View on the news

A collection of disappointing choices

Christopher Curran
Posted 2/17/16

In my lifetime, from Eisenhower to Obama, presidents have been elected for the most part by the electorate becoming galvanized by a candidate’s charisma, oratory, and/or a presentation of proffered …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

A collection of disappointing choices

Posted

In my lifetime, from Eisenhower to Obama, presidents have been elected for the most part by the electorate becoming galvanized by a candidate’s charisma, oratory, and/or a presentation of proffered policies that the voter agreed with. However, thus far in this election season that has not been the case.

Instead of electrifying oratory, policy-ridden discourse, innovative ideas, and concrete practical plans to right the ship of state, we have had juvenile name-calling, personality-centered sensationalism, and far-out assertions of unilateral actions that are constitutionally untenable.

Especially since the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, the number of candidates has winnowed to a female mercenary and an honest, cranky, old left-wing dreamer on the Democrat side. Oppositely, on the Republican side, the surviving candidates are a reality star, a tired dynastic, a brilliant and underhanded idiosyncratic Canadian, a robotic Floridian, a strange surgeon, and a competent, nice-guy governor who is gaining traction.

As there are less little Indians to hear from, one would hope that the debates, forums, and town halls would become more substantial in content. On the contrary, the process has further devolved into candidate kindergarten.

As a result, politics watchers like me yearn for election seasons of the past when mudslinging was bested by vital issues of importance and press consideration. But in our current reality show and social media world, the press and the people seem to be obsessed with the ephemeral and the visceral rather than the contemplative and essential.

Generations ago, in the 1956 presidential election primary season, Tennessee Sen. Estes Kefauver and Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson, who were vying for the Democrat nomination, had several far reaching discussions of containment of the Soviet Union, sustaining New Deal government programs, the proper role of our military in world affairs in light of the suppression of free assembly in Hungary by the Soviets and the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt’s leader Nasser, and the British, French, and Israeli response to the action. The radio-covered discussions were civil and informative. Standpoints were clear. Stevenson eventually prevailed and became the nominee, and for the second time in a decade was handily defeated by President Eisenhower in the general election.

In the 1960 primary season, the early favorite for the GOP nomination, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, dropped out after a national “listening tour” where he determined Vice President Richard Nixon was too strong to compete with. Nominal candidate and ultra-conservative Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater could only curry minimal support. This left the polarizing Republican Nixon an easy dance to the nomination.

However, on the Democrat side, tenderfoot Massachusetts Sen. John Fitzgerald Kennedy emitted charisma by the barrel to overcome his apparent inexperience and youthful demeanor. His main opponents were Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson, Missouri Sen. Stuart Symington, and Gov. Pat Brown of California. Although pertinent issues of the supposed “missile gap” with the USSR, the state of poverty and brewing social unrest, and the true responsibilities of the United States in regard to NATO and containing communism were vibrantly debated, Kennedy’s magical electrifying oratory and retail political savvy emerged and began to eclipse all other factors. Despite being far outclassed in experience and gravitas, JFK connected with voters with his adroit tongue and gracious endearing manner. Eventually, he prevailed and became the nominee and later beat Vice President Nixon in a razor-thin general election.

Another primary election season in which the voters witnessed both charisma and defined policy proposals was the election of 1992. On the Republican side, President George H.W. Bush eventually won the nomination with 73 percent of the primary vote. His main opponent was conservative columnist Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan shocked everyone by winning the New Hampshire primary with a clarion call for more conservative stances in the operation of government and an indictment of the president for breaking his 1988 campaign promise, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” Buchanan rallied around the issue of the “culture war” denouncing the liberalization of American society. He gained a strong devoted following of around 20 percent of the Republican electorate in an issue oriented campaign. However, his far right social stances alienated the moderate middle.

On the Democrat side, William Jefferson Clinton, the Arkansas governor, concentrated on the faltering economy until his catalog of personal peccadilloes came to the forefront. Despite his ongoing defense of the constant dropping of his slacks, he eventually prevailed through his uncanny ability to connect with the voter. Not only did he possess great oratory skill, but his ability to work a room, glad-hand, and make everyone he encountered feel his undivided attention was unmatched.

