Presidential Debate Round One

The President's performance was disappointing, at the least. The President defended his record and argued for reelection. What he did not do is show that he appreciates that this election is about applications of opposing values and ideology and not merely a choice between men. Fighting for those who are expected to suffer under an opposing ideology he should have fought with passion for them/us and at least fired back; there was so much ammunition available. Tragically, a vast segment of the Great American Public having seen this and needing no fact or logic will say "Duh!" and zombie-like cast a vote. We needed a Chavez or a Tony Zale.

The McChrystal Attitude

Some writers have suggested that the experience of ten years of continuing conflict under fluctuating levels of direction, support and leadership within the military and civilian chains of command have created, at the least, impatience and frustration, more often disgust and, within a relative minority, reckless disdain within the military officer corps. I find the suggestions persuasive. I recall my own attitude, one shared and frequently discussed among many, about military and civilian leadership as Viet Nam continued.

I would also suggest another possible basis for the reckless expressions of opinions in the McChrystal episode. The U.S. military continues to draw from the broader polis. The officer corps and the volunteers in the military constitute, to an extent, a special breed of citizen-force, to be sure. However, they are still the product of our culture and with modern technology providing generally unfettered access remain significantly influenced by that culture. Beginning during the latter years of the Bush administration and substantially increasing during the Obama presidency, the rhetoric of politics has encompassed and encouraged open and repeated expressions of disdain, insult and antagonism directed at the highest levels of civilian control to a level unprecedented in its reach if not its vitriol. It seems to me that this environment may well have relaxed the professionalism and good sense of those actors in the McChrystal affair.

I had said it early in this and other forums that the vitriolic rhetoric and permissiveness of the highest level of elected officials in this country could eventually create a force destructive of our political institutions. I would now add the military as another unintended victim.

A thought about Obama

There is a long road ahead for him, but I appreciate President-elect Obama's having begun his day on the 19th of January with an unscheduled visit to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He did this a day after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Each of these actions by a president-elect were, I understand, unprecedented in the days immediately preceding an inauguration.

I was not a supporter of Obama in the election and still have serious concerns. But, in a few hours he will be our President, and, accordingly, he deserves our respect and support. I am, frankly, angered by the emails that I receive continuing to replay the political diatribes of the election cycles. I understand that many of the actors in Congress have records and views and some are now asserting intended political actions that are worthy of criticism. And there will be a time when those political actions, if pursued within this administration, will bring those personalities and issues into the arena of vigorous debate and discourse. But, let's at least not politically castigate this President, directly or indirectly, before he has taken an action, proposed legislation or violated his oath. After all, the affirmative vote of 69,456,897 Americans deserves some respect as well.

Gut Reactions

The first debate has just concluded and I can get back to the Cubs game. Since they are losing I’ll try to multi-task and write my initial reaction to the debate. I expected the debate to present the candidates in a forum and within a debate structure that would permit exposure of their comparative knowledge and “performance” skills. No one should make a decision on a candidate based on observations of a television debate. I had very limited expectations of the value of the exercise. This debate lived down to my expectations. First of all, there should have been tighter control of the timing. Each candidate appeared at times to be satisfied with their response but the moderator pushed simply for more of the same. Had the moderator asked a more focused second or third question we would have learned more about the stated position. McCain clearly showed more self-control and appeared the more secure. Sen. Obama frequently showed impatience and an immaturity in his facial expressions, body movements and attempts at interruption when Sen. McCain spoke. Sen. McCain’s expressions were, at worst, paternalistic at times.

Substantively, over an hour was spent discussing the current economic crisis although the debate was scheduled to concern foreign policy. With the relatively unbridled economic discussion there was little time remaining for foreign policy and a good portion of that time was spent on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran. Assuredly, these countries are important for our country and there was a limited time for discussion of Russia. Other important areas of foreign policy were left out completely. I have repeatedly heard their positions on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran and allowing the repetition was of no value to anyone but, possibly, a Van Winkle. I hoped to hear how they perceive and would deal with China, Venezuela, Cuba, Africa, India/Pakistan, India, or how about genocide, globalization, or differentiated Muslim extremism in the world. The debate as structured and controlled was a major disappointment.

