As the candidates begin to focus on pivotal states such as New York and California, lots of things have been made clear to me that weren't revealed during the embryonic stages of the primary we witnessed here in New Hampshire. We saw politics in a nearly uncorrupted condition, with the candidates attempting to establish a campaign platform that could carry them through to November. It was ideological, it was optimistic, and for a few brief shining moments we forgot that politics is a dirty sport.
But desperate times require desperate measures, and now that the party nomination has become a tangible entity, sitting out there ready to be grabbed by whomever can scrape together the votes to do so, we're once again witnessing as much hypocracy and mudslinging as ever. So much for keeping this an attack-free election year.
After all the initial idealism, we're back to basics, with a focus on personality, aesthetics, and who can dig up the worst things from a candidate's past. Platform? What platform? Issues aren't the issue. No matter how much candidates say they want to reform politics, even if they mean it, like I think some of them do, there's not much they can do to avoid being sucked into the same old cycle. So how can it be any different this time around?
For starters, people sending in absentee ballots can make an impact. Amidst the name-calling, there are some things to recognize that should affect your decision, or at least those of you who are planning on exercising it.
On the Democratic side, this is pretty much a moot point since Gore is mopping the floor with Bradley. Which is just as well, I suppose, since, while Bradley's platform may be all well and good in Fantasy Land, we have to remember that we're dealing with what's all a big game, and in a game you have opposition. Not one of Bradley's liberal ideas would have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting through the system intact, regardless of how you actually view those ideas to begin with.
Not like Gore is any more respectable -- in fact, he's less -- but he does have experience with the game, which is why he will get the nomination. He's slimy, but it works in his favor because he'll be able to convince people he's a good guy. In this age of nonexistent attention spans and disinclination toward political involvement, few may actually care what Gore has to say. Most will see him handle questions expertly while Bradley sweats like a pig and decide that Gore's the perfect candidate.
The Republican primary however, could have some potentially severe consequences. The entire GOP establishment supported Bush before he even said a word, using him as the figurehead for a conservative re-entrenchment in the White House. They're so overcome with eagerness at reclaiming the presidency that they don't seem to remember 1996 and the potential damage they could cause themselves for the future. Does that ring a bell to anyone? Sure, get a Republican president now and suffer later. With as conservative an image as Bush has, the party would swerve far to the right, leaving the Democrats to reclaim the center and look like the good guys, just as Clinton did in 1996 after Gingrich's Congress disillusioned many to the idea of Republican rule. The Republicans should be a tad uneasy when they see the Christian Right favoring Bush 8-1 over McCain, considering the image that segment of the party has with the rest of America.
In my opinion, the best bet we have is John McCain. He's a Republican who can get things done, make people happy, and most importantly (though that depends on your perspective), he's a centrist with the ability to compromise and put the GOP back in the center. He has the ability to please everybody for the duration of his presidency rather than alienating half the population, causing retaliation in 2002 and 2004. If the Republicans are so eager to return to power, it seems McCain would be a much more logical choice than Bush. He has a better chance than any other candidate of actually being more than someone who sits there looking pretty.
I'm sure Gore or Bush would suffice as chair-fillers who wouldn't do any horrible damage, but either one would be, as a song from "The Simpsons" so appropriately puts it, an "adequate, forgettable, occasionally regrettable caretaker president." They will fall victim to presidential politics as so many others have done and will continue to do. So for anyone who actually wants to see policy enacted by a man who is in a position to play the game well, choose McCain, and we're one tiny little step closer to bucking the norm.
