Pssst. Don’t spread it around too much, because there’s still a month to go and I don’t want to jinx things — but substance is in this year. You, I know, think US presidential elections are always decided by silly or superficial or out-and-out false representations and aspersions. Former US vice president Al Gore sighed too much in a debate and wasn’t the sort of fellow you’d like to have a beer with. US President George W Bush never sighed once, as far as anyone could tell, and was the sort you’d like to have a beer with (even though he didn’t drink beer). Senator John Kerry seemed so French and effete. He windsurfed. And he didn’t save all those men during the Vietnam War.
Little glimmers of substance have usually shown through. In 2004, for instance, a still-significant percentage of US voters remained jittery about a second large-scale terrorist attack on US soil. Bush ran as the man who had prevented that from happening and argued that he was more trustworthy on this matter than Kerry. And former US president Bill Clinton withstood an intensive barrage of over-the-top attacks and stayed focused on the economy.
Superficialities and attacks, though, usually dominate. In fact, more than a few liberals have spent the last four years trying to persuade Democrats to be every bit as superficial and nasty as the Republicans are at election time. But this year, something feels different. Voters are actually paying closer attention to issues.
It is the result, no doubt, of the US being in terrible shape right now. It tends to focus the mind. The economy is terrible. The stock market is terrible. Indicators of general societal well-being, like healthcare and pensions, are terrible. Our standing in the world is terrible. The conditions in Afghanistan are terrible. The situation in Iraq is improved but was so terrible for so long that people just basically want out.
We are a country in decline. The decline is the result of the policies of the last eight years. No candidate for president can utter the sentence “we are a country in decline.” The US’ central myth about itself is that, unlike Rome or Austria-Hungary or an earlier Britain, we are impervious to time’s vicissitudes and will always be numero uno. People now are worried that underneath that bravado, maybe we won’t be.
And so, substance matters. The public responses to the financial meltdown and the first two debates make this evident.
When the Wall Street crisis hit, Senator John McCain erupted with lots of bluster about how he was going to crack down on the fatcats and the greed heads. He “suspended” his campaign to return to Washington to handle the problem. He called Senator Barack Obama green and a hypocrite. In other words, he was superficial and aggressive in precisely the way that usually works in presidential campaigns. But he lost the argument — polls before the Wall Street crisis showed him closing the gap with Obama on the question of who can better handle the economy. That gap is now wider than ever.
Obama, by contrast, stayed calm, didn’t attack McCain’s stunt and at press conferences listed the specific items he needed to see in the bail-out bill. He was talking with congressional leaders and the Treasury secretary about these substantive points. The distinction between the two was clear.
Likewise with the debates. McCain has more zingers and one-liners than Obama and generally speaking is the aggressor. And Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had far more of a folksy approach than Senator Joe Biden did. One-liners, aggression and emotive warmth are supposed to win these contests, we are told. But polls shows that voters think Obama and Biden won the debates.
The Republicans can’t win on substance. Most of their positions are too unpopular. They know this, and this is why they lie, like Palin did during her debate, about leading the state of Alaska to divest of investments that could benefit the Sudanese government. It turns out that her administration opposed such divestment when it mattered and that she finally told a legislator or two she was for it — after it was too late for the legislature to act.
So in this closing month, they will do what they know how to do. Republican operatives told the Washington Post that they will spend the remaining days attacking Obama’s character. Meanwhile, independent conservative groups are bound to spread all manner of disinformation.
We’ve seen lies like these work before. But what we haven’t seen before is basically 80 percent of US adults feeling this miserably about their country. If there’s ever going to be a circumstance when voters stay focused on the things that matter, this ought to be it.
Michael Tomasky is editor of Guardian America.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under