His competitor for the nomination, former California Gov. Jerry Brown, stressed key issues like changing the tax code to be fairer, term limits for Congress, and educational reform. But that focus was diminished by Clinton’s cult of personality. The same was true of former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas, who tried to alert the country about the growing national debt and strived to turn the country toward fiscal conservatism. Also, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin brought substantial issues concerning the exporting of manufacturing jobs abroad and the diminishing power of unions. Yet despite all these candidates expressing detailed policy proposals and engaging in real discourse, Clinton’s magical powers of political seduction prevailed. Alas, he went on to win the presidency with a sight plurality in a three-way race.

Drastically different than these historical examples is the present primary season. The Republican frontrunner is real estate billionaire Donald Trump. His popularity is not based on any sound or even practical policy proposal, nor is it explained by an evident charisma. He has used his reality-star popularity combined with his premier marketing skills to gain followers by promising the impossible. He is crass, combative, childish, petty, and self-aggrandizing. Simply, he is a bag of ill-wind. His outlandish and not constitutionally feasible assertions regarding amending current international trade deals, the expulsion of approximately 11 million illegal immigrants, forcing Mexico to pay for a 1,000-mile, fortress-like wall to barricade our country, and forcing China to revalue its currency are simply impossible for the chief executive to implement. He either does not understand the limits of the executive branch of government or he is knowingly lying to get the nomination.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush originally thought his presidency was pre-ordained. Now he seems like he is more bored with the process than we are with him. He is vacuous of charisma or for that matter enthusiasm.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz may be more ultra-right than Pat Buchanan was in the 1992 election, but without the ability to rally the faithful as the conservative Buchanan could. His evangelical-based stances only sell to a sliver of the aggregate electorate, anyway.

Sen. Marco Rubio has about the same amount of experience as did JFK, without the charisma. His penchant for robotically repeating the 10 capsules of rehearsed information repetitively in debates has succeeded in defeating himself.

Never robotic but always appearing sleep deprived, weird neurosurgeon Ben Carson defies logic for even being a candidate. He has displayed little knowledge of foreign affairs and the military and should exit the race.

One bright spot for the GOP is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. A competent legislator in Congress for many years, as well as being a successful governor, Kasich presents real, detailed policies, he answers questions till there are no more questions at town halls, and he connects with the electorate. He is not charismatic like Clinton or Kennedy. However, he is honest, forthright, and he knows the issues and addresses them with moderate reason. Whether those characteristics can win today, who knows?

For the Democrats, the choice is between a woman who displays more political personalities than famous psychological anomaly Sybil and an aging, honest, consistent socialist. In fact, Hillary Clinton takes a modified political position virtually every week. She lacks the political magic of her philandering husband and has slightly less truthfulness than a charlatan. Yet, her sense of entitlement precedes her.

Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, evokes memories of novelist Upton Sinclair’s run for California governor in the early 20th century. Liberalism beyond liberalism, the government will do everything for you as long as you agree to hook up the umbilical cord between you and the state. His plans are utopian and not implementable.

All in all, this primary season offers a disappointing collection of substandard candidates who pale by comparison to those vying in the presidential primaries of the past. The combination of a stagnant Washington and a reality television and social media paradigm has propelled supporters in our short attention span world to embrace the inordinate.

In this crucial election we should searching for the informed, the competent, and yes, the charismatic to take the reigns of our troubled country and try to effect realistic positive change. Without charisma or substance or either or both, these are sad choices indeed!

Comments

7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Justanidiot

    Hindsight is 20/20.

    Wednesday, February 17, 2016 Report this

  • Ken B

    In the 2014 United States Senate elections, the polls were very inaccurate. Republican establishment candidates were elected by large margins. Polling is not a good way to judge candidates. Republican voters should judge the primary candidates for president by how they plan to solve the problems facing the United States. The problem with Trump is that he has never specifically said how he would deport the illegal aliens, how he would make Mexico pay for the wall he would build and how he would get Japan, China, Iran, Iraq and Mexico to change their ways and do his bidding. Trump has never said that he would follow the Constitution and work with the legislative and judicial branches of our government to create solutions to the problems facing the United States. For example, when President George W. Bush went to war with Iraq, he sought and received the approval of the United States Congress and the United Nations. No one knows what Trump will do.

