Krugman has a dream


Today Paul Krugman makes a somewhat quixotic plea that the current crop of presidential candidates run on, or at least announce positions on, the issues. He rightly points out that the disastrous results of the 2000 election resulted in large part from the media's insistence on treating the race like a high school election, with points awarded more for perceived (if false) congeniality than for competence. The preferred beer buddy beat the geek, and we have paid for it for the past six years:

Six years ago a man unsuited both by intellect and by temperament for high office somehow ended up running the country.

How did that happen? First, he got the Republican nomination by locking up the big money early.

Then, he got within chad-and-butterfly range of the White House because the public, enthusiastically encouraged by many in the news media, treated the presidential election like a high school popularity contest. The successful candidate received kid-gloves treatment — and a free pass on the fuzzy math of his policy proposals — because he seemed like a fun guy to hang out with, while the unsuccessful candidate was subjected to sniggering mockery over his clothing and his mannerisms.

Despite the fact that this year's crop of Democratic candidates are conversant with the issues, they have not really been pushed to deliver more than platitudes. Indeed, there appears to be an almost inverse relationship between a candidates perceived standing in the race and his or her willingness to stake out discernible positions on the issues. After suggesting a number of questions that deserve answers from every candidate, Krugman makes a solid point:

The point of these questions isn’t to pose an ideological litmus test. The point is, instead, to gauge candidates’ judgment, seriousness and courage. How they answer is as important as what they answer.

I'd add that whether they answer is another powerful indicia. It may be a sign of things to come that Hillary's refusal to come to grips with her Iraq war vote continues to dog her. The media is more than willing to give her a pass on that issue, because it raises unsettling questions about its own somnolence in the face of the Bush con job. But regular people, especially those that informed themselves in those times and saw the disaster coming, are not so quick to forget.
Posted: Monday - February 26, 2007 at 07:16 PM          

©