David Michael Miller
I may have to turn in my pundit’s license.
There were two presidential debates in the last week and I couldn’t get through either of them. Together they amounted to 10 people arguing with one another mostly in a petty, snarky way. “You had your chance, Marco, and you blew it,” said Chris Christie in a tone that summed it all up.
Lots of heat, no light, as the apt cliché goes.
Now, it’s not correct or fair to apply this criticism equally to both parties. The Republicans are a collection of angry, drunk uncles out of control at the family Thanksgiving dinner table. Guns! Radical Islamic terrorism! More military spending! More guns! Build a wall and put guns on top of it! Be afraid! Be very afraid! Did we mention guns!?
Until now, in their debates the Democrats have been much better, much less negative, much more civil, and, actually, most of the time, rational bordering on thoughtful. But with the Iowa caucuses looming and Hillary Clinton getting nervous about Bernie Sanders’ numbers, she went on the attack. Sanders defended himself and attacked back while Martin O’Malley looked on just hoping that his mic was still working.
If on a vitriol scale of one to 10, the Republicans are an 11, the Democratic trio turned in a four at best. But still it was close enough to make me turn off the show and play some Scrabble against the computer.
Look, I sort of get it. I’m not angry about much myself, although Sanders can hit a nerve with me over how Wall Street got away with murdering the economy. There is a very serious and legitimate injustice that I am glad he won’t let lie. And the Republicans are tapping into a nasty, nativist populism that is always there and gets revived now and then by a demagogue. It’s just not often that you have a room full of them all at once.
So there is anger out there, some of it justified and some of it ugly. And politicians, who are in the business of winning elections, see where the electorate is at and try to give them the product they want to buy.
But what is strikingly absent in these debates is any appeal to optimism, hope and national purpose. No candidate has built his or her campaign around the idea of bringing the country together. In a rare moment when he was allowed to speak the other night, Martin O’Malley tried to strike that tone, but Sanders quickly reminded everyone why they should be incensed at the injustice of income inequality.
So, I got to the point during both debates in which I just decided I didn’t need this. I didn’t need to watch people yelling and sniping at each other. There are books to read and Scrabble to be played. I guess I’m out of step with the mood of America right now, but I would vote for a candidate who would just turn down the heat, appeal to the better angels of our nature and promise to quell the anger instead of stoking it. I would vote for that candidate, but Barack Obama can’t run again.
