Kindergarten Cops

I wonder sometimes how dumb they really think we are. Politicians make, in my mind, one repeated and crucial error: they think we are all dumb. There's little doubt that some of us are definitely dumb. We can be manipulated by words and the media and are all too quick to anoint or discount candidates based solely on image. But, for the most part, I think, we are not so dumb and are genuinely interested in politics and building a better America. It appears, unfortunately, we often seem dumb as we follow the lead of the intelligent politicians and candidates acting dumbly.

For example, as the economy slides into a recession and the housing crisis continues unabated, the candidates, along with the American public, have shifted their attention from the war in Iraq to the waning economy. Indeed, the economy always is, and rightfully should be, a key focus of both the American public and every politician. And so, in an effort to appear the candidate that is strongest on economics, those running for office quickly adopted positions on "economic stimulus packages." And on both sides of the aisle in Congress, entrenched members of both parties seeking to appear capable of bipartisan cooperation on the veritable eve of the national Presidential election, found common ground on the President's proposed tax cuts. But this is not solution at all. Shouldn't we be focusing instead on bipartisan solutions to larger economic issues that squarely face the long term challenges to sustained health of the US economy? What about finding solutions to the very real problem that more and more American corporations (and the jobs that go with them) are moving overseas for cheaper labor and tax benefits? Surely, it would stimulate the economy in the long term to bring jobs back to the US, and keep those that have no left yet here in the homeland. I would imagine this kind of message and a solution to this particular problem would resonate with the "dumb" unemployed citizens out in Detroit.

And what should we do about the overcomplicated, arcane, and punishing tax system? Surely, there must be a better, if not simpler, way of taxing the American public. Right now, the middle class, and especially the upper middle class, bears the largest portion of the tax burden. Why not develop a plan to diversify the tax burden? And what about focusing on a plan to slowly shift some if not all of the current taxation to a consumer-based tax system? If you want the tax system to reflect "freedom," surely there is not greater way to do this then to allow the citizen to control, to a certain extent, the amount of taxes they absorb by choosing where they spend their money. And wouldn't that allow some people live simply, opting instead to save and retire early.

And shouldn't there be a more intelligent discussion about how to deal with the immigration issues facing this country? Proposals like building a wall between the United States and Mexico, and separating parents from children in order to send some illegal people "home" play to the basest of American reactions and toy with the difficult racist and xenophobic tendencies in us all. Even if our already sputtering economy could actually absorb the loss of 11 million critical Mexicans, shouldn't our government elevate the discussion? In grammar school, I remember learning about the "melting pot" and reading the history of many of immigrant tearfully rejoicing as they first laid eyes on the Statue of Liberty. Once a beacon of freedom, we surely have gone a long way off course when the discussion of immigration revolves around erecting walls rather than installing beacons of welcome. My solution, move the Statute of Liberty from New York harbor to the Mexican border, and teach those Texans how to work an Ellis Island-type registration center. It's high time we re-opened our borders to the less fortunate, lest we lose our identity as a nation altogether in the name of counter-terrorism.

And speaking of counter-terrorism, how has this nation advanced, if at all, since 9/11 on the issue of homeland security? Perhaps politicians have so obfuscated the issue with the Mexican immigration saga to draw our already meager attention away from the fact that nothing has been done of substance to prevent another attack on this country. Even us dumb Americans can separate the issues. Even we know that the war in Iraq and the immigration issues are something quite apart from finding an effective way to gather and act on intelligence and from developing means of protecting our currently woefully unprotected ports.

Indeed, we who are so dumb know there are big issues facing this country that need intelligent people to find solutions. But how can we advance when all that is ever discussed are kindergarten-type solutions to our doctorate-level problems. We, the dumb an downtrodden, are happy to elevate the discussion, if only you candidates were too.

Obama's Balancing Beam

Interested viewers of last night's Democratic debate in South Carolina witnessed a somewhat vitriolic exchange between Hillary and Obama that bordered on the "getting personal." The exchange last night exposes a difficult balancing acts that politicians vying for public office must face. While defending their records and qualifications for office, politicians must do so without seeming, well, defensive.

In an age of classless politics, candidates cannot afford to rely exclusively on a positive message, passively permitting adversaries, who are by nature prone to hyperbole if not outright fabrication, to control the subject of discussion and, in the process, dismantle their qualifications for office. The danger of attempting this strategy can be seen in the few weeks since Iowa. Obama, seemingly committed to a strategy of staying positive, has seen his momentum (and nearly his lead in the delegate count) evaporate. In staying positive, Obama allowed Hillary to control the issues -- she focused the American voting public on the languishing economy diverting attention away from the Iraq War, a topic she seems endlessly defensive on as a result of her yay vote for the Iraq war -- and further permitted Hillary to create an objectively unfair perception of him as an inexperienced rookie incapable of the nation's highest office. The danger of this tact was never more apparent than in the previous debate in Las Vegas where a strictly positive Obama came across as passive and soft and seemed to cede points to the more aggressive and presidential Hillary on a regular basis.

But coming out too aggressive can have a down side too. In the days leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary capitalized on a perception that the men in the race had teamed up on her at the debate. Even coming out hard in one's own defense can be a huge political mistake. Obama went on the offensive last night at the South Carolina debate, fairly accusing Hillary and Bill of hyperbole and in certain cases, downright fabrication, regarding his record and experience. His attack edged toward the personal in certain spots when he drew particular attention to Hillary's lucrative position on the WalMart Board of Directors (part of her storied 35 years of experience) and to Bill's incessant and "troubling" loose use of the facts. While his comments drew some applause at the debate, the spin from the Hillary camp followed this morning in predictable fashion. Obama, in taking the offensive, is desperate and frustrated. Indeed, this is the danger. Americans hate kiss asses, but they hate save asses even more. Seeming mean, desperate or frustrated is tantamount to admitting the nomination is lost.

So what is an Obama to do? When he is on message, staying positive, espousing change and delivering inspiring rhetoric, he is perceived as passive, weak and lacking in substance. But in being aggressive or defending his record, Obama risks coming across as a bully, or worse, as defensive and desperate. This all leads us to Obama's biggest shortcoming so far, his inability to wrest the tenor and subject of these primary battles away from Hillary. Because Hillary has guided the issues masterfully up to this point and created resonating, albeit inaccurate, perceptions about Obama, Obama has to date been unable to find an aggressive but non-combative voice.

And so, through hyperbole, misinformation, and tears, Hillary has displayed the one characteristic of which she can claim a clear advantage over Obama: image control. The Clinton camp has thus far accomplished a monumental feat in successfully presenting to the voting public a believable enough but completely dichotomous image of Hillary: the agent of change and the candidate of experience. The challenge now facing Obama requires a balancing act equally as monumental. Expose the inadequacies of Hillary's message while not seeming the bully and defend his own record while not seeming defensive. If he fails to accomplish this task in the next 14 days, he will undoubtedly lose the Democratic nomination.