Does anyone else really hate this election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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)...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yeeee haw pardner

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you're calling me a liar?

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