![]() |
![]() |
||
|
The Hard Choice Is NowPosted on Jan 17, 2008WASHINGTON—If it’s any consolation, this is the hard part. When it comes time for the general election campaign, voters will be faced with a clear choice on the major issues. The primaries, meanwhile, are forcing us to figure out not just who the candidates are, but who we are as well. On what is now the issue of greatest concern, according to surveys—the flagging economy—Democrats and Republicans truly seem to live in different solar systems. All three leading Democratic contenders have set forth elaborate stimulus plans, all three have ideas for rescuing families caught in the subprime mortgage trap, and all three serve up their proposals with great heaping buckets of empathy. Message: They care. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee does the empathy part but then shifts quickly to his weird idea about replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. Mitt Romney—who promises a stimulus package soon—pandered successfully in Michigan, vowing to bring back the state’s long-lost manufacturing jobs. But when asked how exactly he intends to perform this incredible feat, Romney went all deus ex machina: He said he would spend billions of federal dollars on energy-related research, which surely will invent all kinds of wondrous new technologies, which then will swoop in to save the day. Romney was asked in a National Public Radio interview Wednesday what he would cut to come up with the money for his research project—he’s supposed to be a fiscal conservative, remember—and he named federal job-training programs, which he said were wasteful and inefficient. Aside from Ron Paul—who, I believe, wants all financial transactions to be conducted in pieces of eight—the rest of the Republican field tends to answer questions about the economy by quoting Adam Smith. Apparently, they’re too busy campaigning to have noticed that stock markets around the world are in turmoil, or that the White House and the Federal Reserve are at Threat Level Orange. On Iraq, the difference is even more stark. It’s true that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted to authorize the war and that Barack Obama opposed it from the start, though he wasn’t in a position to do anything about it. And it’s true that Edwards has apologized for his vote and Clinton hasn’t. But they all promise, basically, the same policy going forward: Bring the troops home. Advertisement If Clinton or Obama wins the nomination, I suppose some voters will pretend to agonize over whether “we are ready” to elect the first woman or the first African-American president. Please spare us. Either outcome would be historic, but nobody has to puzzle through dense position papers before deciding whether to vote on the basis of race or gender. People will pull the lever or not, and then justify their decisions retroactively. The really agonizing choices are the ones being made now in both parties. Is the Republican coalition assembled by Ronald Reagan and reunited by Bush still viable now that so many independents have drifted away? If not, then where lies the party’s true soul? In the hawkishness of McCain, or perhaps Rudy Giuliani? In Romney’s big-business boosterism? In Mike Huckabee’s new admixture of social conservatism and economic populism? Three primary contests have given three different answers. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, knows exactly what it stands for. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are hardly fire-breathing radicals. Their positions on domestic issues are all comfortably in the Democratic mainstream. Internationally, all would seek to repair the damage to America’s standing that Bush has done; none is likely to look for wars to start, but none is going to take Dennis Kucinich’s recommendation to renounce war-making for all time. What Democratic primary voters have to decide, as they cast their ballots, is not just how they view the candidates but how they view the moment. After suffering through the infuriating Bush years, are Democrats ready to fight, as Edwards believes? Are they nostalgic for the Clinton era, which had its pluses and minuses but at least holds no mystery? Or are they ready to follow Obama on a promising new path, trusting that he knows the way? Not easy. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
We just got faster!
Our site is growing, and we’ve upgraded our servers to bring you a better, faster Truthdig experience.
We’re thrilled with our improvement — but it’s added a lot to our costs. Please help us to keep things snappy and make sure you have instant access to thousands of in-depth Truthdig articles, interviews, videos and cartoons.
Please chip in today with a gift to keep us moving forward. Then check out the site for yourself!
By cyrena, January 23, 2008 at 7:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Chavez DOES have the right idea.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, January 22, 2008 at 3:35 pm #
Eugene to be Hillary’s Royal Panty Sniffer. I keeeed, I keeed!
My vote for the primary is gold, AU on the chart. It doesn’t do anything bad, or good. It doesn’t rust or rot or break promises. And everyone wants it. Buy gold.
I also vote for storeable food. It doesn’t ask you for ID or insist you give up your guns.
Finally you should vote for guns. Should you run out of food you can use it to get more food. It has also been known to change governments. I keeed, I keeeed!
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, January 20, 2008 at 3:52 pm #
” But when asked how exactly he intends to perform this incredible feat, Romney went all deus ex machina: He said he would spend billions of federal dollars on energy-related research, which surely will invent all kinds of wondrous new technologies, which then will swoop in to save the day. Romney was asked in a National Public Radio interview Wednesday what he would cut to come up with the money for his research projecthes supposed to be a fiscal conservative, rememberand he named federal job-training programs, which he said were wasteful and inefficient.”
Natural resources, esp. water and energy should be nationalized. Chavez has the right idea.
Report thisBy DennisD, January 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Wrong - that’s already been made for us by the Diebold programmers and whoever has paid them the most to “win” the election this time.
Anyone that would do more than talk about “change” has been marginalized out of the kabuki dance already. Wonder why there never will be real change under the current system. Go figure.
