[Editor’s Essay: This is the first in a series of political essays by Culver City homegrown political analyst Karlo Silbiger.]
Every four years the pundits, candidates, political operatives and party faithful come around to tell us that “this election is the most important in a generation.” They explain what’s at stake, over- emphasizing the differences between the candidates, and imploring you to become involved. Most of the time, this is all made- up enthusiasm that is not borne out by the number of people who vote (or even pay attention to the campaign), contribute money, volunteer, or really even care who wins.
However, this election seems different. It feels more important. When Culver City voters go to the polls on Nov. 4, they will be deciding on a President, a County Supervisor, 12 state-wide propositions of varying importance, and two local bond initiatives. While I don’t pretend to be an expert or an unbiased observer, I do feel that I may be able to offer in the coming months some insight into exactly what is at stake and on what basis the people of Culver City should come to decide the future of our country. I hope this helps.
Throughout my time in politics, both as an observer and having worked on almost a dozen local and state-wide campaigns in California and Massachusetts, I have found that people generally select based on three criteria:
• The candidate’s proposed solutions to the issues of importance.
• The candidate’s image and values.
• The candidate’s interpersonal skills and ability to connect with the people.
Experience is often overblown by the pundits as a qualification for office when, in fact, people at all levels have been elected with far less relevant experience than their competitors (think George W. Bush over Al Gore or Cary Anderson and Mike Eskridge, two recent local candidates with a plethora of experience who both lost in their respective campaigns). Campaigns are almost always about the future, looking at what candidates will do and how they will do it. With that in mind, this year’s presidential election will likely not even be close.
It’s like a perfect storm. You have an economy that is tanking with severe impacts on each and every segment of the population (from mortgages to jobs to stocks to gas prices). You have an extremely unpopular war that the vast majority of Americans see as a war of choice with no positive impact on our society or security and huge costs in lives, money, and lost opportunities. And you have social systems in the country — from healthcare to education to social security to immigration — that are practically broken beyond repair. Most people think that government just hasn’t worked right for the last decade or so.
M’Cain, Bush: What Difference?
Now you look at the specific policy suggestions of both candidates and see that while Barack Obama offers creative solutions to these huge problems, John McCain’s plan is practically indistinguishable from that of the Bush administration.
Deregulation of the markets and more tax cuts across the board are the same policies that have caused our current crisis. Continuing to have private HMOs running healthcare with little or no government regulation to ensure fairness is what has caused so many people to be uninsured. While McCain has taken on the slogan of change, I don’t think it will make a whole lot of difference as Obama continues to correctly show the lack of change in McCain’s policy solutions.
In terms of image, here too McCain has two serious problems. First, his campaign is being run primarily by lobbyists. While he continues to call himself a reformer, many people will have a hard time picturing him reforming Washington with an administration run by those who have corrupted it beyond belief. Second, McCain and Palin have gone from exaggeration to open lying in many of their stump speeches and campaign commercials. This is a huge image blunder since McCain’s one and only advantage was his legitimate image as the anti-politician. Supposedly, he’s the only person in Washington who will tell the people what’s happening, even when it’s unpopular. That is now gone as he has morphed into a garden variety liar.
Ability to Communicate
The third characteristic is that of communication skills, something that we all too often overlook. In fact, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have criticized Obama as someone who can give a good speech, but really has no substance to back it up. I, honestly, have never seen that work. In fact, those who are able to speak in a manner that inspires people (such as John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan) almost always win their elections. People like to be able to connect with their leaders, to be able to relate to them. And being able to give a good speech is not just a supplementary skill for a politician, it is a crucial part of being effective. Coming up with a good idea is meaningless unless you are able to sell it to the country, to Congress or to leaders around the world. We always take that into consideration, and no one can argue that Obama does not have a huge advantage in this category.
There has only been one time since 1952 when the same political party has won three consecutive Presidential elections (Ronald Reagan and George Bush in 1980, 1984, and 1988). We like shared leadership and allowing those of both parties to clean up the messes and excesses of the other. We like to have change as we move forward to ensure that new ideas are implemented and that all voices are heard. This presidential election shouldn’t even be close. Change is on the way and our country will be better for it.
