Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Presidential Post-Debate Analysis
Who won?
The New York Times editorial board writes that Obama won the discussion of the economy and that McCain seemed out of step with the current moment:
Mr. McCain fumbled his way through the economic portion of the debate, while Mr. Obama seemed clear and confident. Mr. McCain was more fluent on foreign affairs, and scored points by repeatedly calling Mr. Obama naïve and inexperienced.
But Mr. McCain's talk of experience too often made him sound like a tinny echo of the 20th century. At one point, he talked about how Ronald Reagan's "S.D.I." helped end the cold war. We suspect that few people under the age of 50 caught the reference. If he was reaching for Reagan's affable style, he missed by a mile, clenching his teeth and sounding crotchety where Reagan was sunny and avuncular.
Dan Balz, providing analysis for the Washington Post, says there was no knockout punch:
Each rose to the challenge here Friday night, forcefully scoring points on one another, sparkling at times, but neither emerged as the obvious winner except perhaps to their partisans. There were good exchanges but few big moments of the kind that can change a presidential race.
Meanwhile his colleague Tom Shales sums up the night as 'McCain too nasty, Obama too nice':
Obama supporters must have been displeased, then, to hear their candidate keep agreeing with McCain, a case perhaps of sportsmanlike conduct run amok. Doesn't Obama want to win?[...]
Many of McCain's answers were preceded with belittling references to Obama as if he were talking to a college freshman way out of his depth.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board felt that McCain won on foreign policy while Obama won on the economy:
As planned by the commission on debates, most of the night was devoted to foreign policy and there we give the clear edge to Mr. McCain. This is the ground where the 72-year-old is most comfortable, and you could see it in his self-confidence, as well as his command of history and facts.[...]
Where Mr. Obama did score better was on the domestic front, where he tried repeatedly to link Mr. McCain to President Bush and to what he called a failed "economic philosophy."
For the Los Angeles Times the debate was too close to call in terms of a winner:
In a debate that both candidates could ill-afford to lose Friday night, neither did. John McCain proved he was resolute and tough; Barack Obama demonstrated that he was smart and polished. And in this case, a tie could be said to favor either.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Activities Fair 9-23-08
Great turnout today at the Activities Fair...
Join NU Decides: 2008
A nonpartisan, campus-wide effort to increase civic engagement and political awareness at Northwestern through the 2008 Presidential Election
Get Involved, Join the Team: Information Panel Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 7pm Norris Big Ten Room
Country First
According to John McCain's campaign posters (which eerily remind me of barbed wire and the forthcoming border fence), my-friend-the-maverick puts "country first."
"Country first" has become the McCain brand. His rallies and events are dripping with patriotism. His supporters are grabbing opportunities to showcase McCain's history of public service, not to mention his military heroism. Such nostalgia was the primary thread of McCain's droning address at the Republican National Convention.
McCain's pledge to put "country first" not only highlights his own patriotic credentials, but also reinforces voters' uncertainties about Obama's willingness to wave the flag. Though Barack Obama attempted to stanch concerns about his patriotism with a "C'mon, we all love this country" shtick at the Democratic National Convention, many still do not trust him.
Just as Obamania has excited students, housewives and anyone wearing hemp, it has elicited quizzical reactions from grandparents, NRA members and Rush Limbaugh's audience. "Country first" harks back to Michelle Obama's pride in her country and Barack's rebellion against the flag-lapel-pin-wearing establishment.
As the McCain campaign's ethos, "country first" is both frustrating and distracting. Running for president -- by its very nature -- demonstrates love of country. The race should not consider who has more proudly displayed the stars and stripes, but whose policies will most likely improve the lives of the American people, the candidates' ultimate constituents.
So, let's ask a more meaningful question about the race: is a president obliged to put country first? Is he or she supposed to fight for American interests at the expense of global justice? Is the president the leader of the world, the free world, or just the country?
The president should not pursue policies that will create domestic jobs or increase domestic wealth if they will dramatically violate human rights in any country or disproportionately increase poverty in any community. Of course, the president's decisions are bound to have some inimical ripples across the world. However, the president has a moral obligation to consider and limit the global and humanitarian effects of his country's policy decisions. The president is a human first, an American second. The president is a custodian of the public good first, the American good second.
This is not to say that the president should only implement policies in the global interest. Nationalism is real and discrete groups need individual advocates. As long as the president's policies do not significantly decrease global welfare or dislodge the global order, they are acceptable.
However, a president should first consider how a policy affects the larger global system. If the policy is not likely to yield any mass displacements, economic disruptions or political eruptions, it passes muster. Only then should a president consider whether a policy is right for the American public.
The first consideration (the "humanity first" test), in addition to being prudent, will likely insure that policy decisions are in America's long-term -- as well as short-term -- interests. If a policy is implemented that would have failed to pass the first consideration, the incurring global madness is likely to hurt American interests. It turns out that "humanity first, country second" will preserve American interests.
So, is "country first" jingoism in America's ultimate interest?
---Ben
"Country first" has become the McCain brand. His rallies and events are dripping with patriotism. His supporters are grabbing opportunities to showcase McCain's history of public service, not to mention his military heroism. Such nostalgia was the primary thread of McCain's droning address at the Republican National Convention.
McCain's pledge to put "country first" not only highlights his own patriotic credentials, but also reinforces voters' uncertainties about Obama's willingness to wave the flag. Though Barack Obama attempted to stanch concerns about his patriotism with a "C'mon, we all love this country" shtick at the Democratic National Convention, many still do not trust him.
Just as Obamania has excited students, housewives and anyone wearing hemp, it has elicited quizzical reactions from grandparents, NRA members and Rush Limbaugh's audience. "Country first" harks back to Michelle Obama's pride in her country and Barack's rebellion against the flag-lapel-pin-wearing establishment.
As the McCain campaign's ethos, "country first" is both frustrating and distracting. Running for president -- by its very nature -- demonstrates love of country. The race should not consider who has more proudly displayed the stars and stripes, but whose policies will most likely improve the lives of the American people, the candidates' ultimate constituents.
So, let's ask a more meaningful question about the race: is a president obliged to put country first? Is he or she supposed to fight for American interests at the expense of global justice? Is the president the leader of the world, the free world, or just the country?
The president should not pursue policies that will create domestic jobs or increase domestic wealth if they will dramatically violate human rights in any country or disproportionately increase poverty in any community. Of course, the president's decisions are bound to have some inimical ripples across the world. However, the president has a moral obligation to consider and limit the global and humanitarian effects of his country's policy decisions. The president is a human first, an American second. The president is a custodian of the public good first, the American good second.
This is not to say that the president should only implement policies in the global interest. Nationalism is real and discrete groups need individual advocates. As long as the president's policies do not significantly decrease global welfare or dislodge the global order, they are acceptable.
However, a president should first consider how a policy affects the larger global system. If the policy is not likely to yield any mass displacements, economic disruptions or political eruptions, it passes muster. Only then should a president consider whether a policy is right for the American public.
The first consideration (the "humanity first" test), in addition to being prudent, will likely insure that policy decisions are in America's long-term -- as well as short-term -- interests. If a policy is implemented that would have failed to pass the first consideration, the incurring global madness is likely to hurt American interests. It turns out that "humanity first, country second" will preserve American interests.
So, is "country first" jingoism in America's ultimate interest?
---Ben
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)