Talk Elections

A rhetorical question, of course. This is a deeply insipid and uninspiring election. Most people would accept this, I think, and those that think otherwise are the sort of people who are not worth listening to, except for ironic amusement.

Let's take this complaint a little further and wonder why.

Fundamentally, Obama has been a failure as President especially on (oh dear) his own terms. That distinctive agenda of national rebirth through civic liberalism and technocratic reforms is so dead that it isn't even possible to take it even slightly seriously now. He's not been much better in other areas: the various inevitable crises (which have, in fairness, been worse than 'usual') and set-piece political confrontations have essentially exposed him as a vacuous windbag with poor administrative skills and a woeful lack of political nous. Supposedly a 'reformer', Obama's record of 'reform' is hilariously threadbare and all attempts to claim otherwise are products of deluded minds. Unlike most recent Presidents he hasn't been actively harmful, but he's still a joke. A lack of enthusiasm regarding his re-election campaign is therefore inevitable.

Romney is something different. Not so much a pathetic joke as a piece of unpleasant postmodern satire: in every respect (background, policies, hair, pathological lying, the fact that he's an obvious sociopath, etc) he is actually the stock American President from TV thrillers made in all countries that do not fly the Stars and Stripes. Anyone expecting him to achieve anything of non-evil note is deluded and needs to snap out of it, else feel like an absolute numpty (the greatest word given to the world by Scotland) in a few years time. A lack of enthusiasm regarding his election campaign is therefore inevitable.

So far, so predictable. Both candidates suck. Blah, blah, blah. Yet here we (or rather: you. Yet still we, I think... to an extent) are. How on earth is this possible in a country with such strong democratic traditions and such an absolute faith in democracy as a concept?

The answers to that are obvious, of course, but it's still worth posing the question.

I do too

I heard somewhere a few years ago that an election was the first time so much money was spent to woo so few voters... this election seems to take petty issues to a whole level. I've never seen so many headlines about the horse race of campaigning- who raises more, what the strategy is, etc...-- as opposed to actual issues

I believe 2008 was a great election in that it featured to very dynamic candidates- one who offered hope for the future and inspired many, the other a statesman who had given more to America then nearly any one else alive. This election seems to be between two indistinguishable politicians neither of which inspire any one

My view: This is the bad sequel to the good movie we all saw four years ago. Due to the cliffhanger ending of Obama being in office, I sat on the edge of my seat for something like three years waiting for this one to come out, only to find a bad cast of protagonists slowly eliminated for a variety of reasons, and when our deeply flawed "hero" goes to fight last movie's victory, it will be a badly shot fight sequence fought by two actors that are poor at doing fight sequences. Hopefully the introduction of a new sidekick (Romney's VP) will liven things up, but I doubt it.

Al, you're steadily becoming a bad parody of yourself.

Obviously the only thing that makes Obama deserve re-election in any way is that his opponent is many times worse.

Al, are you sure you aren't being blinded by your own biases? I remember reading an old post of yours a few weeks ago during the 2008 election where you remarked that even the most objective political observers are susceptible to the demographic appeal of certain candidates. Both Obama and Romney are the worst possible candidates for your class as far as profile and rhetoric is concerned.

I'm still too invested in Obama's presidency to lack enthusiasm to return him to office this fall. While he's spectacularly failed on so many issues and spent his first two crucial years in office bumbling around, I still see him as our first truly progressive president since LBJ and his policies are worth fighting. Every once and a while in his speeches, I hear reverberations of 2008 and I feel galvanized to fight in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, a miracle is possible during his second term that will lead to a rapid economic recovery and that through this good will he will be able to accomplish an overhaul of our infrastructure or meager tax reform. That's worth it, I think. It's not inspiring but in comparison to the alternative, it sounds like a utopia.

I'd say there were elections with even less inspiring candidates: 1968, 1988 and 2000 are all great examples.

edit: the fact that I agree with everything you said on Obama but still profess allegiance to him says a lot, I think. If you lived here and had a bigger stake in this election, you might be more inclined to support him.

Way too much gloom and doom there, Al, with your quite sweeping - yet devoid of anecdotal examples to attempt to carry some of their weight - statements, but yes I am more in agreement with your hyperbole about Obama than your hyperbole about Romney. :)

Al, I don't dispute a single thing you're saying, and I applaud you for actually bothering to say something for once (and it was well said), but the problem is you don't understand America or Americans.  You just don't understand how bad it is.

Merkin Muffley is the best we can hope for. 

