In 1997, 191 nations--but not the US--signed the Kyoto Protocol, agreeing to limit greenhouse emissions to stave off climate change. Even China agreed, closing inefficient coal-fired plants for newer, cleaner technologies. Fifteen years later, here we are with two presidential candidates chest-bumping like frat boys over who loves coal more. Half-hearted and scientifically questionable support for “clean” coal aside, the only difference in the stance is that one of those guys (Barack, if you were unaware) thinks wind and natural gas are cool too. The main argument on the environmental front is about whether the increase in oil production over the past four years came on private or public land. Which is to say, there isn’t an environmental argument at all, really, despite the fact that it’s a unbelievably huge issue in every other developed nation.
And then there’s foreign policy. Now, I’m well aware that this country has a long, long history of devastating developing nations with little regard for democratic principles. But we’ve often done so with at least the pretense, however shoddy, of making new nations safe for democracy. That was at least one justification for the Iraq War, after all. But now? Any pretend concern for all the fledgling democracies born in the Arab Spring? Not a drop. Now it’s all about who’s tougher, with Romney working that No Apology angle, obsessing over how often Obama uses the phrase “terrorist attack” and trying his hardest to piss off Putin while Obama’s busy dropping bombs from remote controlled planes all over Pakistan, borders and sovereignty be damned. Diplomacy and courtship of new allies is pretty much out the window.
And then there’s the obvious one. Really, the best one. On the surface it’s the guy who wants socialized medicine against the guy who doesn’t. But then there’s that 80’s goofball comedy twist where the guy who doesn’t want it created the plan that’s the very basis for one the guy who does put in place that the guy who doesn’t now says he’ll repeal as soon as possible. Except now the guy who doesn’t want it says he’s going to keep certain parts of the plan...and then his campaign says he didn’t really mean that. But we’re not done yet, because then the guy who doesn’t want it starts attacking the guy who does for cutting a bunch of money from a key part of the whole plan--Medicare--even though the guy who doesn’t’s buddy made the same cuts. And all this while the guy who doesn’t want it is still claiming to be the guy who doesn’t want it, despite all those times where he seems to be saying he totally does want it.
But let’s sum it up this way: Obama’s campaign strategy--the one he bought with a billion dollars--is to say, repeatedly, “You should trust that my opponent will do what he says he’s going to do.” Obama’s used that line in stump speeches, town halls, and the debates. Obviously, his point is that you should trust the hyper-conservative Mitt that’s promising austerity, not the one from his campaign against Ted Kennedy or from his time as governor of the bluest blue state there ever was.
Given Mittens’ remarkable ability to change his position, it probably is necessary to try to pin the man down on something, and point out the more horrifying aspects of his various platforms. (In other words, it's obvious that conservative Mitt is the real Mitt.) But given all the talk surrounding this election--all those claims that it’s an election about two supposedly incompatible views of government, a choice between two disparate possible futures for the nation, an event showing the deep divisions in our hyper-partisan country--isn’t it strange (and sort of hilarious) that one of the candidates has to try so hard to remind everybody that their platforms are different?
No comments:
Post a Comment