Does anyone else really hate this election?

[cope1989]

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".

Getting kind of personal aren't we?  

little impressed by an Ivy League resume

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'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.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

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.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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.

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.

Dukakis was way up 'round this time bro

[5280/East California]

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.

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?

[ottermax]

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.

[Senator Napoleon]

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.

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.

Dukakis was way up 'round this time bro

That speaks little of his chances in that race though.

[Beet]

Al, are there any American politicians you actually like?

[Progressive Realist]

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.

[CathKhan]

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

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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.

[CathKhan]

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".

Getting kind of personal aren't we?  

little impressed by an Ivy League resume

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.

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". So I agree with you Torie.

[WhyteRain]

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".

Getting kind of personal aren't we?  

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.

little impressed by an Ivy League resume

Do you have an anti-intellectual streak?

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.

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.

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.

[WhyteRain]

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".

Getting kind of personal aren't we?  

little impressed by an Ivy League resume

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'm guessing he does, but a lot of people do as well.

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.

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.

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".)

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'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?

[Gravis Marketing]

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).

[Sibboleth]

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.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

[Gravis Marketing]

Harry Reid has changed his views on filibuster reform.

[Sibboleth]

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.

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)...

[Sibboleth]

How is Obama a failure of a president?

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 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).

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.

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.

yeeee haw pardner

[WhyteRain]

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.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

What does the post mean in practical terms?

[Sibboleth]

He seems to be to be a decent guy that loves his family, however hideous a candidate he is.

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

[Sibboleth]

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.

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

[Torie]

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.

[WhyteRain]

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.

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

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

[WhyteRain]

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.

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. 

[Torie]

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.

Yes, exactly this. Great post.

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.