Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:21:30 -0400
From:         Marty Rosen <crosen@ANDY.BGSU.EDU>
Subject:      Presidential politics
Comments: To: words-l@uga.bitnet

Greetings,

I can't imagine selecting a candidate solely on the basis of a debate (or
debates).  I think it's important to look at the whole package: the
resume, the references, and the interview (that is, the debates).

My working assumption is that the candidates mean what they say (I regret
I can't emulate those of you with second sight, who seem to be able to
discern the truth or falsehood of statements made by Clinton or others).
I don't expect every answer to demonstrate detailed knowledge, but I do
hope to see an understanding of principals at work.

It seems clear to me that Perot last night demonstrated a much clearer
grasp of some key issues than either Bush or Clinton.  He's obviously
intelligent, he communicates well, he has a good grasp of the economic
issues that concern many of us, and I was surprised he seemed to have a
good grasp of the underlying ideas on which our foreign policy is
presently based (misguided as they are).  Moreover, he was the only
candidate who spoke with much conviction on some important domestic things
("If you hate people, I don't want you [to vote for me]").

Meanwhile, neither Clinton nor Bush was willing to speak in a focused way
about anything I consider important.  In general, Bush's performance was
better than I'd expected.  He had memorized entire sentences, for the most
part, complete with subjects and verbs.  Of course, that isn't terribly
difficult to do when one's campaign is monothematic: things aren't as bad
as you think they are, and if they are it isn't my fault, but I'll fix it
if you hire me again and fire the guys who are really to blame, the ones
at the other end of Pa. avenue.

Clinton, who is really out of his league, and who wouldn't even bear
consideration if the democrats hadn't totally blown their opportunity this
year, demonstrated a woeful lack of subtlety with regards to the economy
and an immature, disheartening grasp of important foreign issues (that
answer on China!  Jeezus Christ).

So, where does that leave me?  Perot doesn't have the references or the
resume, as far as I'm concerned.  THe next four years--like any given four
year period in American history--are going to be very important (I'm not
as sanguine about eastern Europe as the conservatives who've spent the
last two years patting themselves on the back about the "fall of
Communism"; I'm very concerned about the possible rise of fascism,
although I recognize that the evangelical right is very comfortable with
that part of the political spectrum).  I doubt Perot's ability to forge
consensus or build compromise (that same inability is the reason Bush has
totally failed as president).  I think Perot might make a good secretary
of commerce, though; if he really wants to serve, he ought to be given an
opportunity to do so in a place where his abilities can be monitored.

Bush:  Bush is an utter failure.  His claims that he is responsible for
the sunrise of democracyu in Eastern Europe are totally without merit
(they are as spurious as the claim that he is singlehandedly responsible
for the shape of the economy).  At the end of the Persian Gulf war, Bush's
approval rating was the highest of any president in history.  Had he then
gone to Congress with a real agenda for economic growth and pressed, he
could certainly have gotten what he wanted.  Instead, he shirked his
responsibilities and coasted.  His administration has, since the very
first days, been characterized by bumbling administrative incompetence; it
took him months and months to fill some key jobs; he has consistently
failed to make an effective case to the people on issues he claims are
important to him.  I question his claims of foreign policy expertise, as
well.  The so-called New World Order is as stale a phrase as "Peace in our
time."  Bush practices a policy of prudent appeasement when it pleases him
(as with China) and irresponsible militarism when it's politically
expedient (as with Panama and Iraq).  But it's increasingly clear the
invasion of Kuwait was at least partially caused by inept foreign policy
analysis in the Bush White House.  His leadership on other domestic issues
is equally watery and feeble.  This is a man without a core, whose whole
life has been spent as a bootlicker to the rich superclass, but who can't
even understand what they want of him.

Clinton: Clinton is pretty clearly unfit for the job of president.  His
understanding of foreign policy seems very thin and superficial; this
would be alright, if only he seemed to have some underlying philosophy,
but even his statements about human rights have a tentative and
conditional quality (in fact, all his statements were conditional (this is
what I would do if I were elected; If I'm elected; we could do this if I
were elected--hasn't this guy ever been coached on the importance of
saying will and can when he's interviewing?).  I had hoped Clinton might
demonstrate some intellectual ability on a few questions (for instance,
when asked about the Fed, it might have been nice if Clinton--or one of
the others--has understood why it might be important to keep the fed
relatively insulated from the political process; given the shabbyt state
of American fiscal policy, it's hard to justify politicizing monetary
policy as well).  As I've said before, Clinton has pandered to everyone
who'll listen, both labor and business, rich and poor, majorities and
minorities, pro-choicers and pro-capital punishment forces.  I consider
him a contemptible politician of the worst sort.  It's unfortunate, but he
shares many of Bush's worst traits.  However, he is almost certainly a
better administrator than Bush, and he is pro-choice.

Therefore, reluctantly...

Marty
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU