The genesis of my nickname for this year’s election began with the media’s “Decision ’08,” parodied on the Daily Show as “Indecision ‘08,” and filtered through the sick feeling I have in my stomach to become “Indigestion ’08.” Yes, it’s a super-critical election, with a lot at stake. But when even Karl Rove thinks (http://www.crooksandliars.com/) that “McCain has gone in some of his ads similarly gone one step too far in sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know…beyond, beyond, beyond the, the 100% truth test,” it’s no surprise that nausea at this absurdly brutal election campaign has been the norm.
The thing is, it’s not just the big things that evoke violent illness – it’s the little pet peeves, those thousand little cuts. Single-issue voters, for example, who latch onto one issue at the expense of others that are equally critical: The pop-right that clings to an anti-abortion candidate even when that candidate supports anti-life views such as torture, imprisonment without trial, war. Or the pop-left that embraces an anti-war candidate even if that candidate is anti-gay, anti-choice, and a global warming denier. A city, a state, a country – rests on multiple pillars, each of which is critical to sustaining the whole. Focusing on one issue at the expense of others is tantamount to denying reality, to ignoring how all these issues actually interact and influence one another.
The Peeves Keep Piling up
A related peeve, as much due to the candidates themselves as to voter expectations, is the tendency to view presidential candidates as the cavalry who’ll ride into town, disarm the guy in the black hat, rescue the girl from the train tracks, and clean up the tumbleweeds in the process. “I will do this,” the candidates say. “I will fix the economy,” they promise. The mistake is that the President isn’t a lone troubleshooter; he’s one-third of a governmental system. All the great plans in the world don’t matter if a President isn’t supported by Congress. This is why, to a large extent, the details of what McCain or Obama will do as President – details that will inevitably be changed in the legislative process – is less important than the overall vision they bring.
This begs a few questions. What does the Presidency mean? What is the President’s job in the U.S. government? The answer to the first question is obviously laid out in the Oath of Office, as defined in the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Above all, the Presidency – despite Bush’s and Cheney’s executive privilege, signing statements, and unitary executive views – means upholding the Constitution and guiding the country in a way consistent with constitutional principles. But what about executing the office? Since it’s Congress’s job to write and pass laws, and the judiciary’s to interpret and enforce those laws, it falls to the President to offer the greater purpose of government, the vision.
So what does it take for a candidate to be qualified for the Presidency? What standards should voters apply? Important questions, but in the fluff of the corporate media’s 24-hour “news” cycle, these are never really addressed. “But wait,” you say. “That’s all people are talking about” – who has the right character, who has the experience, who has the plan? Yes, that’s true – but the discussion never digs very deep as candidates everywhere fling reasons to vote for them like pasta to the wall. What “experience” are we talking about? What is the experience threshold at which a candidate earns serious consideration? What skills are important? We talk like we know what qualities make for a good President, but, at heart, we’re really making quick and dirty assumptions that may or may not make sense.
(To be continued)
Discuss this and other articles at Frédérik’s blog (frederik-sisa.blogspot.com).
