That one

It has been proved before in this campaign that at some point, where the other side becomes rather desperate, vulnerable  or insecure, the elements of a ‘negative’ campaign have to rise up from under the carpet. To careful observes this is a sad news, for it is the insults and unpleasant language taking the stage, and merits fading away. However, those ascendancies and downfalls in terms of a debate level are inherent in politics, saddening, but always present.

This was also the pre-debate atmosphere last week before another showdown between presidential candidates in Nashville, Tennessee. Both camps exchanged rather ‘unfair’ in terms of courtesy remarks about respective candidates.  Polls indicated increasing, but still not decisive lead of Senator Barack Obama over John McCain, therefore both participants had relative benefits that could be gained from the debate. What thrilled many commentators was McCain’s well-known ability to debate in a town hall fashion, not to mention his insistence and encouragement posed on Obama to participate in such a debate earlier – unfortunately that did not meet Obama’s consent.

The debate especially due to its setting and configuration was in my view the most interesting of ALL to date. Questions posed to the candidates focused on new issues and helped a great deal to draw a more visible line separating both parties and their strategies. The issues under discussion were the same as previously, with heavy emphasis on the economy, which no doubt will play a decisive role until November 4th. Polls show that Americans in general are cautious in their assessments of governmental conduct towards resolving the crisis – and somewhat fear what the future would bring. What post-debate polls also indicate is that Obama in terms of economy won by a two-digit margin over McCain. Indeed, his insight in a situation of Americans throughout the United States was quite impressive. His strategy again, was linking McCain with the Bush administration, and profoundly contrasting it against his vision of America. Obama throughout two debates is extremely consistent on elaborating on his wide range of propositions and neglecting McCain’s remarks regarding his alleged incompetence, or what the Arizona senator recently referred to as ‘risk’. Silence these comments met, which to rock-solid democratic electorate could be deeply disturbing, disappointed his voters in the previous debate – this time, however standard Mccainian – ‘He doesn’t know’ was answered very craftily in a prudent, tame tone.

Senator McCain had a lot at stake in this debate. Polls were consistently in favor of his adversary, it is only the extent to which the lead is estimated , which makes his situation better or worse respectively. His famous capability to impress the crowd during the town hall debates ignited even further the expectations that were addressed to his performance. Indeed, the first few questions posed, he answered in a great fashion, his body language being more firm, straightforward, having a close verbal and physical contact with the audience. Obama did not obviously have his level of experience, which he demonstrated while answering first questions in the middle of the stage and gradually adjusting manner of responding to the audience afterwards. McCain however had to win this debate, to gain more points in the polls, and despite his strong overall image there have been visible signs of either condescension or a bit of uneasiness. It was easy to notice, he would never address Obama directly, focusing either on the audience or Tom Brokaw, never looking him in the eyes. It is hard to distinguish whether it was his desperation or a sense of superiority over his younger adversary when he addressed him using ‘that one’ – which to some observers was clearly impolite and should not have been used in the debate on the national level. In parallel to this – those words raised a rage of discussion in the media, and reached even Michelle Obama in her interview with Larry King – turning a long story to short – undoubtedly did not help him score the points that would make a difference his strategists sought.

If there would be a one thing to say about that debate that brought something new to the political knowledge of the electorate, it is foreign policy. The candidates, thanks to the audience had a chance to elaborate on their future foreign policy doctrines as presidents as well as approaches towards most challenging aspects of America’s current leadership in the world. John McCain referred to Theodore Roosevelt, while describing his view on America’s role and attitude towards the world. ‘Talking softly and carrying a big stick’ is a well known doctrine in terms of American foreign policy tradition. Question here is whether the history and Roosevelt’s views on America will be intertwined with McCain’s and whether they will play an essential part in his foreign policy. The big stick policy derived directly from the Roosevelt Corollary allowed the states as an actor in the international system to act solely in defense of its national interest, furthermore to intervene in domestic affairs [military invasion included] of other nations if proved incapable of maintaining their economic and political stability. Moreover, McCain’s comments (expressed in the debate) are not always soft – ‘seeing KGB in the eyes’ of Russia’s prime minister Vladimir Putin supports this point – for the same sort of imprudent comments were exchanged over the Atlantic during the Cold War – a war, which  Senator McCain does not wish to see revive. That approach may also mean further alienation of the United Nations, (for only the Security Council provides consent for the military intervention) therefore further reducing its importance in global relations, which was one of the calamities of the Bush administration.

Obama on the other hand spoke in a tone specifically clintonian or that of Woodrow Wilson – appealing to American values and to moral responsibility of the United States to  ensure and maintain peace in the world. McCain focused on that as well, though what was different between the two, was the concept of practical approach. Obama while discussing America’s position towards Russia and situation in Afghanistan pointed out the importance of including regional U.S. allies to pursue goals fulfilling both national interests –[‘Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians’ and the European Union] and American values – thereby being inclined to rather collective response to challenges facing the United States. Both candidates however made it clear, that they will act unilaterally, if necessary with force in case of major crisis related to  principal national interests (Israel’s position being one of them).
Who won? Again, it is very difficult to distinguish – however it is safe to admit – if this debate was to be McCain’s breakthrough– it certainly was not. Both candidates maintained their statue from previous debates, with campaign rapidly reaching its end, if that trend persists – factors other than debate performance – including negative campaign and mutual insults will play a larger role – sweeping away the most important – the merits .

