Yesterday the US presidential elections just got interesting. With the withdrawal of Rudy Guliani and John Edwards from the Republican and Democratic races respectively, both the nomination contests are in effect down to two candidates each, which I find much more fascinating than the erratic multi-horse race that we've suffered until recently (particularly on the Republican side).
It's my personal belief that while having multiple candidates to choose from is a sign of a healthy democracy in theory, in practice it can lead to some of the worst and lowest populist outcomes that a democratic system can generate. When the average voter is faced by a slather of candidates they will either be turned off by the complexity of it all and not vote, or be motivated to vote by single hot-button issues. Obviously the second problem will occur in any race, but I feel that it is more pronounced and worrying in a multi-candidate field. For example, Mike Huckabee carried Iowa largely on the morals platform, Hillary Clinton winning New Hampshire largely because of females who sympathised with her, and Barrack Obama taking the goods in South Carolina because he is an African American (ironically, in a different sense of the word to the one usually used).
Some may argue that this is good for democracy in that it stimulates the public to back its horse and galvinises those who otherwise would not vote. However to vote in a democracy is an act of sovereign power, and one that should not be encouraged simply for its own sake. What I mean by all this is that I am worried that, in a splintered field of candidates without a clear frontrunner, the true issues of substance such as policy and mettle will be lost in a sea of 10 second sound bites and hot-button issues.
Now the American public has a much better chance to seriously scrutinise the remaining four presidential pretenders and make an informed decision. While I am sad to see some candidates go, especially someone like John Edwards who was so passionate about social justice, I would prefer the American people to seriously consider four candidates than roll dice to decide between eight.
And my thoughts on the four remaining candidates? I don't think I really have any credentials to be a pundit apart from reading the papers, but then again I don't particularly think that many actual pundits have strong credentials to do their jobs anyway. That being so I might as well start with the negative side of things.
With Barrack Obama I'm worried that if he gets elected on a centre-left platform and a cult-personality following he may go the same way as Tony Blair in the UK once tough decisions have to be made. Blair was also touted as the 'healer' when he came to power in 1997, loved by the majority. He left in 2007 in a storm of controversy and shunned by a public amongst whom 'Blair-hating' had become a national pasttime. Obviously the President has more far reaching powers than the Prime Minister, but if Obama is running on a platform of unity that may crumble once substantive decisions have to be made. If not, and if he attempts to consistently tow his populist line he may not have the strength or mandate to make tough decisions that need to be made.
Which brings us to the 'hard' candidate, John McCain. Personally I like McCain – he has the bearing of a leader and a proven tenacity and resilience that none of the other candidates have. Additionally he has never been the front runner until he was propelled to that position by the voting public, something I find to be a true vindication of his campaign. That being said however, there are three main concerns with McCain: firstly, his age. The guy's 71, and is old enough to be Barrack Obama's father. Will he really be able to put up with the constant strain of the modern US presidency and yet be able to keep a rein on his temper (his second main problem)? Finally, McCain has only been cautiously accepted by the Republican conservative wing, and he is still yet to win over the ultra-conservatives. If these king makers are so hard to get on board, will McCain have the strength to pull through difficult times without them (or even against them)?
Another candidate for whom opposition seems to be a defining characteristic is Hillary Clinton. She is clearly a very smart, capable woman who for too long has been hidden in the shadow of her charismatic husband. But where Barrack is strong, she is weak: can a woman who 47 per cent of Americans say they won't vote for lead the country? Will Clinton bashing be the successor of Bush bashing? With the current economic downturn and geopolitical turmoil, America needs to have a strong leader (which Hillary would certainly be), but also a leader who can unite to lead.
Which brings us to the wildcard Mitt Romney. To me he is the candidate that doesn't fit neatly into any of the boxes; he is a true big-business economic conservative, but he is yet to be fully embraced by the Republican conservative core. He is also trying to grab some of the 'morals' vote with his strong family values, but many of the 'values' voters will be turned off (fairly or unfairly) by his equally strong Mormon faith. And despite the amount of money he is pumping in he is still trailing behind a man whose campaign was declared dead not a few weeks ago. Will the pieces of the puzzle come together for Romney in time?
To a cautious person like myself, the familiarity of McCain and Clinton is appealing. But then again I'm circumspect enough to know that the world is changing rapidly, and that my gut instinct is not always right. I personally like Obama and I agree that his message resonates with me, but I'm still not sold on him until I see something more substantive (which is not to say there isn't any substance). Romney remains the unknown quantity, and the candidate on whom I have the least to say. My views haven't crystallised yet, and probably won't until the two parties have elected their candidate. But whatever the case, I can only hope that from now on the discussion will move to issues of substance instead of symbolism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment