Too trivial a debate for our times

By Edward Luce

Matt Kenyon illustration

H.L. Mencken, America’s patron saint of sarcastic one-liners, said “democracy is the theory that common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard”. In this age of Twitter, Mencken would barely keep his thumb off his BlackBerry.



Like most Washington journalists this one has spent many recent evenings with one eye on the Republican presidential debate and the other on Twitter. The first dilates steadily as the exchange degenerates into combustible irrelevance (can the national security one last week really have spent more time on cutting foreign aid than on Egypt, China and the eurozone combined?).
The second digests a manic feed of often funny invective about the quality of the candidates. One tweeter pointed out that it sounded like 2004 all over again. No one listening to the questions from the likes of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s former adviser, would have gathered that Barack Obama has done well by their yardstick. Osama bin Laden and Muammer Gaddafi are dead. And the drones keep flying fast and thick.

No matter. The Republican party appears to believe Mr Obama is on an apology tour of America and no amount of liberal unhappiness over his robust national security stance can apparently shake that belief. As David Rothkopf, a former Clinton official, tweeted: “Audience at this event scarier than any international situation we face.”

At this stage in many US primaries it is common to bemoan the unreality of the debate. On that score the Republican 2012 race has already run off with the prize. “If you like what President Obama has done to the economy, you’ll love what he’s done to our national security,” said Rick Santorum, one of the candidates, in a view echoed across most of the podium.

It is also customary to reassure ourselves that a more sane presidential exchange lies ahead once the nominee has escaped the clutches of the party’s base. This time, however, there is reason to worry that the Republican theatrics tell us something broader about the US mood. Three come to mind.

The first is the unusual volatility of the contest. Republicans traditionally follow the British rule of “Buggin’s turn” – the next in line tends to get the seal of approval. Thus Ronald Reagan cut his teeth in 1976 but was only nominated in 1980. His vice-president, and former rival, George H.W. Bush, patiently awaited his turn in 1988. And so it was with John McCain in 2008.

Having run the gauntlet in 2008 – and unearthed previously hidden dimensions to the art of shape-shifting – Mitt Romney was supposed to be the heir apparent for 2012. He still may be. But the longer Republicans continue their quest for “anybody but Mitt” – Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain and now Newt Gingrich – the more they undermine what remains of the party establishment. As the GOP nominee, the rank and file would fall behind Mr Romney. But few would bet he could retain their loyalty for long after election day.

On the Democratic side Mr Obama retains control of the heights, although his position is anything but commanding. The mood of his base, and the sudden emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement, often casts him as a bystander to the national conversation. Others are creating alternative bully pulpits. Mr Obama cannot afford to lose the people who gave him victory in 2008. Like Mr Romney, he will be constantly looking over his shoulder.

The second is the undertone of nastiness. From 1796 to 2008 US history is replete with election year shenanigans. But it is striking how much disingenuity is already flying around in this election. Last week allies of Mr Romney launched an attack advertisement on Mr Obama in which the president is shown saying: “If we talk about the economy, we are going to lose.” In fact the clip is from 2008, and Mr Obama was clearly quoting John McCain’s campaign.

Far from being embarrassed, the Romney campaign patted itself on the back for having hijacked the news cycle. In an age where the electorate seems to be split into two governing states of mind – anger and apathy – vice is often a virtue. It is more effective to grab attention than to try to persuade.

Mr Romney was only taking his cue from Mr Perry who issued an advertisement showing Mr Obama calling Americans “lazy”. Again, it was dishonest. The president was referring to the failure of US businesses to attract more foreign investment in the last 20 years. Mr Perry refused to apologise and insisted Mr Obama was a “socialist” who disrespected “hard-working Americans”. Mr Obama will not need to stray as far from the truth when the attack ad season gets under way.

Which brings us to the final concern: America appears to be sleep-walking into an impoverished debate. Next year is gearing up to be a tussle over who will bear more of the fiscal burden in the era of austerity. Should the rich pay higher taxes? Or should the middle class accept deeper spending cuts? The stage is set for two bald men to fight over a comb. Consider this: 2012 could be the first presidential contest in a century that does not produce the most powerful figure in the world. Whether it would qualify as good or hard, America needs a much richer debate than the one that appears to be in store.