If I could summarize it I would say it's because the people at the top who ultimately control our government will watch the world burn for their greed and the people at the bottom feel too powerless/apathetic/ignorant to advocate for change. What sits in the middle of those two is no surprise.

I agree that this is a terrible terrible election.

Basically, yes.

What I particularly dislike is the argument that since the Congressional lawmaking process's byzantine structure and surplus of veto points make it unreasonable to expect more major change to take place within that process, the right thing to do is to enthusiastically support a party and president that devote all their energy to trying to change things within that same process and basically none to changing it.

This election is pretty much like every other election this country has had since 1988. It is really ni better or worse than any of the elections that have happened since 1988.

I sympathize with the emotions expressed, of course.

Well it is a heck of a lot better than '88 or '04, in that the Democrat still has a slight edge in the odds.

I gotta say, too much doom and gloom here. 2008 was an extreme anomaly in this country and nobody should have expected it to become the new norm: An extremely competitive and landmark primary season, where the Democrats were fighting to nominate the first African American or female candidate, Sarah Palin breaking the glass ceiling for the GOP and being an extreme lightning rod, and ultimately the election of America's first president of color, all set under the backdrop of an epic and dire recession. No hollywood screen writer could have written it better.

2012 is more of a reversion to the norm- two candidates sniping and trying to smear one another, ultimately attempting to win over the 5-10% or so of voters who aren't in the bag already or are simply too disgusted to vote in the first place. And people wonder why almost half of us don't even bother to show up to the polls.

That being said, I am one of those voters already in the bag. Even though the campaign has unsettled me at times, I still have faith in Obama the man and see him as much more capable and deserving of the presidency, so I will do what I can do to help him out in the fall.

I just think most people have accepted the fact that elections are nothing more than high school popularity contests. The only difference is that this contest, for all its flaws, is incredibly important.

Obama and Romney:  This is what we get when the cultural elite, the self-assured "Masters of the Universe", are equal parts arrogant and ignorant.

I wish for the day when Americans will be little impressed by an Ivy League resume or law school-trained oratory, but most of the commenters here leave me little hope that will change before it's "too late".

Tribalism -- called by its proponents "Identity Politics".  It forces us to ask -- first and foremost -- "Does the candidate have enough melanin or enough X chromosomes or enough hair or too much fat around the ankles?"

Btw, Obama doesn't have a drop of African-American blood in his body.  Like everything else about him, even his "ethnicity" is pure construction.

Last time I checked, Romney is not an 'obvious sociopath', so unless you A.Have a degree in psychology and B.Have personally evaluated the man, you should refrain from such ugly remarks. He seems to be to be a decent guy that loves his family, however hideous a candidate he is. His public persona has nothing to do with his actual personality, of which we know nothing of.

The fact that his public persona doesn't really connect to something that could be an actual personality in any obvious way is itself, I think, somewhat worrying.

But we don't know anything about his personality behind the curtain, his family described him as a fun, loving person, and while they of course have reasons to say this, I have no reason to call them liars when they know him and I don't. I wouldn't have even had a problem with the post if it wasn't for the "obvious" part.

I find this election boring, bland, and can't wait for it to end.  There isn't much excitement to go crazy about.  It's like any other election post 1988.

How is Obama a failure of a president?  He got PPACA passed, and it wasn't overturned, thus fulfilling a 100-year dream of liberals, guaranteeing universal coverage (except to lazy freeloaders and hyperpartisans who just want to spite him).

For that alone, succeeding where all before him failed, Obama is a resounding success.  Killing bin Laden and overthrowing a dictator in Libya without losing a single American life (contrast with GWB's quagmires) are just icing on the cake.

Even if Obama loses in November, he'll go down as one of the ten best presidents.

I'm not really sure it is wise to make comparsions to the Obama of the 2008 election coverage and Obama now, the 2008 version never struck me as anything other than a particularly unconvincing persona. Trying to be the embodiment of various, rather incoherent notions of 'national redemption' he did not - and could not - ever come across as particularly political (except to those like most on the right for whom the notion of national redemption is anathema, except perhaps in the military sense, "Vietnam war syndrome" and all that). Unfortunately for Obama the particular business of holding power is not like that at all.

But other than that, I'm actually somewhat indifferent to this election which as you said really seems to be more a casting contest for who will get to play the president of the United States in a strange subtitled film rather than a election for that said position. However, at least the Republican primaries were high in entertainment value.

Getting kind of personal aren't we?  :P


Do you have an anti-intellectual streak?  Just asking. I am darn proud of my degree my from the University of Chicago. I consider it the one of my great accomplishments in life. It was not easy. In fact, it was the most difficult thing I have ever done intellectually. The first year was hell - just hell. Granted, it is not "Ivy League," but whatever.

