Obama’s infomercial was a brave attempt not only to win the election but also to change the way in which any future Presidential candidate must win. He framed the infomercial as a narrative ark of ordinary families with thick background music – rich with emotion and empathy. All in all it was sleek and an impressive display of the both the human story and his political purpose. There is, of course, a danger that it whets the appetite of the American people too much, but that is a battle for another day.
The main aim was to close down any speculation that Obama’s inspirational leadership was coupled with inexperience. The half hour slot was peppered with testimonials from experts in government, business and the military. A secondary aim was to bridge his sometimes lofty Professorial air with a rugged on the ground feel for ordinary Americans. Both these aims can objectively be stated to have been achieved. Any independent who saw the whole of this transmission cannot fail to have been impressed by his story as well as his fundamental decency. Perhaps this informercial won’t win Obama any more votes in the election – but it certainly sets the tone. All Americans must hope he realizes his big promises, and all of the resulting aspirations are met.
The two candidates have now virtually no time to change the momentum in time for election day: McCain cannot capture enough attention on the national stage and Obama has shown himself remarkably accident proof. Reasonable goals the McCain-Palin ticket can aim for must be to stop an all out rout of the Republican Party, ceding one party control of the White House and the two Houses of Congress. There is also valuable work to be done by the Republicans to try and frame the debate and at least some of the issues that the new Obama Administration will take on. How this is done without surrendering is going to be incredibly difficult for the Republicans.
Obama must seek as big a mandate as possible. Only with a resounding endorsement will he have the power that, he should argue, the current situation necessitates. The Democrats will have the poisoned legacy of a financial system in turmoil and a war to end. The problem for them is that they will be expected to bring an elegant end to them both. This is much easier to suppose than to execute. Unless there is a clear timetable to work to six months passes remarkably quickly and that is about as long a political honeymoon as any person or party in power can expect.
Even with the conclusion of the election beyond doubt – there is much to play for in these last days.
McCain has started attacking Obama’s tax plans. This is a area that the Republicans have, hitherto, failed to make much political ground. The American people resent taxes almost more than any other country being more transparent and less amenable to efficient tax planning than most other jurisdictions. As a result, it has been surprising that the Republicans have not made more of an issue with Obama’s repeated assertion that those earning more should pay more to the government.
The main problem with this is that they already do. The top 5% of taxpayers already pay just under 60% of the tax revenue from federal income tax. At what point does increasing tax on these people, as Obama advocates, kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs? Or in economic terms when does this decrease economic efficiency and activity? McCain has a legitimate point when he states that America was not built on spreading the wealth but on creating it.
In these troubled times this is a hard message to get across. The American people know that this is the case intuitively. They need McCain and the Republican party to articulate this as a rebuttal to the Obama and the Democratic party’s contention that because a segment of people can ‘afford’ something that is the right thing to do. Such economic populism might get a party elected but it also destroys the great turbine of growth that is the American economy.
Suits and the hair-dos have been making headlines since it was revealed that GOP has spent $150,000 on the appearance of Sarah Palin since she was selected as vice-Presidential candidate. But what does this or Biden’s botox tell us about the American political system? The answer is that appearance is an incredibly important factor in winning elections. Whilst many might bemoan this lack of ‘substance’ we must never forget that politics has always been a theater. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pretended to be able to walk in order to seem more capable at running the country.
Obama or Plain’s fresh face were (and still are) an attraction for many bored with the same old aged Washington junkies. We should not complain about how all of the actors have to be immaculately turned out for 24/7 news society. Obsession with the exterior image is a reflection of what we seek not of what an individual is. Visual messaging is important and can be an election loser. Let’s just hope that the internal content matches up to this perfectly maintained exterior.
One of the most important issues facing modern liberal democracy is the funding of political parties. Part of this conundrum is that political parties are very political and will find it hard ever to give up temporary advantage that they might enjoy for the long term common good of the country. The funding parties also mirrors the lobbying something that has great and profound significance in Washington D.C.
But we are reminded that it is possible to get cross party consensus as it was revealed this week that both Republicans and Democrats got AIG to voluntarily cease professional lobbying over the contents and nature of rules that directly affect the company going forward. This was a preventive measure against what would have been public outrage at public money being recycled so transparently into the political world. Whoever is the next President will have to address these issues in a forthright and straightforward manner. Both lobbying and political funding are miniscule parts of an otherwise enormous spending machines (it has often been noted that Americans spend about as much on chewing gum as on the political process) yet they have the power to corrupt the political process. They also have the power to degrade the seemliness of political process in the view of the American people. These are issues, therefore, on which it is right and proper for a President to lead.
