 |
|
|
 Editorials | June 2007 
Most Crucial Race in Years has Two Parties Vexed
 John Farmer - The Star-Ledger
The 2008 US presidential election will be the most important one since the close of the Cold War almost two decades ago.
The two Bill Clinton elections in 1992 and 1996 and the first victory for George W. Bush in 2000 were, in effect, freebies. In each instance, the stakes were relatively small. Communism had withered away, as Karl Marx once predicted of capitalism. The Soviet Union was an artifact of history. American bestrode the world, unchallenged militarily and economically. Domestic matters - taxes, welfare and health care costs and coverage - led voters' concerns.
In cosmic terms, it didn't mat ter much who we elected. Had that not been true, Clinton, an obscure governor of an inconsequential state with no foreign policy credentials, would not have been nominated, never mind elected. The same is true for Bush, an even less experienced governor.
The 2004 campaign that produced Bush's re-election wasn't much more significant either, dominated as it was by Republican flag- waving and a Democratic opposition not yet ready to mount an at tack on Bush's Iraq policy. The real stake in that election was the power it conferred on Bush to move the U.S. Supreme Court to the right, something the inept John Kerry campaign never made an issue.
The 2008 election will not be so issue-free. It will, in effect, mark a return to the Cold War era-type election of real consequence.
How to handle the end game in Iraq is the paramount problem awaiting the next president. If mismanaged, our continuing involvement in Iraq could roil the rest of the Middle East, drive oil prices so high they collapse Western economies and make the Israeli-Palestinian standoff even more resistant to any solution.
Then there's a resurgent Russia. Under Vladimir Putin, Moscow is mounting new challenges designed to reduce U.S. influence in Eastern Europe and at the U.N., using oil and gas policies to intimidate Europe in general, upgrading its missiles, jailing critics and silencing (permanently, in some cases) inquisitive journalists. Bush was guilty of a colossal misreading of Putin, claiming he looked into the former KGB operative's soul and found - I'm not making this up - a friend.
Putin will leave office next year, barring a coup. The next American president will have to handle the tough bargaining with Putin's successor - let's hope with more success than Bush enjoyed with Putin.
The larger context for all this is a world that, in the seven years of Bush's presidency, has come to fear and despise us as the greatest threat to global peace. (Witness the booing of Miss USA by Mexicans, of all people, at the Miss Universe contest in Mexico City.) The next president's most important task may be - through a combination of policy and personality - somehow to restore America's reputation for compassion and competence that Bush has trashed.
With so much at stake, it's no wonder neither Republicans nor Democrats seem entirely satisfied with their roster of candidates.
The dissatisfaction is deeper among Republicans, which ex plains the sudden interest in someone not yet a candidate, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
The GOP's got a full field already, with 10 wannabes contending for the nomination. But to hear Republicans tell it, they all leave something to be desired. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the leader in the clubhouse, and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the nation's hero-politician, are deemed too liberal. Mitt Romney made a good first impression, but he'll have a tough time living down his other life as a pro-choice, pro-gun control governor of ultra-liberal Massachusetts.
McCain, more than any other candidate in either party, seems inclined to speak the truth. But that's not enough for Republicans. They want a winner, another Ronald Reagan - someone who can stand up to Putin, pacify Iraq and restore the U.S. image of global good guy. Thompson might be the man, many believe. Like Reagan, he's an actor, which may be enough for the GOP faithful.
Democrats have a different dilemma. They've got a front runner with experience, money, toughness and a respected retinue of tested policy experts. Trouble is, it's Hillary Clinton. And there's fear among Democrats that she can't win. Too many people just don't like her, though they can't say why. And liberals won't forgive her for supporting Bush on Iraq for so long.
The fallback for Democrats, especially for the "Impeach Bush" left, is Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Obama is the Charisma Kid in the contest. He's clearly a comer with a future but probably not this year.
Obama's problem, as we all know, is a color problem. It's green. He doesn't have enough main event experience. With all the global issues at stake in the 2008 election, it hard to see American voters turning the Oval Office over to a rookie senator with such thin credentials.
John Farmer may be reached at jfarmer@starledger.com. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us