Debate Poop
I'm a masochist. I watched the foreign policy debate. I'm curious and always a little hopeful that some issue I care about might be addressed. But, of course, no. Nothing on global warming, or global overpopulation, or peak oil, or global resource depletion generally, or nuclear arms control generally (the specific case of Iran got a lot of attention but not in principled terms, and Mr. Romney mentioned Russia's intent to allow Nunn-Lugar to expire but didn't explain, even in one sentence, why that might matter), or "free trade" and America's current account deficit, or the €, or even, for heaven's sake, the Peace Corps. It's entirely right and proper to blame the candidates but, if you think about it, in almost all the post-debate media coverage those issues didn't make any appearance either. The system set the lowest bar possible, the candidates casually stepped over it. End of story. What a complete waste of time!
I most dislike being treated like an eighth grader. Do I care about Mr. Obama's 'zinger' involving horses and bayonets? (Is this, btw, Freudian imagery deliberately designed to appeal to working women?) Do I care whether Mr. Romney thinks Syria is Iran's outlet to the sea? Am I both horrified and fascinated that Mr. Romney can radically change policy positions from day to day and still perhaps be elected? Well, yes to the last one. But that takes us back to why the debates have become a lobotomized art form. The answer, in large part — almost entirely — is the electoral college. The system, the candidates, indeed all of us, are sitting around waiting for people in Toledo Ohio to make up their minds. It's worse than absurd. It's tragic.
My guess is that if the election were decided instead by the national popular vote a very different set of swing groups would emerge. Some of them might even require intelligent questions and answers.
Posted by George Kenney on October 24, 2012 2:04 AM 
« Some Further Thoughts on the Benghazi Problem | Main | EP Places Again »
Comments
I just listened to a New Yorker "Out Loud" podcast. I was in a pretty good mood when I started, having read Michael Lewis' piece in Vanity Fair. The article gave me the reassurance of how much I prefer being "represented" by Obama over Romney. And the podcast began to reassure me further. Then the punch (as in: hit me in the nose) line: The observation that Jimmy Carter's so-called "malaise" speech was the last time a president told the American public the truth.
I suppose a national popular vote would give the more densely populated parts of the country their deserved say in matters including elections. And that would bode well, as you say. But what we have now is the denser part of the population deciding things.
The choice before me is a no-brainer. I'll try hard to turn my brain off for two weeks, then vote.
Posted by: Peter Kaufman | October 25, 2012 10:31 AM
Just read an article that cogently challenges the widespread expectation that we will be better off with Mr. Obama in the White House than Mr. Romney. His point, to drastically oversimplify, draws on the "only Nixon could go to China" concept to say that Obama will enact more reprehensible corporatist policies than Romney because Romney would face severe scrutiny and opposition from the left and many democrats, whereas the opposition to Obama furthering the national security industrial complex would face only highly diluted opposition.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Voting-Green-in-a-Swing-St-by-B-Sidney-Smith-121025-298.html
(Of course, I'd still vote for Michelle Obama for First Lady if I could split the ticket.)
Posted by: Lorenzo Kristov | October 27, 2012 12:25 AM
George, what is that fetal creature? -herbert
[It's a Black Mastiff Bat embryo. Some scientist put together a 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' collage, which I cropped. g.]
Posted by: Herbert | November 3, 2012 9:03 PM