What is this? Another Bowdoin student writing a pro-Obama piece in the hallowed op-ed pages of the Orient? Before you groan and go back to reading the security report, there are a few things you might want to consider before voting next Tuesday.
I want you to forget about policy or your political party for a moment. Hopefully, when you step into the voting booth, you won't. But, party allegiances aside, let's consider the implications of both candidates' campaign etiquette.
In vying for our nation's highest office, surely what a candidate says or does is pertinent in revealing what their administration might look like.
Obama, so I will argue, has run a more respectful, well-organized, and decent campaign than McCain. McCain has not only waged more unfair attacks, but also demonstrated a proclivity to make decisions based on political expediency. That is not to say that Obama has remained an angel above the fray, but his missteps were fewer and of lesser consequence.
Two of McCain's largest decisions during the election were clearly made primarily to curry favor. "Aren't all decisions made in a political campaign designed to curry favor?" you might ask. Well, yes. But presenting a tax cut you think might resonate with voters and selecting a VP that is not prepared for the national stage are two different things.
Why is Sarah Palin a bad pick? Briefly, because in an interview with Katie Couric she agreed that there was an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution when discussing Roe v. Wade, which is directly in opposition to her party. She didn't even understand what her words were implying. This is not the reason she is a poor choice but a symptom of what makes her a poor choice.
Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I want my potential VP (and President) to be so familiar with the Constitution that they have their favorite amendment framed and hanging on the wall. None of this is to say she isn't exceptionally charismatic or incapable of holding the position one day.
In fact, you might reasonably argue that she spent as much time as a Governor as Obama did as a senator before deciding to run for president. The difference? Obama has been a legislator for over a decade and has been refining his political positions for years in his preparation to run for president. No amount of folksy charm can compensate for having a meticulous understanding of national and international politics, and I don't want to wait for McCain to be in office for two years before Palin is ready to get on board.
Palin was selected to make the ticket exciting. Palin was not selected for her ability to immediately step in as president. Politics won out for McCain over practicality, all to show just how much of a maverick he is.
In his second major blunder, McCain again demonstrated his penchant for panache when he suspended his campaign as the stock market tanked. It was a bold move. The economy was sinking and a congressional bailout was the biggest headline. Nevertheless, here we are, several weeks later, and the economy is still in turmoil, bailout or no.
It was undoubtedly a daring choice, attempting to convey how seriously McCain was taking the financial crisis. But, Obama went to the same meetings and made some of the same phone calls while continuing his run for president during the legislative troubles. The decision was a dramatic reaction to the week's worries; it was not the calculated response it should have been. It's the difference between saying you can lead and leading.
Finally, several ads by the McCain campaign made unfair character assassinations on Obama: accusing Obama of calling Palin a pig, asserting that Obama voted to teach kindergartners sex education, and insinuating that Obama is in some way a terrorist sympathizer. Politics needs less maligning of character and a more rigorous debate of ideas (besides those that are typed up as talking points for the day).
Obama has not been faultless though. He reneged on his promise to use public financing; however, as Assistant Professor of Government Michael Franz pointed out last week, McCain could have also opted out of public money. Will candidates in the future be more inclined to abandon public financing?
Furthermore, Obama had his own misleading ads and botched statistics. But most often his attack ads were on policy and substance. Never once did Obama change his strategy, even as he sunk in the polls and party leaders and pundits called for a game-changer. The message was always that McCain was too much like the last eight years to fix the problems America is facing.
None of this is an attempt to completely invalidate McCain. The difference is what seems to be just another presidential candidate and a candidate that has remained collected and focused regardless of the headlines. I have no idea if Obama can maintain the level of composure he's had through the election cycle. Perhaps he's just a great campaigner. But what if it's more than that? What if his administration is as alert, poised, and responsible as his campaign has been? I'd really like to find out.
Joseph Babler is a member of the Class of 2010.