They Are Off and Running:
Will it be a Merit-based Competition or a Demolition Derby?
2/11/06
by William Hessell

Presidential aspirants are eagerly gearing up for battle, a full year and a half before the nominating conventions.  The wisdom of beginning this early and the amount of money it takes to be competitive can be debated, but that won't change the reality--with our system as it is, that is what is necessary to win.  The nature of how the aspirants wage their battle for support then assumes paramount importance, saying much about them and about the party they represent.  If the candidate is locked into a "win at any cost" mentality, trying to tear down other candidates rather than focusing primarily, or even singularly, on their own strengths, plans, and vision for the country, it reveals much about that candidate's nature and whether he or she is capable of serving the common good of the party and of the country.  Our political history is full of vicious intra-party battles between people who are really on the same side regarding the significant issues facing the nation Instead of emphasizing these central issues in their campaigning, much energy is spend looking for ways to tear down their opposition, even though the issues between them are relatively minor.  If all candidates were equally devoted to the party finding the strongest candidate to represent them in the national election, each presenting their own plans, policies, and personality in a positive manor, it would be like a legitimate horse race, free of barriers, land mines, and pitfalls to obstruct one's path to the finish line.  The strongest candidate would win.  Intra-party squabbling often muddies the race, and the carry-over effect to the national election, where the differences on issues between the parties are major, can be profound. 
 
The differences between the major parties are greater now on the significant issues of the day than they have been since the depression of the 1930's.  Even Ralph Nader would probably say there is more than a "dimes worth of difference" between the Republicans and the Democrats.  On Iraq, on the role of collaboration and negotiation in foreign affairs, on global warming, on privacy rights, on civil liberties, on health care options, on the governments role in serving the basic needs of the majority of its citizens, massive differences currently exist between the parties. The November 2008 election assumes uncommon importance to our nation's well-being.  If primary aspirants loose this focus, they weaken the very causes that should be most important to them.  There are already several examples among the Democratic contenders of this occurring.  Hillary Clinton's campaign manager has stated that donors choosing to support several different candidates at this stage of the process is "one of the most stupid ideas" he has ever heard.  What is wrong with supporting various candidates until a clear sense is developed of which one may emerge as the strongest?  Isn't the purpose to find the best candidate, not to prematurely elevate one candidate over all others?  Joe Biden, when he announced his candidacy, made very disparaging comments about two other candidate's views on Iraq, that they would be a "disaster" or that they "don't know what the heck they are talking about".   No one knows that any policy change in Iraq wouldn't be a disaster, including that proposed by Biden, but it is known that the existing policies have been, and continue to be, an all too real tragic and misguided disaster. All the Democratic candidates are on the same page in insisting these policies be changed, and the differences between them are relatively minor.  In the rough and tumble world of politics, it may be unrealistic to desire that issues and candidates be decided on their true merits, but the stakes have never been higher.  The real contest that matters will occur in November 2008.  Let's let the candidates present their cases to the public unimpeded by pettiness, power plays, and dirty politics.  Let the primaries determine the strongest candidate.  Those who are on the same side of the all-important issues should save the "we have to win" mentality for the national election.