is likely needed right now, and I think the "bailout" plan will eventually earn us back some money.
I am slightly afraid of the gov't buying into the nation's five largest banks, BUT if it's done right, it can be wildly profitable. We need to get our money in, let the banks use it, stay out of the management, turn a profit, and get out. We don't want to socialize the financial system any more than we already have.
I like the idea of a saver in the White House, but I also think that sometimes you have to spend to earn, and that's what we're doing now. Here's hoping that we can turn this economic bailout into a profit. I think the real money to be saved/earned is in healthcare, but that's another story.
In terms of the six year, one term limit for the President, I can't decide how I feel about it. It would certainly shake up national politics. I willl say this, though, the ONLY way it will work is if there are some serious time constraints put on campaigns. If there are no limits, then the one term president will spend his last two/three years forgotten and near powerless (see George W. in this election cycle), and basically live in a prolonged lame duck period. On the flip side, I think that it would make the president more powerful in that s/he would strive to get all of their plans put into place and would not have to worry about campaigning while in office. That, too, is scary because there are no political reprocussions for the decisions they make - unless they want to pass their political legacy down to other members of their parties, which would also change in a multi-party system. This is quite the idea, and, as you can tell, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it. We must continue to discuss.
I like your point about Obama and his thoughtful decision making. That's his big sell for me. I just love how with each bump in his campaign, whether it was the reverend thing, or the New Yorker cartoon, or whatever, he would just calmly state his case, occasionally acknowledge a mistake, seemingly learn from it and move on, without a lot of finger pointing like the other candidates. It's a nice testament to his character and I think so good in a leader to weather things calmly and come out unscathed.
Not sure how I feel about your free-for-all election theory though! I could see the election being so divided that some random joe schmoe would get it. not that that woudl be worse than the last 8 years...
Post a Comment