By Lee H. Hamilton
Presidential candidates and their aides know a lot these days about how to
run a campaign. They just seem to have forgotten what campaigns are for.
They’re immensely sophisticated about targeting and messaging. They know
how to drive the news cycle — or at least, try to — and they know where to focus
their resources. They control the candidate, shape his every public foray to
make him look good, and try their best to make sure he’s not subject to
inconvenient questions or cross examination. When “gaffes” happen, as they are
bound to do, they move quickly to minimize the fallout.
Yet what is good for a presidential campaign is not always good for the
voter, as this year’s contest so far proves. An immense gulf has opened between
what the country needs from the candidates and the disappointing crumbs the
candidates have offered. For the most part, the election thus far has been about
the past — Barack Obama’s failure to put the economy on surer footing, Mitt
Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. It has not focused much on the future, which is
what matters to voters.
And let’s be clear: There’s plenty to talk about. Income, especially for
the middle class, continues to stagnate, while jobs and the national debt are on
every policy maker’s front burner. The middle class is in trouble and looking
for prescriptions that will set its families on a more secure course. We have an
education system that worries many parents and causes economists to fret about
our future competitiveness. Our health-care system remains bewilderingly complex
and, for many Americans, at times dysfunctional. Questions about immigration and
our openness to foreign talent remain unsettled.
Yet it’s hard to know from the campaign thus far what either candidate
plans to do over the next four years on these and other issues. By contrast, I’m
reminded of the year I first ran for Congress, 1964. Lyndon Johnson ran that
year on a very specific platform, so that when he came into office he had a
mandate; the result was the Great Society. Can you tell me right now what
positive mandate Obama or Romney will have come inauguration day next year? I
didn’t think so.
But there’s an even more troubling aspect to this campaign. We live in a
politically divided country, with a Congress that is riven by ideological
disagreements. To make progress on virtually any issue we confront, someone will
have to find a way to overcome those divisions.
As the centrist think tank Third Way has pointed out, to balance the
budget, Democrats will have to accept meaningful reduction in the cost of
entitlements, while Republicans will have to accept some tax increases. To
address K-12 education, Republicans will need to agree to inject more money into
school systems, while Democrats must accept the need for education reform. We
will not resolve our immigration challenges without Democrats recognizing the
need for high-skilled newcomers and Republicans bending on their willingness to
accept higher levels of immigration.
All of these issues have room for each side to accommodate the other. But
it will take political leadership of the highest order to make progress — and a
president who’s willing to exert it.
Yet the candidates consistently underestimate the intelligence and the
knowledge of the ordinary voter. Voters want a forthright,
give-it-to-me-straight campaign that doesn’t sugarcoat hard truths but that also
generates new thinking about how to solve our problems.
Americans are worried about the country’s future and the well-being of
their children and grandchildren. Not surprisingly, they’re looking for a
candidate who will give them honest explanations of complex problems, lay out a
path for us all to tackle them, and demonstrate that he has the fortitude and
political skill to lead the nation at a troubled time.
So far, they haven’t gotten this from either candidate. It is time for
voters to wrest control of the election campaign from the political pros who are
giving us a largely depressing and irrelevant campaign, and insist that the
serious business of our presidential campaigns be conducted in a manner
befitting a great nation.
Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana
University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34
years.
No comments:
Post a Comment