It’s been a dopey campaign. But they usually are. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt ran on balancing the budget and cutting government spending. In 1940, it was preserving U.S. neutrality in the European war. In 1960, on the cusp of a decade of fundamental change in race relations and the size and scope of the government, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon spent a lot of time debating a nonexistent missile gap and Quemoy and Matsu. In 2000, the issue of Islamic terrorism was barely mentioned by George W. Bush or Al Gore.
This isn’t a criticism of America or of its democracy. Other countries are no better. And it’s not as if our elites are any more far-seeing than our politicians. Election campaigns–like intellectual debates–tend to be past- and present-oriented. But sometimes the past and present are of limited use as guides to the future.
This is surely one of those times. We haven’t even begun to understand the implications and consequences of the financial crisis that has burst upon us. We still haven’t come to grips with the realities of the post 9/11 world of terror, jihadism, nuclear proliferation, and an axis of dictatorships determined to resist and roll back the advances of freedom and democracy. And we have put off thinking seriously about various Brave New World-type issues that loom before us in the 21st century.
One does sense today that, as Lincoln memorably put it, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.”
Neither of the two men who have been nominated by their parties for president is perfect for this challenging moment. But one is far less imperfect than the other.
One is an orthodox and timid liberal, personally ambitious but intellectually conventional. For all his talk of hope and change, when has Barack Obama ever shown a willingness to break with liberal orthodoxy or Democratic dogma? What bold decision has he taken, what unpopular idea has he embraced? The odd truth about Obama is that, for all his unsavory radical associations–and they are unsavory and a legitimate issue in the campaign–he’s not radical enough for the times and challenges we face.
The other candidate, John McCain, has been all over the map in terms of domestic policies, and has shown a management style during the campaign that makes one worry about the coherence and purposefulness of his administration. But he’s shown strong character in his life, and he’s done serious things. His general views are centrist, but he’s willing to be bold when necessary. He won’t be passive as president, and he’ll think anew and act anew as he adjusts to the challenges we face, in the spirit of doing what’s necessary to preserve and strengthen the underlying principles of American life.
Katie Couric asked each candidate recently what his favorite movie was. Obama gave an utterly conventional answer: “Oh, I think it would have to be The Godfather. One and two. Three not so much. Umm. So-so, but, but that–that saga–I love that movie.”
Couric asked him to explain a bit.
Couric: I asked for one.
Obama: I’m a movie guy. I can rattle off a bunch of movies. But that Casablanca, you know.
That’s Obama. He’s glib, conventional, won’t make a real choice, shows nothing about himself, and says nothing offputting and says nothing impressive.
McCain’s answer was in no way conventional:
Which one of these two men do you want to be president in a time of crisis and difficulty? Viva McCain!
–William Kristol
