Decision 2008: Why Bother?
September 14, 2007
==by Jarrod Niebloom==
“Democratic elections are not merely symbolic… They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives,” wrote Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former United States ambassador to the Unites Nations, in offering a definition of the democratic electoral process.
To be sure, in a democratic utopia, voters would be free to choose from the brightest and most experienced candidates the next leader of the Free World. Each candidate would clearly represent a certain demographic through a set of views similar to those of his supporters. Through the electoral process, those views would be weighed by a population as gargantuan and diverse as the actual 3.7 million square miles on which these various geopolitical interests would exist. And such is how the Race for President ‘08 ought to look.
Let us examine our list of 2008 hopefuls who will continue this lofty tradition: a group of candidates that are either unqualified or acquiescing in their own belief systems–some actually achieve both. While a few have had so little leadership experience they have yet to formulate a stance on certain issues, others surrender their policies to the tide of public opinion, sort of like the well-known Kerryism, “I voted for the war before I voted against it,” developed by the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee once the war in Iraq became unpopular.
Democratic heavy-hitters for 08 include Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, Senator Barack Obama from Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards from North Carolina. In the Republican arena, the most popular have become former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from New York, former Governor Mitt Romney from Massachusetts, and as of just September 5th, former Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee. While there are many others on either side of the political spectrum, few Americans are giving them a second look, even if they are truly qualified and may prove to be good candidates.
First: let’s expose the popular candidates for what they truly are. A good place to start will be the Democratic candidates, as few people reading this article are considering voting for any of the popular Republicans anyway.
Frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the former first lady, has been a member of the U.S. Senate for six years. Few have questioned her level of experience despite the fact that before being the president’s wife, Hillary had never worked as an executive or running a large bureaucracy in any way, shape, or form. Hillary was a lawyer—she dealt with policy questions daily, but rarely did she have to navigate the diplomatic mountains inherent in the job she seeks. Her executive experience is limited to her intimate involvement in the policy-making during those good old Clinton days just by virtue of the fact that she was married to the president.
Most importantly: Hillary cannot, even in the darkest crevices of twisted minds, ever be thought of as a diplomat. She is polarizing and venomous. She is the last thing this country needs during a time of such internal partisanship and international shock in what we have managed to accomplish in Iraq.
A final note—unknown to most—Hillary is under investigation by the Federal Election Commission for campaign finance irregularities. This is not the first time the FEC has probed into Hillary’s campaign gifts; in January of 2006, the FEC fined Clinton $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions from former Judicial Watch client Peter Paul. It is a matter of public record and Clinton did not contest that finding. Hillary has a rich history of being investigated for donor scandals, and that legacy endures, as investigations into copious claims are currently underway.
U.S. Senator from Illinois Barack Obama is also a frontrunner in the Democratic primaries. With two years in the U.S. Senate, seven years in the Illinois State Senate, an inspiring sound-bite-worthy DNC address, and two best-selling books, some argue his resume is enough to qualify him to be president. Matt Pearson, Democratic Party chairman in Buena Vista County, Iowa disagrees. “He could use a little more experience,” concedes Pearson. Even leaders of the Democratic Party recognize Obama’s inexperience.
To be clear, Obama wouldn’t be the youngest presidential nominee or chief executive in our country’s history. At 45 years old, the eloquent Harvard-educated African-American who calls for national unity is almost a decade older than William Jennings Bryan, who was 36 when he first became a Democratic nominee. John F. Kennedy was only 43 when he was elected. After President McKinley’s death, Theodore Roosevelt was 42 when he took the oath of office.
As for experience, Obama’s two years in the U.S. Senate and seven years in the Illinois Legislature arguably gives him more experience (at least more time as an elected official) than Woodrow Wilson, who had been New Jersey’s governor for only two years when he was elected in 1912. And as for our beloved current president: George W. Bush served only six years as Texas governor before being elected president.
Nevertheless, there are still many Democrats who prefer a more knowledgeable nominee with greater federal experience given our involvement in Iraq and looming problems with North Korea and Iran. Honestly, they’re right. There’s no doubt Obama will be a good Democratic candidate in the future, but for now, he’s too young given the series of diplomatic and security crises he would face upon taking office.
Finally, a quick bit on John Edwards. He voted for the war. Democrats, for the most part, at least want to see a plan for withdrawal. Even as recently as October 10, 2004, when Edwards was on “Meet the Press,” he defended his vote to enter Iraq and said he would cast the same vote again if he had the option. Once Edwards became a potential candidate for president in 2008, however, he admitted he had made a mistake. His vote sways and blows like his hair in the wind. In short, Edwards decreasing popularity in the polls leaves him little room for recovery.
Without dwelling on other Democrats—as they truly do not have a chance—let’s consider the Republican frontrunners: Giuliani and Romney. In the first Republican debate, Giuliani hailed himself as being the most experienced candidate in terms of foreign policy. Apparently, being mayor of New York City qualifies one to make imperative and complex foreign policy decisions. Giuliani’s ability to rally a city after destruction should not be confused with foreign policy experience. Surely, the former mayor could do well alleviating some polarization in Washington—let’s not falsely attribute that to his great experience in foreign politics, rather, his appeal to moderate voters who seek a candidate more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In terms of experience, Giuliani is the least experienced candidate running.
One can learn a lot about former Governor Romney from what the people of Massachusetts have to say about him—nothing good. Even better, Romney has shown to be a slave of public opinion, often altering his views on issues like abortion to appease those whom he must placate at one time or another. As a moderate in Massachusetts, Romney was an advocate of a woman’s right to choose. A few months ago, when he became the only Republican candidate with name recognition that Evangelicals would even consider backing, he changed his views completely. Fred Thompson’s recent announcement that he will, in fact, be a candidate for the presidency may destroy the Romney-appeal for conservatives. Any further exploration of Thompson should only take place after he has a chance to explicate his views and take part in the Republican debates.
The acute lack of decent candidates is not a new problem. In describing the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential election, comedian Lewis Black could not help by say, “we had two bowls of shit in front of us; the only difference was the smell.” And sure enough, four years later, in the first election in which neither an incumbent president or vice president will be running since 1928, there still seems to be little choice for a fresh start through an experienced and inexorable leader. Instead, both the Democratic and Republican parties, thus far, seem to support only celebrity politicians.