During the movement through the channels to the Cubs channel, I heard the talking heads begin to discuss what they thought were the most important issues of criticism of the debate. McCain was expected to “hit a home run” in this debate on foreign policy and in their view he had not, so “points to Obama.” “Obama stood tall.” “Obama held his own.” I should admit that I never got over to Fox. Well, although I disagreed with McCain on a few of the issues and am sympathetic to Obama’s counter positions, I believe McCain was the clear winner of the overall debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Obama will be seen to have won on the economic portion. However, his strength in that portion of the debate is neither his substantive policies nor his abilities. Any perceived victory is purely the result of the effects now felt by Americans of the Bush/Republican debacles. Viewing the overall debate, McCain came across with confidence, knowledge and relevant experience and expressed himself clearly and decisively. Even Sen. Obama repeatedly said that he “agreed with John.” McCain was unnecessarily repetitious at times but a good part of the blame for that was in the structure of the debate and the lack of control by the moderator. Sen. McCain is still the best candidate but he still carries ugly luggage.

Crisis vs. Campaign

The descriptions are frightening to some and seriously troubling to all. “Financial meltdown,” "the most serious financial situation since the Depression,” “crisis” seem to be the milder terms. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve are quoted as saying the situation, if not immediately addressed, could have dire consequences for our Wall Street as well as international markets. They also assert that, unaddressed, the situation would directly harm an American’s ability to maintain her home, his job and savings.

Senator Obama’s staffers contacted the McCain campaign staffers this morning and proposed a joint declaration of principles on the crisis by the candidates which would be presented to Congress and the Bush Administration. Senator McCain called back and, apparently speaking directly with Sen. Obama, agreed with the proposal. Sen. Obama showed initiative and Sen. McCain showed a willingness to adopt a reasonable proposal, even from an opponent.

Later, Senator McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to engage in the resolution of congressional/Administration efforts. In this announcement he asked Sen. Obama to do the same and join him in meeting directly with the President to help resolve the differences between the Administration’s proposal and congressional objections. McCain asked that the debate scheduled for Friday on foreign policy, perceived by a vast majority of knowledgeable people to be a McCain strength, be postponed. McCain’s campaign also announced that he had directed all campaign media efforts on his behalf to cease while this suspension continued. Senator Obama has rejected the McCain concept and said that the joint proposal would be sufficient to get their points across and that the American people were anxious to see the debate. Up until moments ago Democrats, Speaker Pelosi included, today (N.P.R. interview) spoke of a substantial gap between the Administration and Congress. Beginning tonight with the six o’clock news, however, a couple of Democrats, when questioned about the McCain effort, said it wasn’t needed and that an agreement was nearly completed. So sayeth the Dervishes.

“Ride to the sound of the guns," has been around in military lore and tradition for centuries. The sound of the cannons is considered to be where the center of action is on the battlefield. A leader belongs at the place of battle where the outcome may be influenced by the exercise of leadership. In some situations the presence of the leader may be enough to influence the outcome while at other times the leader’s continuing decisions are significant to the outcome. If you need me to state an example of the soundness of this exhortation I suggest you go back to your copy of “People” magazine.

Sen. McCain is “riding to the sound of the guns.” This most important debate on the financial crisis facing this country, at least, in our lifetimes is ongoing in Washington. If there are principles and issues of import to a sitting United States Senator on this issue, that Senator belongs in Washington within the arena fighting for those principles and issues. The idea of sending a document of concerns in lieu of standing and asserting those concerns, debating, negotiating, and compromising where essential for the best interests of our country, is not the action of a leader. Each of these candidates is the presumptive leader of his party and one will inherit the results of this effort. Being the leader of the party includes leading the party. Sen. Obama cannot respond “present” in this crisis. As far as the desire of Americans to see a debate, that position is now overtaken and overwhelmed by the concerns of the citizens about their own and the country's financial future.

The Bush proposal is a mere skeleton yet contains Cheneyesk demands that have to be eliminated. The Congress must report for duty whatever the impact on their political futures. McCain is correct in taking this action in moving to the sound of the guns. Obama presents himself as what we used to refer to as a “base camp warrior.” I refer you down the page to my quotation of Teddy Roosevelt, “[T]he credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…”