I don't hate it, but I'm already paying more attention to the 2016 race than the 2012 one.

I'm guessing he does, but a lot of people do as well. Unfortunately, most of us don't have the intelligence, education or resources to attend an ivy league institution. This places the ivy leaguers themselves into an elite class of people that elicits jealousy and mistrust against them in many cases, which is stupid as hell. We should be lauding (the majority) of ivy league graduates as the best and the brightest, hard working and accomplished in their respective fields. Instead many have decided that they live in a fantasy world and we shouldn't pay any mind to them, since they apparently don't understand the rest of us. We forget that they have dedicated huge amounts of time and energy to studying very complex issues, and that knowledge is indispensable in our government. But of course that goes in one ear and out the other for a lot of us.

I have been saying for months that Obama is out of his depth as far as handling the economy goes.

Now, I will admit that Romney is not perfect, he is far from it.  And he is certainly not the most effective Presidential candidate to come along.  However, I do believe he will be a more effective steward of the economy than Obama has been.

What is really annoying about this election is the way the Democrats and Obama are running away from the economy issue and throwing up smoke screens about taxes, Bain, and Ann Romney's horses, anything, ANYTHING, to get away from discussing the economy and Obama's woeful leadership on the economic front.

Dukakis was way up 'round this time bro

Clearly talking about Ann Romney's horses and their personal life is more important than the economy right now and national unemployment over 8%.  Who would of think of that idea?

My question is why is this election so dull, policy-poor, and exhausting?

I have a few hypotheses, but I'm full of my own biases.

Could part of it be that the President, really can't do much to change the economy? In general the government can change the economy, but the American system has never seen such deadlock before. I haven't been around long, but my understanding of the past century was that Congress also did their best to compromise and change policy to improve the economy.
Also, in a more globalized world, in which the US holds less and less share of the global economy, can the President do much? How can the next President change the situation in Europe, stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to China (without raising consumer goods prices in America), and control oil prices determined by OPEC? In the past we have made heavy investments to boost foreign economies, used military threats, and sponsored industrialization. But things are different; we no longer can afford global military fights, nor massive spending measures/bailouts, nor can we repeat the old economic policies of the past.

What has truly surprised me about this election is the utter lack of ideas and ingenuity. Where is Obama or Romney's economic plan? How will they change jobs? I'm sure they have those plans somewhere, but I don't think I saw a single news story this week mentioning any ideas, only rhetoric of one man against another. I've seen Youtube videos of advertisements lamenting on the harm Obama has done to the economy or Romney's foreign bank accounts, but not a single discussion about specific policy agendas. Even when discussing policy in negative ads, there is such poor judgment and analysis.

That speaks little of his chances in that race though.

Al, are there any American politicians you actually like?

This election=the consequences of steadily eroding civic participation, a national ideology that puts individual and tribal self-interest over the common good, a public square that is not really a public square but a place for powerful private interests to advertise, and an electorate that has so much information and yet is so horribly misinformed (can't blame 'em, though, with the majority of the media in this nation being dictated by about five Fortune 500 corporations).

In other words, I sympathize greatly with Al's OP.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. You can't call 1968 uninspiring. Two of the greatest candidates ever nominated by the Republicans and American Independents, respectively, were seen in this election. On one hand, you have Nixon's triumphant return to the arena, ready to take back what was rightfully his to begin with. On the other hand, you have George Wallace, one of the greatest defenders of liberty from that time period.

Very excited for this election about guys who won't actually win. As for the main two, it sorta speaks for itself when the major differences lie in wealth, experience, and worst gaffes, not policy.

Hating on success never got anyone anywhere. For the most part, in America, anyway. Hating on someone for being able to get a degree from one of those institutions in no way somehow gives your side "merit". :P So I agree with you Torie.

I'm not sure what you meant when you highlighted "or law school-trained oratory" and then made that comment.  I'm a law school grad -- and attended a top ten percent law school.  I also clerked for the Chief Justice of my state's Supreme Court.


Your question reminds me of something that happened in undergraduate school, in a class called "European Intellectual History".  The professor was a great one (so, naturally, he didn't get tenure), but one day in class -- a class of about 35 students -- he said "Americans are anti-intellectual".  I quickly shot back, "That's because intellectuals are anti-American".  He stopped, stunned, then after standing there thinking about it for a minute, admitted I was right.


Do you mean the first year of law school?  Yes, that was hell -- like boot camp for the brain, I called it.  

I don't blame you for being proud of your sheepskins.  I'm proud of mine.  Btw, my twin sister's son graduated from Harvard Law last year, and so, no, it's not a "anti-Ivy League thing" per se.

I don't confuse the terms "intellectual" and "intelligent".   Anyone can call himself "an intellectual" -- and most of those who do aren't every bright.  By almost any objective measure I'm an intellectual. People who glory in being "intellectuals" -- what they really are is "credentialed".  

How does "credentialed" differ from real "intelligence"?  A really intelligent person is humble -- not about his intelligence, but about the practical uses of his intelligence, because the more intelligent one really is, the more one realizes how little one knows.


As I mentioned in my immediately prior comment, my nephew just graduated from Harvard Law School (after graduating number one in his class as an undergraduate at a major university).  But here's the thing:  I know my nephew.  I've known him since he was born.  And this year when we are all together at Thanksgiving, if you asked me to name the five smartest people in the room (I should mention I have a very large family), I don't know if he'd make the cut.  Why not?  Because he has a terrible record of predicting the future.  From what I have seen, the truest test of real intelligence is found in one's ability to predict future events.  (I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but accurately predicting the future is "seeing the fourth dimension (time) not as points on a line, but as a line".)


I'm sure that the people commonly called "intellectuals" have worked hard and are smart, as conventionally measured.  But let me ask you something that I've not asked anyone before:  Do you think the top 100 "smartest" people in America have, combined, more knowledge than the rest of the 314,000,000?  How about the top 1,000 "smartest"?  If we put them all together -- 1,000 now -- in a government, do they have more knowledge then the rest of Americans combined?

Obama has been a mostly good president with good instincts who is quick on his feet. He made some transformative promises in 2008 that were unfulfillable in our current political system with the filibuster--and has already paid a steep political price for that failure. I'm disappointed in his u-turn on civil liberties and war, but at least he is ending our full scale wars.

Romney is an intelligent, amoral technocrat which makes him unusual for a Republican candidate and probably as dangerous to what Democrats value about America as a dim (or intelligent) true believer would have been.

I'm excited about this election as long as Obama appears to be winning. Otherwise, I don't want to talk about it.

I have no patience for people who act as if they are judging candidates on competence when they are entirely motivated by policy differences. (this is not a criticism of Al, who is doing something different).

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

Harry Reid has changed his views on filibuster reform.

Everyone is blinded (to some extent) by their own biases. It's why bias isn't a particularly brilliant concept. I implicitly acknowledged this by making the post (which is about a very serious issue) a structured rant rather than something more formal. The lack of enthusiasm is interesting (even the comparatively enthusiastic people here are less enthusiastic than the most jaded were in 2008, and perhaps even in 2004) and needs to be pointed out as such, but it would be silly to pretend that a choice between milk and water liberals and reactionary lunatics is one that I'd ever relish...

...but, still, where is there no palpable sense that the election matters? That's a remarkable thing in a contest that isn't a done deal; hey, if it's going to be a landslide a lack of interest is entirely understandable. But the outcome of this election is uncertain and yet the only people who properly care on here are the partisan footsoldiers (no offence intended to any such people, of course)...

He's certainly a failure on his own terms. How's that national rebirth agenda coming along? Making institutions work? Unity through civic liberal dogoodery? Because that was basically his platform.


He managed to pass a piece of social policy that was (in almost all important respects) less ambitious (and certainly less well thought through) than the sort of legislation that was passed by the Liberal government here a century earlier. He went down this road because he thought it would limit the political damage of doing something controversial, but suffered a huge knock regardless. I suppose that makes him a 'success' when compared to Bill Clinton, but then that's not actually very hard.


yeeee haw pardner

What does the post mean in practical terms?

Do you have any interest in buying the Menai Suspension Bridge?

The fish I caught the other day was twenty foot long.

No WhyteRain, the toughest year for me was my first year of undergraduate college. Law school was a piece of cake for me in general. My brain I guess is just suited to that sort of mental work or something. Business school I found ridiculously easy. There I got straight A's without breaking a sweat. In part that was because the intellectual caliber of the students was considerably lower in general, so there was less competition.

So you're calling me a liar?  OK, that's ... deep thinking for you.

OK, interesting.  I never went to business school so I don't know about it.  Mrs. Rain did, and finished 8th out of 500-something. 

I agree as well. We need a parliamentary system like the UK, where there is one party in power typically, who is held accountable for their actions, because they do have the power to change things. Our system is indeed a byzantine mess for historical reasons - with the filibuster just exacerbating it all. What happens is that there is no clear accountability all too often, as everyone can point fingers at everyone else over the process, while nothing gets done about pressing problems that need addressing, until matters get into an in extremis state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/)

From what I've read about the 2000 campaign, it wasn't really that exciting, despite the outcome being very much in doubt. Of course the same thing can't be said of the actual results and their aftermath.

What will stop the Republicans from filibustering that?

Ezra Klein is the ringleader of JournoList.  Why don't you cite some MSM 1%er with more credibility -- like Brian Ross?

As to the substance, this just shows how desperate is Harry Reid.  He never wanted to "reform" the filibuster.  He just helped kill reform of it a couple of years ago.  He's just claiming now that he wants to as part of his begging the voters to keep him as Senate Majority leader:  "It's never happened before -- in fact the current filibuster rules were written almost entirely by us Democrats** -- but really, this time, honest-Injun, Democrats are gonna reform!" 

There are probably a few sub-100 IQs who will believe him.

** See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

The "reforms" Reid wants will accomplish exactly nothing vis a vis the filibuster. In the end, there will be one filibuster vote on every substantive bill. It is just pre substantive procedural filibusters that he wants to kill off. I have a post about it somewhere.

Best he can do is force the minority to filibuster the old-fashioned way I think.


I think only thing he'd have power to do is a procedural change.  Probably limited in what it'd translate to but Great Pumpkin is wrong to portray Democrats as uninterested in changing senate procedure.  But doing so could also backfire and allow more rapid change to the right like allowing RyanCare to pass if Romney wins and the GOP takes the Senate.

But I thought procedural changes still had to go to a floor vote.  And even if the procedural vote cannot be used, I could see a Republican in safe state reading War and Peace like a classical filibuster to prevent a change this big.

Worst election I've been around for. Second worst was 2008. Ugh. What a crappy election that was.

It requires no depth from anyone to see through that story... Again, better trolls please.

If true, it would explain why the professor didn't get tenure, since the anecdote demonstrates a ridiculously facile and timid understanding of the universe all around.

I've noted that the people most likely to have those "Question Authority" stickers on their bumpers are also the least likely to do it.

They're the kids who sat up in front of the classes and when the professor entered, straightened themselves in their chairs and smiled:

"We're all in our places with bright shining faces!"
"Tell us what we need for the test and we'll forget about the rest!"

To put it mildly, I wasn't among their number.

The same little turds are the ones most likely to disbelieve that anyone else ever did whatever they were too afraid to dare.

I imagine Whyterain's fellow students all hated him afterwards for sucking up a minute of lecture time.

This whole back-and-forth raises more questions. He's on the same educational level as most politicians, and is very rhetorical (though the IQ disses should take a rest). And I don't get what he means by "Law school-trained rhetoric" if he's gone through the same ordeal as well.

His arrogance is obvious, and beyond his spiel about intelligence a page back passes judgement like no tomorrow. Does Whyterain think he's better just because his arrogance is explicit and not implicit?

Boring old right-wing attack memes are boring and old.

No doubt though had those 'little turds' really questioned authority they would have ended up with the exact same opinions as one WhyteRain, arbiter of intellectual discourse everywhere. His wisdom is truly sensational.

The Republican primaries (specifically the debates) had to be one of the most entertaining comedy shows in television history. Unfortunately, the general election has not lived up to this, being essentially a remake of 2004 with the names of the characters and parties changed.

Academic authority at the university level often concerns itself with questioning other types of authority, bro. It's kind of what it's known for in the current civilization.

Perhaps, though I think fabulist is a more fitting word in this context.

It's hilarious to see a Republican feign outrage over "elitism."

Feel better for saying that?


But then you ask as single one.  Interesting.  Well, I suppose I will then.



And what educational level would you put yourself on?


Why are you confused?  I don't like flowery rhetoric that's used to mislead ordinary people.  



What does this mean?  


Do people who speak humbly but behave arrogantly think they are better than people who do the opposite?

Where have I tried to be an "arbiter of intellectual discourse" for anyone but myself?  (Perhaps sometimes an "arbiter of facts" but as they say, everyone's entitled to his own opinion but no one's entitled to his own facts.)

Really -- what kinds of questioning is it that academic authority is supposed to do?  (Not being an academician, I really don't know.  Hate to sound arrogant about it.)  And shouldn't outsiders be able to question academic authority?

This is a good example of the lack of attentiveness and reasoning abilities that do tend to irritate me.  I can have no good response to this.

Barack Obama is a mediocre President blessed with the luxury of a completely inept, unsaleable opponent; this is a formula for ugly, disengaging politics. This election long ago devolved into a TMZ caliber media war and it's better for my mental well being to only follow passively.