Hurricane Issac bearing down on New Orleans brings back memories of this blog's origins, which came in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and my friend's decision to move permanently to the Gulf Coast.
From her home in the area, she assures me this storm shouldn't be anything to worry about too much; I hope she's right.
The GOP convention got underway once the storm decided to move away from the Tampa area and head for New Orleans instead. Hurricanes twist and churn like buzz saws, and they chop their way onto landfall, often hurling a wall of water ahead of them.
Will the rebuilt levees hold this time?
The Republicans are inside their giant echo chamber this week; next week will be the Democrats' turn. I'm paying only marginal attention to the convention so far; not out of lack of interest, but due to other priorities.
This is Mitt Romney's best chance to introduce himself in a deeper way to voters who don't know all that much about him. That he is a Morman, extremely wealthy, and secretive about some things are among his negatives.
That he is a man of faith, extremely wealthy, and somewhat discreet about personal matters are among his strengths.
In that way, the same characteristics of a candidate can play our quite differently, depending how he is perceived. Romney isn't a great orator, which some politicians (like Barack Obama) are; but I'm not sure how many voters make decisions based on speeches in the end.
Incumbent Presidents are hard to beat, unless the economy is bad, and our economy is very bad; thus Obama's difficulties this fall, should the popular vote turn out to be as close as it presently appears likely to be.
But the popular vote, in the U.S. system, doesn't matter; it's the electoral vote, assigned on a state-by-state basis, that determines the winner, as Al Gore experienced in the 2000 election.
The problem when political parties debate economics is the level of sophistication of the conversation tends to remain quite low. It's assumed that voters do not understand the complex forces at work that drive growth, recession, jobs, unemployment, deficits and debts.
The national conversation revolves around whether government is too big or small, when it should be focused on whether it is effective at improving the economy, and indeed how much of a role government can play in that at all.
Indeed, governments can and do stimulate national economies all the time with smart programs that incentivize job-growth and the creation of new businesses. So a reasonable debate would be over what kinds of programs can accomplish these goals. The "size matters" argument is fairly irrelevant.
The rhetoric over tax rates is similarly specious much of the time. One side favors cutting taxes no matter what; the other would probably raise them on the rich, but neither side is likely to emerge from the election with enough clout to implement its agenda.
That's because we are almost certain to once again have a power split between the White House and at least one house of Congress.
Journalists like to make a big deal about momentum from election cycle to election cycle.
Under that approach, the GOP gains in 2010 would seem either likely to be interpreted as continuing or as having reached their end point come this November's results.
I'm less convinced that these sorts of swings represent anything more than short-term trends. Larger forces are at work, such as globalization and technological changes. These forces will compel political and economic changes, whether we welcome them or not.
Covering entrepreneurs closely as I do, I see the advantages of lean government regulations, low taxes, and other measures to promote the growth of small businesses.
But, as an environmentalist and a citizen, I see the concentrated power of large companies that threaten our health, environmental quality and individual freedoms in substantial ways.
We need government to defend our rights from these large, powerful institutions that reside among us, legally, as "individuals."
An informed voter would want to listen carefully to all the political speeches for clues as to what these would-be leaders will do if elected.
The experienced voter knows that politicians rarely do what they said they would do, partly because the circumstances have a way of changing, partly because the political realty of shared power makes some moves impossible, and partly because politicians will essentially promise whatever they think it takes to get elected.
You'll hear a lot of talk about "character," "values," and "family." I happen to think both Obama and Romney are men of character, strong families, and good values. None of this should be any area of concern for any voter -- right, left or center.
That said, they are human beings, with frailties and failures, as we all have -- why should we expect anything else?
Therefore, to me at least, it is pointless to focus on things that may have happened years ago, like when Romney allegedly bullied someone at school.
Yet many voters do respond to the candidates' personal qualities, and this may be where Romney has the most work to do, and Obama has the edge. I'm sure by the end of this week, millions of people will be assured that Romney is indeed a decent man.
Just like Obama.
But decency will not fix the economy. For that matter, no one as President can fix an economy as large and complex and globalized as ours.
All he can do is implement policies and initiatives that push a little here, pull a little there, raise this and cut that, balance out the consequences of taking actions against letting market forces old the sway.
As I watch Issac bear down on the Gulf Coast, and filter through the political signals, that's what I think about this year's election for now.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment