An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama, McCain, Two Hangmen, and Camus

(For a different perspective on the subject of this post, note this contribution from TMV Chief Joe Gandelman earlier today.)

———————————

I was four years old in 1969, the year Mason Proffit’s “Wanted!” album was released. It was several years later that I remember first hearing the signature song from that album, “Two Hangmen” — the chorus of which was comprised of these bizarre but intoxicating lines:

Two hangmen, hangin’ from a tree
That don’t bother me, at all

This afternoon, I recalled those lines, the last one in particular, as I continued my multi-day struggle to understand why — after all the excitement of the primary season; after finally seeing my “dream” contest between McCain and Obama realized — why, after all that, am I now thoroughly un-enthused about both candidates?

Granted, my enthusiasm for McCain started to flag months ago. Like others, I was drawn to his anti-establishment persona and track record. Then, after he became the presumptive GOP nominee, he seemed to lose much of the chutzpah that had defined him, veering hard into the the damaged embrace of contemporary Republicanism.

On the other hand, McCain has done some things recently to restore the scarlet “M” in his maverick image. Case in point: He quietly flipped off the GOP base by dialoguing with the president of Log Cabin Republicans. What’s more: As Iraq begins to heal (no matter how much some want to deny it), McCain looks more and more like the foreign policy stud he once was.

Regardless, I’m not ordering my McCain ’08 buttons just yet. Something restrains me.

Turning to Obama, it’s a different story with a similar ending. In February, even as McCain disappointed, Obama thrilled. Sure, I detested his centralized big-government ideas, but his strength of character, his intelligence, and his flexibility seemed just the right antidote to eight years of lack of character, questionable intelligence, and bull-headedness. Nor did the March-April-May uproars over Rezko, Wright, Ayers, and Pfleger change my mind.

Regardless, the light on the front of the Obama train has now dimmed.

At first, I thought this dimming was prompted by Obama’s decision on public finance. However — despite the candidate’s tortured and disingenuous explanation of that decision — I accepted his argument. The small donations from hundreds of thousands of people that have filled his coffers lie at the core of every viable public finance proposal I’ve read. Hence, I can rationalize with confidence that Obama has embraced public financing even as he rejects its regulatory framework. (Besides, as Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign argues, the real test is not acceptance or rejection of today’s system, but the eventual fixing of it.)

Next, I thought perhaps Obama’s waffling on FISA had sparked my doubts. However, as with the finance issue, his changed position on FISA didn’t really … um … “bother me at all.” Much to the chagrin, I’m sure, of some of this site’s readers and writers, I’ve netted out on FISA (and telecom amnesty) where the WaPo editorial board and Justin Gardner did.

So if the “obvious” factors don’t bother me — what does? Why am I not jumping up and down to be the next Obama or McCain groupie?

You might label me petty for this explanation, but I’m convinced the reason for my deflated interest in these candidates is rooted in a trend rather than any single point; it’s based less on policy particulars, more on the approach the candidates are taking to those particulars.

My one constant throughout this campaign has been this: Reasonable people can disagree about policy and the fine points of our democracy. But in the process of disagreeing, they should not demonize or misrepresent each other, nor should they resort to simplistic soundbite characterizations of the issues. Such practices only serve to impede rather than advance enduring solutions.

I thought these two candidates respected those principles, but as the WaPo’s Dan Balz, argues, their opening salvos suggest otherwise. The “maverick” and “change-we-can-believe-in” candidates have disappeared, and instead of Obama and McCain, I now see Clinton and Romney.

I shouldn’t be surprised. I’m no longer the wide-eyed child who once sang gleefully along to the chorus of Mason Proffit’s “Two Hangmen” without really understanding what the song was about. Shame on me for forgetting that; for letting the naïve child resume temporary control of my mind.

