I see only two issues the parties are fighting now, both very susecptible to last-minute news nobody can control.
Here’s the pitfall on those:
economy. We saw last week how when 1 indicator for 1 month is pro-GOP, all opinion shifts, ignoring the prior 3 years and all the other indicators.
Thus either party could gain in November if Opec does something or Greenspan does something, or the Euro does something. Not something I’d want to base a campaign on.
Iraq. Same deal. One hot headed cleric and all the polls tilt the other way. Why pin a campaign to that risk?
What happened to real issues?
Like foreign trade (like Nafta, or protectionism in China)
Foreign policy (expansion of Nato, and our continued funding when Russia is not a threat)
Health care reform. The Clintons got mileage out of that.
Eco-green. Gore got a lot of mileage on that one.
Eco-brown. Reagan got lots of mileage out of deriding environmental protection.
What other issues should be on the table, in the platforms, in the ads and stump speeches?
Medicare
drug price controls
the deficit
getting HUD back into the business of providing affordable housing and slum clearance
repairing relationships with the UN, our allies, and muslim nations outside the middle east
sponsoring a Voice of America type network to get our side of the news out to dictatorial societies, so they don’t hate us because their leaders do
The Bush Administration itself is an issue; what they’ve done so far (the Iraq War, the reduction of civil liberties, the insistance on overruling the states on medical marijuana, the advancement of the religious right’s agenda, etc.) and what they’re likely to do if given a 2nd term (a draft? more wars? what else? I shudder to think. and who will they appoint to the Supreme Court?).
One thing I’d like to see Kerry talk more about are the issues John Edwards raised about all the tax breaks going to the rich and being paid for by the middle class.
Will always be an issue since neither the press nor the pols are honest enough to admit that presidents don’t have all that much of a short-term effect.
Because there’s no choice. Most people think we are in a war, and many of them (rightly or wrongly) see Iraq as a preventive action designed to head off a much larger future war against Radical Islam. In light of that reality, whether or not we continue to fund the dead letter that is NATO is meaningless, and the umpteen-thousandth “new” health care proposal is both small potatoes and old news.
I’d agree that Kerry is far better off if he can keep the discussion on the kinds of things you list; running against a sitting president in time of war is very difficult. But neither would it help him to start saying that Iraq isn’t a “real issue.”
An issue that get very little mention, but a very important one, and certainly an issue upon which the President actually has some effect: Supreme Court nominations.
Whomever is elected in 2004 will likely appoint a new Chief Justice, and one, maybe, two Associate Justices.
One reason [out of many] I am voting for John Kerry, is my assumption that Kerry will appoint moderates like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg/Stephen Breyer [or even David Souter], and not judges like that arrogant Antonin Scalia.
Keep in mind, everyone said the same thing would happen before the 2000 election, and the two people everyone said would leave, Rhenquist and O’Connor, are still there, despite having a Republican president in power. Those SCOTUS judges are an unpredictable bunch!
Terrorism
Iraq
The economy, degree of suckiness of
International goodwill, lack of
Millions of jobs lost
Environmental screwups
Growing health insurance crisis
The deficit
The “No child left behind” fiasco
What George W. Bush wants the election to be about:
I’d like the election to be about competence. And I’d like to see that demonstrated in the following way:
A fully-televised simulated series of situation-room scenarios. Each candidate gets their own team of 5 individuals. They are given the situation (using generic made-up countries and figures), and need to respond. The scenarios would range from economic (the DOW just crashed, interest rates are X%, OPEC made the following statement, etc.), political (the House just passed the following measure…) to a military situation (Oceania invaded Eurasia, Oceania is a member of NATO, Eurasia is a member of OPEC, etc.).
We get to see what they do, how they react, how much they rely on their subordinates, how much prior knowledge they have, etc.
Munch, wow, that has to be the best idea that will never happen. I would absolutely love to see something like that. Of course there is absolutely zero chance of it…
I’m going to have to disagree with Munch and flight on this one. Not that it wouldn’t be entertaining; I just don’t want to see our presidential elections turned into a reality game show.
Now, asking them in a debate, “What would you do if…” is perfectly legitimate and could accomplish the same end.
As for issues, I really want to see both candidates address the long-term economic situation: America’s days as a manufacturing nation are numbered, and now even service jobs are being sent overseas. Given this trend, where do the candidates see all of us getting jobs from? Do they think anything should be done to prevent jobs from being sent overseas? Of course, you’ll never get candidates to talk honestly about things that could happen well after they’re out of office, and you’ll certainly never get them to admit that we won’t be making stuff in factories much longer. But I do think that’s the most compelling issue facing America today.
Others: Health care (esp. as it relates to all the Baby Boomers retiring), terrorism (including preserving civil liberties), Iraq
I think an important issue in this election is the method by which the person would formulate public policy. The method ought to be that you look at the data/evidence (be it scientific data, intelligence data, economic data, or whatever) and then you consider that data, along with your own ideological views (since policy-making can never be completely objective), to formulate policy. And, then you explain that policy to the people.
In this Administration, the method is more like this: You decide what you want to do on the basis of your ideology, with input from your buddies (e.g., in the energy industry or whatnot). You cherry-pick the data that supports this policy (or even distort or make up data to support the policy). You deceptively use that data and lots of rhetorical tricks to sell the policy to the people.
We see this again and again in this Administration from the war in Iraq, to the distortion and misuse of science, to the energy policy, and “Healthy forests initiative”…
Yeah, it may be impractical, or at the very least unlikely. But if Lincoln and Douglass could revolutionize the debate format, why can’t Bush and Kerry?
Certainly, technology has advanced to the point where a better form of debate could evolve. There has to be a way for us to gain some sort of insight into a candidate’s abilities and tendencies when under executive pressure <insert Clinton joke here>.
I agree with all above who cited the Supreme Court issue. That, for me, is perhaps THE main issue we face in the coming election, above all others. Presidents come and go fairly frequently. Justices can be around for decades, and they wield such influence it difficult to understate the long-term importance of the outcome of this race. One simple example: Abortion. Be you pro-choice or -life, 2004 is a make-or-break year for Roe vs. Wade. Gay marriage is another pretty easy bogey to spot on the radar. The SJC is totally split. It’s hard to predict how two moderates would alter the judicial landscape, but it doesn’t take much imagination to anticipate the affect two more Scalias will have. Nor does it stretch the mind terribly to imagine a couple more Stevenses. Truly, this will be a watershed election, in that respect alone.
In my view the main issue should be whether or not we need someone competent to conduct US foreign and domestic national affairs.
On the record so far with foreign affairs, GW has done little but get our tit in a wringer and make formerly good friends into extremely distant ones. Domestically he seems intent on letting businesses large a small destroy the environment of the future for immediate profit today.
I’ll settle for a debate where the candidates don’t get to see the questions in advance, and the debate panelists are given free rein to ask anything they deem appropriate. Just watching Bush’s ensuing flop-sweat would be worth it.
How about large buckets of cold water suspended over their heads and if > 50% of the listening audience thinks the candidate didn’t answer the question, the bucket gets dumped on him.
But I’d take bets on which of these two would do more flip-flopping, and it probably wouldn’t be Bush!
