When people see their political choices as black and white, they inevitably exaggerate the differences between them. Take, for example, Robert Scheer’s screed against Mitt Romney and anyone who would consider voting for him. He calls Republican voters “insanely gullible,” and President Obama “a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought” in comparison to his opponent. Likewise, former Senator Russ Feingold said, “the gap between President Obama and these people [the GOP candidates] is so enormous that it’s a threat to our country to elect” one of them.
Both Scheer and Feingold explicitly warn of the great (though hypothetical) dangers a Republican Presidency. Both base their critiques on caricatures of a Republican President. Both are deceptive attempts to scare people into voting for President Obama.
Conor Friedersdorf makes the important point that the differences between a Republican in office for the next four years and four more of President Obama are unknowable, especially since both Obama and Romney have “shown a capacity to directly and unapologetically contradict their previous rhetoric with their actions.” For this reason–and even though Romney is not Bush–it makes much more sense to look backward to compare Bush’s presidency to President Obama’s first term. Doug Mataconis did just that, and explained what he thinks it says for a Mitt Romney presidency:
“[T]he differences between Bush 43′s second term and Obama’s first aren’t nearly as radical as either Republicans or Democrats would like to believe they are. Yes, perhaps there is a stylistic difference, and Secretary of State Clinton has certainly played an important role in the the process, but when it comes to the actual substance of their respective foreign policies, the differences between Barack Obama and George W. Bush can be measured in millimeters, not miles.
So, what does that tell us about the foreign policy debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney?
I would submit that it tells us that the most likely outcome of a Romney victory in November would be, for the most part, continuity rather than radical change. Granted, there are concerns to be drawn from the rhetoric that Romney engaged in during the primary campaign regarding foreign policy issues, and which he is likely to continue to push during the General Election campaign. Leaving aside that rhetoric, though, the mainstream of American foreign policy seems to me to be really well set. Unless Mitt Romney does something totally insane like making John Bolton Secretary of State (which I would submit is about as likely as Rick Santorum being selected as the next spokesperson for GLAAD), a Romney Administration’s foreign policy is likely to be not all that different from what we’ve seen over the past three years. Which, to be all that honest, hasn’t been all that impressive.” (emphasis added).
Two points: (1) Most often when someone tries to tell you how horrible the next four years will be under the “other” party, they are spewing propaganda rather than offering a reasoned analysis. (2) It is high time people saw the Democrats and Republicans in shades of grey rather than in black and white.
If the latter happens, people could have more honest conversations about politics. For example, you could consider the advantages of the “other” guy winning the election – a discussion you cannot have with most people now because they will not take you seriously. It might go something like this: Under President Bush there were much louder criticisms against civil liberties abuses, and there was the possibility that a more “liberal” President would reverse or at least stop engaging in them. Since the Democrat has continued the policy of civil liberties abuse, maybe we would be better off with “the conservative” option and a robust critique of his or her policies until a candidate on the left emerges whom we can trust to comply with the Constitution
Second, honest and clear thinking about politics might lead to the emergence of alternatives to the two elite-controlled major parties now in power. That way, we would not have to worry about the horrors of who might win an election. Instead, we could restore the possibility that our political system will deliver a President in whom we can really believe.
UPDATE: A rare instance of honest political commentary on television by Matt Stoller:
Comments are closed.