“doesn’t seem to understand” vs. “you were wrong”

September 26th was a date of the first presidential debate in this campaign. As for every ‘first’ aspect of reality, debate was expected to be one of the most important of all. The expectations at this level however, were not solely a result of a position of this debate within the schedule – what was more important were the issues – monumental both for the American citizens and their economy, America’s standing within the global architecture and international community as a whole. It is obvious that issues at hand – again, economic crisis, foreign policy and national security would attract a great audience domestically and internationally. As a matter of principle, discussion present in the debate was to ascend from campaign-level into an argument-based polemic face to face.

This debate did not seem to meet expectations of its (at least) international audience. It is well known that presidential debates’ sole purpose is to convince voters to vote for given candidates, not introduce new ideas. However, international analysts after viewing this debate may feel slightly uncomfortable. Issues that were discussed were clearly those with immense resonance in American public, others no matter how important to America’s global standing were not elaborated upon – for instance : question of China and relations with NATO and European Union – which are critical [as many analysts highlight] to maintain America’s position in global affairs.

The debate was without a doubt, a repetition of campaign slogans, even within the economic crisis section, which was expected by many to bring some fresh points from both candidates. McCain insisted on ‘cut spending’ strategy, while Obama repeated his ‘help the middle class’. None of the candidates wished to elaborate on which points out of their presidential strategies to abandon to help reinstall the good state of U.S. economy. That however is understandable – this is how votes are lost – and even Jim Lehrer’s question spree did not break any of the two.

When it comes to foreign policy and national security both candidates did not express the majority of their fundamental differences. Most of their dispute was solely concentrated upon Iraq and Afghanistan, question of Russia and that represented something, which in case of foreign policy is inherent – there are issues on which there is simply no discussion for they define what many politicians refer to as national interests.

McCain’s approach to the debate may be asserted very easily – his primary objective being demonstration of experience and simultaneously highlighting inexperience of his adversary. The tools and performance seemed to be very simple – Arizona senator skillfully juggled with the names of states of regions and carefully repeated ‘I’ve been there’ ‘I’ve met with…’, which perhaps represent fabulous knowledge of geography, but not necessarily credibility in foreign policy, however this tactic could persuade few undecided voters.

Obama on the other hand did not seem to intend to demonstrate his experience so radically, it was rather his understanding of global situation as well as the shape of events in areas vital to U.S. national security. He agreed on relatively many issues with McCain, which was picked up by republicans after debate to show his incompetence. His views on challenges facing America seemed to be more progressive, focusing on America’s reputation in the world and the importance of its restoration through educational and diplomatic routes, and of course new technologies, to decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Areas where both candidates had a major quarrel were unsurprisingly Iraq, and Iran. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s positions on Iraq are well known from campaign speeches and rallies. McCain defended his strategy with questions of victory and defeat – continued presence, sustaining a surge and withdrawal being correspondent to aforementioned. Despite the political danger this approach is crafting for republican campaign due to the lack of support among the Americans, senator McCain strongly defends the presence of American troops in Iraq and recommends increase in their numbers. Nevertheless, he did not discuss the strategy or a plan, as to how long would America’s presence in that region would remain. This raises important doubts about the reality of victory through presence, which Senator John McCain referred to, for history demonstrates many examples of completely wrong strategies and unplanned military interventions that turned out to be disastrous, war in Iraq being one of them (at least up to now).

Deriving from his statements during the debate, Obama on the other hand did not seem to be influenced in any major part by the vast group of his advisers and political supporters – Brzezinski, Albright, Kennedy and many more, who provide detailed strategies and ideas on how to stand up towards America’s challenges. These ideas could have a decisive impact upon his performance in this section of the debate, if properly cited – that did not occur to McCain’s advantage.

What is important for stabilizing the situation in the Middle East region (a principal challenge to U.S. security and policy overall) is placing a stronger emphasis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where resurgent Al Qaeda and the Taliban are prevailing step by step, not to mention profoundly organized strategy to control Iran’s nuclear aspirations. It is critical to adhere to reality – America’s role within the international community is no longer based on one goal or strategy it should consist of many approaches dealing with different actors – including principal U.S. allies – for instance the European Union. Surprisingly, a desired vision of EU’s involvement and cooperation (both very important to the U.S. security) in the region was omitted both by the organizers and the candidates. America in order to maintain its current position needs to return to diplomacy as a principal element or tool used to project power and influence. Senator McCain’s vision of engaging Iran without considering diplomatic talks is dangerous – both because it is purely an extension of current administration’s failed policies and because it may lead to severe consequences in the region. As proved by Nixon, Carter and Reagan and their administrations, diplomacy and facing the enemies in diplomatic talks never led to the downfall of American leadership nor its reputation. Ironically, one of McCain’s top advisers on foreign policy, Henry Kissinger – who restored diplomatic relations with China during the Mao era, shares the same views. Nevertheless, the question of whether this is only a slogan scoring additional political points or a major policy shift among the republican strategists is yet to be answered.

Unfortunately, the first debate did not precisely evaluate the credentials of respective candidates and neglected many challenges approaching America. Questions and sections of the debate did not allow any of the two to fully address the most important issues affecting the condition of America’s global position. Instead, we have been offered slogan-based polemic, which did not cover these issues efficiently. The remains are even higher expectations for VP showdown, which hopefully will be more prudently prepared.