McCain campaign must be in pain from Powell’s endorsement of Obama. At the beginning of the election process – back during the primaries one of the most serious indictments of Obama was that he was a foreign policy lightweight. In the United States Powell is just about as foreign policy heavyweight as they come. He has an impeccable military record and despite all of his misgivings has not been overtly disloyal to his former employer George W. Bush.
This will deprive McCain of yet another line of attack on his rival in the closing weeks before the election. Yet McCain would be wise to ignore the news to the best of his capacity and push on an area in which he has been making significant inroads. The part of the third presidential debate at which Obama looked most vulnerable was his connections to Ayers and to Acorn. If McCain wants to make inroads he can’t just repeat these accusations but blend them into a narrative ark that portrays Obama as lacking in judgment both about the people he knows and the company he keeps. Time is running short but it is not facts that convince the voters but rather the theory.
There may a very good reason that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the only man in the city to solve the problems that the city faces over the coming years. In a metropolis that is renowned for shady city hall politics and opaque political tradeoffs he might well be the type of independent figure that is required during such troubled times. He should, however, seek to extend term limits in the same manner in which they were originally put in place; that is to say by a city referendum. This would allow all issues to be heard, the pros and the contras in a legitimate debate that would encourage and energize local politics that is all too often left to smoke filled rooms of power brokers.
The recent allegations made by the New York Post that the Mayor has used city slush funds to reward his supporters or possible opponents in City Hall should only emphasize the logic that necessitates this measure should be subjected to the people. To avoid any form of conflict of interests, or even the perception of conflict of interests, this term extension should be put to the people. This might be an inconvenient and burdensome affair (on top of the election itself) but then and democracy tends to create such inconvenient and burdensome tests.
The two candidates were brought together by the Catholic Church on Friday. Congregating in the Plaza Hotel, although they brought traffic in the city to a halt they also brought an overarching air of civility and decency to the campaign. It was notable that this tradition did not take place in 2004 as a result of Kerry’s disagreements with the Catholic Church (and commentators suggested this might also be the reason for the absence of Rudolf Guliani).
This was an example of what makes politics in this country civilized. Despite differences of opinion, approach and outlook both of the candidates took a step back and accepted (innately by attending and overtly in their respective speeches) the common principles that united them as well as the belief in America of which they are both so proud. It was also heartening to see the two candidates laugh at each other as well as themselves. Voters got a good chance to see the human side of them both. Clearly this is not an event that should happen everyday – conspiracy theorists as well as those on the margins of society would perceive a plot / cabal of politicians who are in collusion with one another. But it was with great dignity that we are reminded that at the end of all of the divisions that politics creates, it is also about soldering together solutions through compromise and respect for the opinions of others.
A public debate that has been set off by the third Presidential debate over the last few days is that of redistribution versus just reward for hard work. This is an issue that touches the heart of America’s identity. The Democrats plan to increase the tax burden for anyone earning over $250,000. This naturally draws a great deal of popular support in that only perhaps less than 5% of the American actually make such an amount.
But there are two complications to such an obvious, and populist vote winner. The first is factual and the second is aspirational. The fact that the top quartile of all American tax payers contributes approximately 70% of all tax receipts and the top 5% of American tax payers 35% shows how important these people are to the collection of taxes in the first place. Increased taxation will make this category not only less rich but also less productive. This has a real impact on the economy as well as shrinking private activity in the economy to public activity in the work place. McCain (perhaps too late) has therefore pounced on these measures as being fundamentally ‘un-American.’
Aspirationally, Americans are taught that they can reach the sky and conquer the world. Increasing taxes on the richest dents that ambition because it creates more of an equivalence between doing something and not. Though this might seem absurd to many who see the poverty and the helplessness of huge sections of the populations – raising taxes on the rich is doing nothing to increase the absolute material position of these people. Raising taxes on the highest earners is a relative measure whose immediate effect is to increase the size of the government vis-à-vis everyone.
If McCain was a plane he would be a short range attack one. If Obama were a plane he would be a long range bomber. As a result the debate this evening was a fly past of different machines, at different heights just out of each other’s shooting range. Time and again it was McCain that tried to reach the dizzying heights that Obama still commands.
The financial crisis, energy independence, climate change, tax plans, abortion, dodgy connections, government waste, negative campaigning and education were all issues on which McCain tried to erode the smug looking assurance of his adversary. McCain’s passion was as palpable as Obama’s unflappability. Obama managed to dispatch his sparring companion’s attacks. There was nothing that changed the ordering of the game (as well might be expected).
The media will not have anything to seize upon of substance from this evening. The momentum is strongly against McCain and there is little time left now to get back in the game. He will struggle from this point on in the mainstream media to prove that he can control the course of events better than Obama. But the truth of the matter is that the events that have taken control of the situation are those that are outside the debating hall.
