The Debate

It was a strong debate. At least relative to the mindless election we have been subjected to this season.

The irony, for me, is, contrary to the babbling of pundits, the Democrat is the stronger foreign policy choice, this season - save for his talk about withdrawal from Iraq - and the Republican is the, by far, better economic candidate, this election.

McCain had a much stronger handle on economic issues than I expected and understands the fundamentals of the economy better than Obama, who is, otherwise, I believe, the smarter candidate. Obama's understanding of foreign policy issues - including his much stronger understanding of the situation between Russia and Georgia - and the value of diplomacy, generally, as a sign of strength rather than weakness - were highlighted tonight.

I think the foreign policy challenges we face are a higher priority than our economic challenges, where, as McCain rightly argued, our fundamentals are, indeed, strong. Consequently, I, very marginally, give Obama an edge for my vote, at this point. Though his promises to withdraw troops seriously concern me and could lose him my vote if I continue to hear such threats and I have reason to think he will carry them out, neither of which I take seriously today.

But this debate did exacly what it needed to do, tonight. It highlighted strengths. It challenged candidates to defend positions. And, most importantly, for me, given the arrogance and lack of substance of this election, this debate highlighted weaknesses for each candidate to face both during the election and while in whichever office each candidate wins (one of these men will, presumably, still be a Senator after they have lost the Presidential race, unless I am completely out of the electoral loop, which is very likely).

These candidates need to face a much more fundamental fact of this election: they do not know enough about the world to lead it, yet. And the only way that they will know more is if they must engage in substantive debate and discussion that is not distracted by the mindless drivel that passes for Presidential campaigns in America.

We can correct for that. We can expect more.

And, tonight, these two candidates did a better job of delivering more substance. They should be acknowledged for that. And they have a long way to go before they are ready to lead America. And Americans should make that clear by talking about the substance of this campaign, and by ignoring and being openly critical of the senseless and generally baseless personal attacks.

America and the world should expect an American leader who does not insult our intelligence, who expects as much out of us as we expect out of him or her, and who is willing and able to debate and discuss honestly and substantively with those who can identify his weaknesses as well as support his strengths.

Candidates who expect anything else are not worthy of the office. And we should no longer accept anything less than leaders who expect the best from themselves and from the American people.

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

It is a spirit that America has lost in the early 21st century in our contemporary politics. And the loss of that spirit is reflected in the bulk of our most serious challenges.

And it will take leadership that asks Americans to expect more of themselves and their leaders that will get us back on track.

May the best man win.

The American way

Preach on, Brother Ross. Preach on.

An Election About Nothing

This is why politics and people involved in it are so endlessly stupid. Why, again, are we looking to such morons to tell us which directions to take with our lives and with the country? Why should I trust such idiots to know how to handle the most serious problems America and the world has to face? I shouldn't, is the obvious answer to that really pretty self-evident question.

And if the goal is to convince me that the folks in Washington - politicians, activists, the press - are unworthy of that trust, this election is quite the validation of that notion.

The more you talk about nothing, the more people realize you really have nothing to say or offer. And, over time, the less they trust you and the more they seek out their own answers.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how progress takes place in a democracy.

Despite us

The more life I live, the more I begin to wonder, "Is it possible, sometimes, that maybe people just won't make the really important changes in their thinking and their lives that will move us forward?"

It's not that we can't. It's that people resist every effort that challenges them to think different and bigger than their current thinking and circumstances.

And, obviously, at some level, that is because some people have to think of more serious and honest ways out of problems before other people can, slowly, get things figured out, better.

But I am beginning to believe that, perhaps, old people, in particular, are doomed to stick to whatever foolish, stubborn habits of thought they have picked up, over the years, and then pretend like those habits of thought are the only ones that younger people could possibly imagine adopting themselves.

The arrogance of older folks of all stripes is often matched by the stupidity and arrogance of younger people.

But the big question is that with so many stupid, arrogant, and fallible folks, what business do any of us have thinking that if we just exert our will over one another then and only then will the world be right?

It's goddamned foolish, is what it is. And the fact is that I have far fewer younger people, in my life, trying to "take charge" with me, in such ways, as I do older people. And those who do often look very, very foolish to me. Which makes me all the more wary of why I am being asked to follow their leads.

The two Presidential candidates, Congress, and most of the political class in Washington could not be a better illustration, right now, of such arrogance as it becomes increasingly clear that they are tilting in the winds hoping that they have better answers which they impose with certitude that they just cannot have honest warrant to assert other than because they said so.

And most Americans who follow this lead do so because they don't know any better.

It would be funny if it weren't so foolish.

We definitely can have more honest reasoning at the core of our politics and our lives. But we often choose, stubbornly, to ignore such reason because doing so, honestly, means admitting so many things that only such honesty would allow as to acknowledge that we just could not possibly know. But that kind of humility would involve a challenge to our egos that most of us just don't think we can handle. Because it might mean admitting shortcomings that we just cannot bring ourselves to admit that we might have. And round and round and round that bit of infuriating circular logic.

We definitely can wind our way out of this circular nonsense. The question is will we. And if we won't, what consequences will this world have to continue to deal with until we can face up to our stupidity.

Much nonsense, if history is any guide.

Most of history's most serious tragedies are bound up in such stubborn stupidity. Perhaps it is stupidity that we will refuse to escape.

In which case, maybe our children will make progress despite us rather than because of us.

Maybe this is how progress has always worked.