Eugene - the illusion of an American democracy has long since been exposed. Wake up. Toto pulled the curtain back years ago. It’s writers like you that for whatever reason try to keep the fantasy alive.
Report thisBy prostitute, January 20, 2008 at 3:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good comments on our finance-based economy. The promises made by the runners are mostly based on the Reagan-Bush2 model of printing as much paper as will appear to pay off debt. If I were China or Japan, I’d be wanting the interest owed me on Treasuries to be paid in silver or gold or a similar tangible asset.
As a prostitute looking to my future, I only accept payment in jewelry or art. Keep your paper.
ps: I scored Ron Paul last week. Aside from snorkeling me silly in expert fashion, he paid in gold nuggets. My kind of candidate.
Report thisBy troublesum, January 20, 2008 at 12:19 am #
Our so-called elections generate the same kind of excitement as professional sports do. Which team will win? Obama’s stump speech is about as politically meaningful as recent red sox blather… “they said it couldn’t be done”... The out come of these elections have about as much impact on our day to day lives as professional sports championship games do. It is entertainment; nothing more. What Robinson means is that he can’t stand the excitement. Who will make history, Hillary or Obama?
Report thisBy troublesum, January 20, 2008 at 12:02 am #
How did Eugene Robinson get a column on this site??
Report thisThere’s nothing difficult about voting. You could go into the booth blind folded and mark your ballot. It won’t make any difference in our lives. Vast majorities of people want an immediate end to the war and national single payer health care but we end up with candidates in both parties who are opposed to both these things. Corporate America controls the whole process. It’s all about shutting us out.
By cyrena, January 19, 2008 at 11:42 pm #
Yep, I’d say start with the obvious, in the process of elimination. HRC is the OBVIOUS (or as you stated - blantantly) pro-War Democratic candidate.
So, scratch that name, and let’s move on…
Not hard at all.
Report thisBy Ostrogoth, January 19, 2008 at 7:01 am #
“But they all promise, basically, the same policy going forward: Bring the troops home.”
My gawsh, where do they find these bubblehead journalists? Who cares what Obama and HRC promise as long as they continue to fund U.S. terror against Iraqis? Especially HRC, the only blatantly pro-war Democratic Party candidate. Scratch Hillary off the list unless you want more of what we have now. Whats so hard about that?
Report thisBy BlueEagle, January 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm #
Eugene says, “When it comes time for the general election campaign, voters will be faced with a clear choice on the major issues.” Wrong. We are faced with the major issues now! The wars, the economy and civil liberties. Who is the only candidate that will end ALL wars and bring ALL the troop home and not threaten to start new ones? Who is the only candidate that understands that the Federal Reserve Bank is a private bank controlling our fiat money supply and will work to do something about it? Who is the only candidate that will fight to restrain the power and size of the government, voted against the Patriot Act, abhors the National ID Card and has and will fight for our liberty? The “general” election is now!
Report thisBy Sang Ze, January 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
All we need are candidates worth a vote. Thus far, no one has come forth.
Report thisBy P. T., January 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm #
The major candidates of both parties promise they will continue the Iraq War.
Report thisBy KISS, January 18, 2008 at 11:55 am #
ER, why do you not write of the folly of Primaries? It is a glamorous set-up to confuse and make the media richer. The primary never has been a sorting out of aspirants to the throne. All primaries do is rid the playing field of those with no ties to corporate buy-ins.
Report thisHistoric if a Blackman or a female wins? Who gives a damn? What is best for the American citizen is to be the topic of conversation, not color or gender.
By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, January 18, 2008 at 11:08 am #
Right! There have been two recent examples of campaigns being called out for ambiguities and outright lies—one, a reporter questioning Romney about lobbyists and another questioning Bill about a Nevada Casino lawsuit.
Politicians are so used to either outright lying or twisting the truth that they believe themselves.
I wish the media had the balls—like during WH press conferences—to press for the truth on no uncertain terms. “Sir, you didn’t answer my question.” “But Sir, you still didn’t answer my question.” “All due respect, George, the public deserves a truthful answer from you.” “Bushie, are you aware that you are refusing to answer my question? Is there a way I can ask it that you’ll answer it?”
I know this would mean the correspondents job. Some country!
Report thisBy sheila, January 18, 2008 at 6:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
So it seems that you consider the dems race an equal playing field(I disagree, Clinton is basically a Lieberman dem) Given that, why not give the nod to Obama? He is bright, driven and has a heart and he is black. Were I black, why would I not pick him over an equal candidate? Makes only politically correct bs sense to me. Stand for something Mr. Robinson.
Report thisBy Outraged, January 18, 2008 at 5:00 am #
“On what is now the issue of greatest concern, according to surveysthe flagging economyDemocrats and Republicans truly seem to live in different solar systems.”
Hmm….there’s that proverbial “seem”. News Flash: Aside from EXTREMISTS, we not only live on the same planet, we live in the same country, in the same states, in the same cities, in the same communities, in the same NEIGHBORHOODS!
In your conflux of trying to make us “SEEM” different, I admonish that we are all VERY MUCH the same. We are the citizens of America and care very deeply about that in this regard.
A fair and honest vote is what we want. Cut the crap.
Report this