I have been watching more political coverage than I usually do, even for a presidential race. Part of it is the unprecedented hijacking of the process by an egotistical blow hard whose response to probing questions is usually a dodge followed by a personal insult. Like a moth to the flame, I can't seem to stop watching. Normally politics bore me or disgust me. In an effort to draw contrasts, candidates demonize their opponents and are very loose or misleading with their "facts." Small differences between candidates balloon into earth-shattering crises. And, of course, every problem in the world is the fault of the party in power according to the current party out of power. In an effort to provide a bit of perspective I want to comment on a few things I have noticed that seem particularly note worthy and some of the things that bug me the most.
By way of self disclosure, so my biases are know upfront, I tend to lean left on social issues and my world view is much more secular than religious. However, I would not say that I perfectly align with the complete platform of either major party. I reserve the right to form my opinions on an issue-by-issue basis regardless of party alignment, and for many issues I don't think I know or care enough to have a particularly strong opinion at all.
So with those qualifications and disclosures, here are some of my observations, likely worth exactly what you paid for them. In watching the coverage of the Iowa caucuses and the coverage leading up to them, I noticed some striking contrasts between the parties. I learned from the Republicans that President Obama is the devil incarnate and that absolute every problem in the world is his fault. He is the worst president we have ever had. The terrible trends of the last 8 years can be reversed if we can just get a Republican in the White House this time.
I wonder if these people are living in the same world I am. Did we not have the worst economic down-turn since the Great Depression just before Obama took office? Have we not since had the longest period of sustained growth since the end of World War II? Wasn't Obama instrumental in passing the most significant health-care legislation in our history that has helped millions of Americans get health coverage who did not have it previously? Other accomplishments include opening diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Iran nuclear deal, and, of course, taking out Bin Laden. This is despite being blocked by congress at nearly every turn. America's international prestige took a hit during the administration of George W. Bush, but under Obama we are now far more respected in the international community. Perhaps there is disagreement on whether the Iran deal was a good thing, but I believe that future generations will count Obama as one of the better presidents. You would never know this by listening to the Republicans.
Early in the campaign there was talk about how unsafe we are in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings. This was put into perspective on an episode of GPS with Fareed Zakaria's. Zakaria pointed out that since the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 there has been an average of 4 American deaths each year due to terrorism. In contrast, there are over 11,000 deaths each year due to gun violence not involving terrorists. There are an average of 51 deaths in the US each year due to lighting strikes. Americans are far more likely to be struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack. To be consistent, we should be clamoring for the government to protect us from lightning strikes. The truth is that terrorism is all about perception and fear, not a real probability of a threat. In this sense the fear mongering is actually aiding the terrorists by creating a greater sense a panic than what is warranted from the actual probabilities.
I have heard many Republican candidates talk about the US being in a crisis. What are they talking about? A crisis compared to what? There is no historical perspective in this rhetoric. I don't want to be dismissive of anyone who has experienced hardship due to loss of a job and stagnant wages, but think about how this compares to some of the historical crises previous generations have faced such as the civil war, two world wars, the great depression, and the anxiety of the cold war era. The reality is that we are close to full employment, crime is down, people are living longer, and it has been decades since we have been involved in a war against an equally powerful enemy. The average American lives better than royalty lived as recently as 200 years ago. I think "Better Angels of our Nature" by Steven Pinker should be required reading. Of course, because of how the brain works, our problems seem just as big to us as problems in the past seemed to our ancestors. We get used to the status quo. Still, some of the political rhetoric seems way over the top.
Many Republicans want to return to a time when things were better, before the liberals destroyed the country with their attacks on the family and attacks on religious liberty. I heard these sentiments expressed by many Evangelical Christian Iowa voters interviewed by CNN who asserted that they were in favor of traditional values such as the marriage of a man and a woman and religious liberty. I found my self yelling at the TV, "Who is stopping you from holding those values and practicing your religion?" Since when, I have wondered, did the definition of liberty change from doing what you want to forcing others to do what you think they should? I don't think these people understand what liberty means. They have also said that they want to vote for someone of high moral and ethical character. In other words, someone who is a Christian like them. I don't think religion is necessarily correlated with morals and ethics. I have known many atheists and agnostics who are very ethical and moral, and some Christians who are not.
It is interesting to me that many of the Republican goals, especially that of the Christian right, seem to be about codifying Christian beliefs into law and forcing everyone else to live by them, even when failure for others to conform to Christian-specific beliefs hurts no one so long as people are otherwise law abiding. In contrast, the Democratic candidates have emphasized adopting policies that benefit everyone such as universal health care, college tuition assistance, and equal and fair treatment for all regardless of race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. I find it ironic that Republicans are all about smaller government and preserving individual freedom when it comes to corporate regulations, freedom of religion, and gun rights, but they seem to be about more government intervention when it comes to forcing their own version of morality on others. Somehow this seems philosophically inconsistent to me. Either you want to preserve individual freedoms for everyone (when they don't interfere with the rights of others) or you don't. It is hypocritical to insist on the freedoms important to you while denying the same rights to others.
Perhaps my views are biased, but I think even a neutral observer would have to notice the dramatic contrast. The level of discourse has been much more mature and substantive in the Democratic debates where issues are discussed in a respectful tone. In contrast, the Republican debates often degenerate into a contest of personal insults. Of course, most of this tone is due to a single candidate, Donald Trump. The discourse was much improved in the debate he boycotted when the vitriol was mostly limited to the absent candidate and the Democrats. All this has led to greater entertainment value in the Republican debates, which is partly why I can't stop watching. I am just not sure if ratings-based reality TV is the best way to choose who gets to hold the most powerful office in the world.