I guess I’m Sisyphus after all, forever pushing a damned rock up a damned hill, realizing that my singular solace, as Albert Camus suggested, is my ability to curse the gods while I walk down the hill, just before I repeat the endless, fruitless exercise all over again.

  • Silhouette
    "Regardless, I’m not ordering my McCain ’08 buttons just yet. Something restrains me."

    ******

    Tell ya what. September 1st just give me a jingle and I'll send you some "Write-In Clinton" bumper stickers...we should have a truckload of them printed by then...should solve your existential meltdown...

    And we don't care whether Hillary is pressured to plead with us to support The Risky Teflon Demigod or not. She's getting our vote in November, whether she says she wants it or not...lol..and then in four years if necessary...whatever..
  • DAMOZEL
    Good post ---

    I am actually NOT disappointed that you're not upset over Obama's FISA stance --- I didn't imagine you would be. I only a little disappointed; I never took him for a progressive on civil liberties and though I hoped I might be wrong, I didn't expect I would be. I don't like him.

    His strategy of tracking McCain's positions actually amuses me. It's a good strategy. He immunizes himself from attack on the issues where Dems are typically vulnerable. I do wonder where he'll draw the line (if anywhere), but he's using a strategy that worked quite well against Hillary (whom I frankly preferred).

    I am focusing on his positions because I think it's important for Dems who are concerned about civil liberties to see where Obama has landed. Some --- not all --- have fallen into line beside him with twirly-eyed fervor without caring to know what sort of Changes he had in mind.

    Comparing their Senate voting records, I've found that Obama voted the way I would wish on a couple of pieces of legislation that mattered to me; McCain didn't. Furthermore, I would rather --- I THINK --- see the veto power and the power to appoint judges in Obama's hands.

    It's really come down to that, as far as I'm concerned. I didn't expect Obama to bring about some sort of progressive revolution. And I wasn't optimistic that he'd stand by previous assertions that turn out to be inconvenient during the general.

    I'll give him this: he's a hell of a politician. I look forward to the pie fight that is to come. Somehow I don't think it is going to be a battle over issues.
  • runasim
    How could anyone expect politicians to be other than politicians when we, the people, make it absolutely necessary?
    Included in the 'we' are racial and gender bigots, the powerful determined to keep power, the disempowered jealously competing with each other for attention, and everyone wanting to make the country into his own image, while a good many of them want a president with whom they would like to have a beer.

    They all have a vote, and rightly so. No politician can afford to ignore the divergent groups to the extent that he endangers his electability, and thus aborts his chances for being an effective President, leading the country in a direction he thinks is best for the nation's future.
    If politics is the mechansim for how a democracy functions, then politicians are compelled to be politicians.
    For that matter, we are all politicians. Isn't that the purpose of blogging and commenting? How much of that is carried out in a highly principled way?

    It comes down to gauging the direction in which a candidate is heading and the qualities he exhibits when he's not busy politicng. That's what has sold me on Obama from the beginning, not his latest statement to the press.

    His speech on race exhibited the ability to understand the complexities of human nature and inreracton and the intelligence required to apply his ideas to real life situations.
    I ve never seen that in McCain. He compromises and cooperates out of political necessity,just like Obama does, but not because he can accept the opposing view as having legitimacy, in my view.
    Even should they both come to the exact same decision, they would get there by different routes, and that makes all the difference in the world to me.

    Besides and above all that, I'm aware of how much harder it is for Obama. McCains'name is never maliciously confused with Osama, nor is his skin color, lineage or family connections a detriment. Just getting to the point where he is evaluated on an even footing with McCain is an achievement all its own. That kind of ability gets my support, unqualified support.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Is it ever a battle about the issues?

    2000, as I remember, was about which guy you'd rather have beer with.

    2004 was about who had the better military record, and somehow lots of people preferred the guy from the champagne unit who stayed home during the war (and whose satisfaction of discharge requirements was rather iffy, to say the least) over the guy who risked is life fighting in the war (and had the metals to show for it).

