Maybe A Nickel’s Worth Of Difference
Ross:
It’s the Russo-Georgian War all over again: McCain responds boldly/impulsively, Obama responds carefully/overcautiously, but they both end up saying roughly the same thing, and the pundit class goes back to obsessing about whatever shocking poll or web ad has been released that day.
This is right. The abandonment of even the pretense of a policy debate (and an abandonment of the actual presidential debates!) between the two parties just reinforces one of the features of this and every other cycle, which is more pronounced this year than usual because of the biography-driven nature of both nominees’ candidacies, and this is the irrelevance or near-irrelevance of policy debate in presidential elections. While there are few substantive differences that actually matter–and differences on fiscal and domestic policy are going to evaporate if Congress actually approves of anything like $700 billion for the bailout–and most of the news concerns tactics and the horse race, we are at least being treated to the very different styles that the two candidates offer.
When it came to the war in Georgia, McCain managed to make a position he shares with Obama seem even crazier than it already is, because his generally reckless and impulsive style has led him in the past to stake out provocative anti-Russian views that gave his support for Saakashvili the air of fanaticism. Obama hedged his initial position and then came around to the Washington consensus view, which McCain backers see as dithering and sane people find slightly more reassuring, but in the end he tends to come around to very bad, horrible positions, just as he did on FISA legislation. So, given the alternatives between someone who instinctively adopts a terrible position and someone who grudgingly makes his way to the same position, we are still provided with a pretty striking contrast between the candidates. McCain will have us on tenterhooks on a daily basis wondering whether he will call for impeaching the Supreme Court or bombing Uruguay and he will denounce anyone who questions his proposal as a selfish and corrupt villain, and while Obama might adopt equally awful views he will do so more slowly and allow the rest of us time to organize opposition and rational counterarguments that might actually prevail.
5 Responses to “Maybe A Nickel’s Worth Of Difference”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
” he will do so more slowly and allow the rest of us time to organize opposition and rational counterarguments that might actually prevail.”
With all due respect Daniel, his 180 on the Russia-Georgia fight took, what, 72 hours? Now that is what I’d call that audacity of hope. Isn’t it equally plausible that Obama is simply a neophyte that is easily swayed by the loudest voices around him?
Sure. I’d say that’s probably true, and he is swayed by whatever the consensus is. I didn’t say it was a big difference. But his move wasn’t really a 180. It was a slight shift in emphasis from recognizing blame on both sides to mostly blaming the Russians. His first reaction is not to spout off with the most inflammatory rhetoric.
I think you nailed it there, Daniel. Pretty generally from what I can tell, Obama’s first reaction to almost any situation is not only “not to spout off with the most inflammatory rhetoric”, (which seems to be more and more McCain’s only response, rather than just his primary response), but to locate the safe consensus if he hasn’t already identified it. Ryan Lizza nailed that. But contra Adam01, I don’t think that loud shouting particularly influences Obama, other than indirectly through the center-left echo chamber. I consider it a very desirable trait that shouting doesn’t seem to affect his consensus-locator. Immensely preferable to McCain for my money.
I feel for you guys, the sane conservatives like Daniel, GOM, and most of the regular Eunomians, in this election. I’ve had multiple elections where I felt compelled to vote third party or writein, but never one where both candidates were so awful as I think McCain and Obama are from your perspective.
Side Q for Daniel, GOM, or other Orthodox readers – whom would you recommend I read (in English, sorry) for an Orthodox take on Augustinian-like pessimism applied to the present age?
When I think of those instances where Obama has started at a half reasonable position then moved aggressively to the bad policy middle ground (Georgia, FISA, maybe Israel), it seems to me that they largely (entirely?) concern so-called national security issues.
His response to the bailout doesn’t qualify as neither candidate had much to offer and both sought consensus rather than make themselves hostages to fortune by actually proposing their own ideas.
Ross is right to be horrified by the lack of policy discussion in this campaign, but he is wrong to describe Obama’s economic consensus-seeking as the “Russo-Georgian War all over again”. Both result in dull consensus, but Obama takes his defensive positions on the economy because he doesn’t know what to do – he has no offensive strategy. He arrives at his predictably defensive foreign policy positions, in contrast, to ensure the black Democrat with the funny name doesn’t appear weak on national security. I know it’s painful to watch, but I’m not persuaded he has much of a choice. Just don’t tell me it’s for the same reason as consensus on economic issues.
In fact, his foreign policy instincts appear to be sound and I can easily imagine him privately skewering the downsides to the consensus position on Georgia or FISA. So the question there is trying to determine whether the political environment forces him to this middle ground purely during the campaign, or whether it would also constrain him in office. Is it the press? The all-powerful Christian-South-Caucasian lobby? etc etc. We are familiar with these problems.
The question on economics is harder. How should we respond when neither campaign offers a choice on the key domestic policy questions of the day because they don’t know what they’re doing?
The answer is we can’t respond well, because we aren’t so interested in economics, and we don’t understand it enough. This goes for both most bloggers and politicians. Doesn’t it?
@bayesian, who asked “whom would you recommend I read (in English, sorry) for an Orthodox take on Augustinian-like pessimism applied to the present age? “:
Someone more Orthodox than I can give you a better list, but Fr. Seraphim Rose’s Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age was the first thing that leapt to my mind.
Available, I discover, online: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html