    Friday, February 19, 2016 Report this

  • warwick10

    Sure, most of the candidates speak of a "plan" saying what you want to hear... once elected do nothing they said they were going to do, especially for the middle class. Most candidates running are career politicians only, caring about getting elected, not the people. I think that's why people relate to Trump.. so sick and tired of robotic politicians.

    Friday, February 19, 2016 Report this

  • Straightnnarrow

    Ken B repeats the mantra that Mr Trump is not specific how he would make Mexico pay for the wall, etc. If he went to the Trump website, he would find that there are very specific proposals for every position that Mr Trump has taken and about which Ken B has whined about. Ken B says that we have no idea that Mr trump would follow the Constitution. Wrong again: "America will only be great as long as America remains a nation of laws that lives according to the Constitution. No one is above the law." from Trump website. Ken B claims that G.W. Bush went to war in Iraq by following the Constitution. Wrong again: a declaration of war by Congress, not the President, is required by the Constitution and Mr Bush should have sought that declaration, but instead was granted "approval", thereby ignoring and not upholding according to his oath, the explicit requirements of the Constitution.

    Mr Curran whines in a similar manner about the candidates except Gov Kasich, but will have to face the reality that in spite of all that he detests about lying Hillary, he will have to support her because "there is no other choice". It's going to be fun to watch!

    Saturday, February 20, 2016 Report this

  • Ken B

    If Trump has solutions to the problems facing the United States on his website, why doesn’t he mention them during his campaign events and during the numerous times that he has been interviewed by media pundits on national T V. There are career politicians in Washington because most voters cast their votes based on party affiliation, not on the candidate’s qualifications. President George W. Bush went to war against Iraq based on the 1973 War Powers Act passed by the legislative branch of our government and unchallenged by the judicial branch of our government. Since 2014, the Republican Senate and the Republican House of Representatives have passed a lot of bipartisan legislation which has caused a lot of dissatisfaction in the T Party Caucus. Republicans have shown that they are willing to make tough votes and compromise to pass meaningful legislation.

    Saturday, February 20, 2016 Report this

  • Straightnnarrow

    Response to Ken B. If GW had requested and received a declaration of war against Iraq as required by the Constitution, then he would placed his authority under that of the Constitution and would have defended the highest law of the land. Instead, GW went to war based on the 1973 War Powers Act and Congress passed the buck onto the President so they all dropped the ball. We will never know if Congress would have passed a declaration, so the burden of making the worst foreign policy in my lifetime must remain with GW Bush. The difference between a Judge Scalia (Reagan appointee) and a Judge Roberts (GW Bush appointee) is the difference that will rage between Congress and Obama this year over the new appointee- the first placed himself under the authority of the Constitution and the second over the Constitution. A fifth grader could have judged the ACA as unconstitutional but Judge Roberts declared otherwise. GW Bush was no defender of the Constitution and the sooner he and his brother disappear the better.

    To quote Judge Napolitano "President George W. Bush was fond of saying that “9/11 changed everything.” He used that one-liner often as a purported moral basis to justify the radical restructuring of federal law and the federal assault on personal liberties over which he presided. He cast aside his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; he rejected his oath to enforce all federal laws faithfully; and he moved the government decidedly in the direction of secret laws, secret procedures and secret courts."

    Saturday, February 20, 2016 Report this

  • HerbTokerman

    Bernie Sanders' ideas are utopian and not implementable?

    Free universal college education would cost around 40 billion annually.

    The iraq war has cost 1.7 trillion and will be more like 6 trillion when you figure in interest for what we borrowed to pay for it.

    In other words, we could have paid for free college education for all, for a generation.

    Major players from either party don't complain that war is not affordable, but when someone suggests we should pay for things that would actually improve our own country it gets pushed off as "utopian big government spending".

    Overall people are sick and tired of typical politicians which is why you see a movement behind both Sanders and Trump.

    Both of them shouldn't be running as either a Democrat or Republican, the major parties are just two sides of the same dirty coin.

    Monday, February 22, 2016 Report this