Politics and Culture

Some of the candidates looked bad, but none of them sounded dumb. I could have done without the constant and cheap references to Ronald Reagan, but the debate showed the Republican field to be made up of serious, knowledgeable men.

First, my general feeling on the election:

A doctrinaire liberal or conservative won’t win the presidency. Most Americans don’t care about politics in general and dislike listening to academic-style political philosophy. This isn’t an attack on American intelligence; it just means that Americans are moderate by nature and that they feel America runs well enough to not necessitate their constant attention. Consequently, a candidate shouldn’t answer questions with a think-tank mission statement, but with an actual solution. A candidate might mention an overall philosophy, but if they want votes from people who aren’t necessarily registered at Pajamas Media, they need to focus on specifics. Americans are also nice. Those specifics shouldn’t disparage other members of society or, worse, make them out to be enemies.

On to the candidates:

Ron Paul:

Awful. He never considered any solution that deviated from Libertarian boilerplate. His hard-boiled Libertarianism often led to inconsistencies: He hated Communism, but wouldn’t have supported efforts to fight it. He has no chance amongst people who think some issues are complicated.

John McCain:

Bad. He looked like a nervous kook at times. Many of his statements sounded like he couldn’t wait to use them. His worst moment was the Osama comment. As much as people hate Osama, angry candidates scare most people. It reminded me of Buchanan with his grandiose “skate on the ice of hell” utterances that repulse moderate Americans. Bush regretted making those kinds of statements in the lead-up to the Iraq war and I think most would be much less responsive to them now. Besides his appearance and willingness to endure eternal damnation, his strong endorsement of a guest-worker program lost him votes.

On the other hand, some of his answers showcased his deep knowledge of policy and his realistic approach to issues. He gave specific, accomplishable solutions to problems like taxes, giving the impression that he can govern from the middle in contrast to people like Hunter and Paul.

Giuliani:

I don’t like candidates who base their candidacies on one issue or one accomplishment. Kerry and his Vietnam service is the worst example. We’re in for a year of Giuliani's crime-fighting credentials and his response to 9/11 (I know that’s two, but you get the point). His abortion statements lost him the primary-maybe. His “I hate abortion and think states should be able to ban it, so I voted for it to be legal” statement confused many, I’m sure.

Romney:

The clear winner. First, and don’t discount this, chicks dig him. He was the most handsome candidate (verified with wife) and that’s worth 10% of the electorate, making him 9 points in front of Paul right off the bat. Romney has the great ability to utter platitudes without sounding as if he’s patronizing. He can criticize women who have children out of wedlock without sounding mean. He also showed deep knowledge of the issues and gets the war on terror. I loved his part about it not being all about Osama. I guess that means he can also talk about grand ideas without giving the Paul, "I've read every Ayn Rand novel" vibe.

Hunter:

Hunter appeals to men who love football and war analogies and “let’s just nuke them” boasts. And, those men responded, I’m sure, with high fives to Hunter’s, “we’re good at dropping bombs.” line. That sound you hear is ten million soccer moms throwing up.

Thompson:

Thompson reminded me of a mean uncle that goes to your house to visit, but doesn’t want to be bothered. Solid conservative, but people won’t vote for him. He looked old.

Tancredo:

Not too bad, but divisive. Hint: If strongly stating what you believe were enough to win an election, as you said, Hitler would have a chance.

Brownback:

Excellent. Next to Romney, he did the best. Solid compassionate-conservative answers.

Gilmore and Huckabee:

Solid good jobs. They come across as both conservative and sane, but, alas, are much too generic. I wouldn’t mind either as president.