    Settling for half a loaf is a deeply ingrained American tradition.

    So is complaining about it.
  • PaulSilver
    I don't think it is realistic to expect a leader who will radically change the course of the country. I am content to support the candidate who leans the most towards my values and point of view. And while I think that McCain may be the Republican with whom I resonate and respect most, Obama reflects me on more issues.
    I support Obama but I am not a zealot.
  • BBQ
    Pretty much agree with Paul but McCain's views are more my own. Also I would rather have a check in power than the rubber stamp of 2000-2006 and so I would rather have a Democrat Congress and Republican President. And unlike Bush, McCain won't veto every bill the Democrats put in place.
  • Trust me if this were a Clinton vs Romney race we'd be seeing the political equivalent of bloodsport. It may turn out that the best you can hope for in the end is that you end up voting for one rather than voting against the other.
  • mw
    Pete,
    Suck it up Man! This ain't no garden party. This is a contest for the most powerful role in the richest most powerful country on the earth. For most of the history of our species on this planet, this kind of contest could only be settled with blood. We have a system in place that only the toughest political street fighters could survive, and as the last two surviving combatants emerge you are surprised that we are not having a platonic round table discussion about the future of the country?

    This is not a new phenomena. Our system has branches of the government pitted against each other by design. Internal conflict was the goal of the founders, as that is the only way to limit the excesses of government.

    By the standards of most of US history, this presidential campaign is positively genteel:

    "During the nation's first contested presidential election in 1796, supporters of Vice President John Adams charged his challenger, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, with atheism, sexual improprieties, and dangerous revolutionary intentions. For their part, Jefferson backers accused Adams of plotting to establish a monarchy, crown himself king, and ally the country with its foe, Great Britain."

    "In the election of 1800, Vice President Thomas Jefferson was tarred as an agent of the French Revolution..."

    "Opponents of Andrew Jackson accused him of murder, while Old Hickory’s men whispered that his rival John Quincy Adams had been, while U.S. minister to Russia, a pimp for the tsar.."

    "In 1864 the Lincoln reelection campaign equated opposition to the president and the Republican party with disloyalty to the Union..., depicted the Democrats essentially as traitors."

    "Democrats also got personal, characterizing Grant as an alcoholic, uncouth, simple-minded, unprincipled, Negro-loving tyrant... "

    "After the Civil War the Republicans would "wave the bloody shirt"-that is, associate the Democratic party with secession and opposition to the Union war effort-in every presidential election into the 1880s. The 1868 Democratic presidential nominee, Horatio Seymour, was an especial target of the "bloody shirt" because while New York governor in 1863 he had addressed the New York City draft rioters as "My friends." Others labeled his links to the Peace Democrats as the equivalence of treason."

    "Democrats accused Rutherford Hayes of stealing the pay of deceased soldiers while he was a Union general, opposing citizenship for all immigrants, and income tax fraud. One Democrat encouraged the Tilden camp, to no avail, to investigate the question, "Did Hayes shoot his mother in a fit of insanity?"

    "An Oct. 26 headline in the New York Times: "President Likens Dewey to Hitler as Fascists’ Tool."


    And of course there is the particularly divisive 1860 election, when we as a country, actually decided to spend the post election environment literally shooting and killing over 600,000 of our fellow citizens.

    One is tempted to suggest that unity, political civility, and polite debate in a presidential campaign is downright Un-American.
  • Pete Abel
    DWSUWF -- good points. Although I think my complaint is less about them being "mean" to each other, more about them misrepresenting their and each others' positions. I've worked the bulk of my adult life in public affairs -- and a fair part of that has been "messaging." I know the game. But I've been advocating for more than 2 years now -- both within my profession and my expanded scope of interests -- that there must be a better way than soundbites and simplisitic attacks to conduct public discourse. I'm fighting a losing battle, I know. Hence, the comparison to Sisyphus.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC