2nd Presidential Debate
I think we just witnessed the nail in John McCain's campaign coffin. On a night when he needed to hit a home run, he fouled off pitch after pitch and ultimately struck out. It is now painfully clear that McCain simply cannot articulate a straightforward, compelling, and visionary message on most of the important issues of our time. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't do the right thing in office or be good for the country. It does mean that he is going to have an exceedingly difficult time attracting votes at a time when worry is at a heightened state and people are looking for imaginative leadership and signs of optimism about the future. It's hard to believe that the electorate will be in the mood for four more years of rambling, unfocused, and often incoherent communication. Times are tough. Even though solid experience, sound judgment, and basic blocking and tackling may be what's necessary to improve our lot, my guess is that the country wants something more. McCain, although a very different package than Bush, is just as poorly wrapped nonetheless. Communication counts, especially in times of turmoil.
While I disagree with you politically, I very much appreciate the fact that you have an open mind to one of the more critical aspects of the job as President, communications and leadership Almost as much as anything else this critical role calls for world class communication skills and the intellectual ability to be receptive to new ideas and adapt to changing dynamics. Option thinking, intellectual depth and spirited debate are not weaknesses in a leader, they are strengths! Leadership is very much about the ability to act and the ability to get others to follow. It's is critical in my view for any President to be able to clearly articulate their vision, inspire others through thought provoking rhetoric and avoid the tendency to want to treat others as mindless or unconcerned participants. Clearly we can all agree that the inability to speak clearly and logically tends to undermine the nuance of any message your trying to convey. I am personally offended by those that think anyone who is able to provide a clear rational consistent narrative with detailed, facts and data to support their argument is weak or naive or 'not tough enough' to be the leader of this country. I don't need name calling, shouting, verbal subterfuge, innuendo and hate speech to advance my understanding of a point of view (from either side). We have somehow regressed as a society in our development and have come to demonize the educated and thoughtful as somehow the less prepared. I have listened to the Republican party's leader for the past 8 years barely able to talk in cogent sentences let alone align their words with their facial expressions. This inability by McCain/Palin et al to format an answer to a question that is something more than buzz words, slogans and cliches has driven me to distraction. Somehow it has become acceptable for a leader of country to adopt a posture of communications as 'word salad'. It's like they're trying to make their point by the pound.
This, coupled with the condition of absolute certainty in all matters and the inability to question oneself or to encourage the opinion of others may make you a 'maverick' but it doesn't make the kind of leader this country needs at this time. I was a republican for 20 years because many of the smartest people I knew and read (George Will, William Buckley, et al)were able to clearly and rationally articulate why they're approach to responsible government, social justice, global social integration, education, economics and political science were in the best interests of ALL citizens in this country, not just the most fortunate. If that's still the story I long for the day when someone from within the party's leadership can come forward and argue that rationally, clearly and in a compelling way.
Reply to this