THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Fellow Systocrats: 

One aspect of the main stream media's coverage of the first presidential debate that merits more analysis is the contention that Obama was “too nice,” specifically that he should not have agreed with McCain as many times as he did.  What’s missing from the post-debate coverage is some commentary on just how necessary it will be for the next President not only to seek common ground with people who hold different views, but to be strong and confident enough to express these views in order to narrow the scope of disputes, bridge the gap between competing positions and ultimately achieve consensus. 

Here’s an example that throws this issue into high relief.  I was talking with a neighbor last night, and she wanted to know what Obama’s position was re: effecting the military defense of this country.  Specifically, she stated that as a result of the closing of military bases up and down the Atlantic coast, she felt “exposed.”  “What if there’s an attack?” she wondered aloud.  “How will we defend ourselves?”

Here's the disturbing truth - there can be no effective military defense to an invisible enemy.  Modern warfare is fundamentally different from traditional warfare in that no modern army, especially one that plans to take on the vaunted military might of the United States, is going to present itself on any battlefield to be conveniently annihilated.  As the Russians learned in Afghanistan, and as we’ve learned in Vietnam and now in Bush’s ill-conceived “war on terror” it is difficult, if not impossible, to decisively defeat an enemy you can’t find.  This analysis also holds true in the event that we find ourselves arrayed against a sovereign nation, like Iran for example.  Our military might roll in and take over, but good luck maintaining the peace if the resistance is mounted by an unseen guerilla force that watches for an opportunity and strikes when it’s convenient for them to do so. 

Diplomacy is the key to resolving international conflicts in the modern era.  We need a leader who is willing and able to bring warring factions to the negotiating table and keep them there until a meaningful accord is reached.  In that regard, I ask readers to consider which diplomatic approach is likely more effective: the “you’re with us or against us” approach favored by both Bush and McCain, or Obama’s willingness to acknowledge the existence of common ground with an adversary in order to narrow the issues in dispute before addressing the contentious issues.  In light of McCain's behavior at the first debate, how are foreign leaders likely to react when McCain or his Secretary of State show up at the negotiating table, refuse to look their counterparts in the eye and otherwise act contemptuously towards them? 

Obviously strength is needed as well – we certainly don’t want a leader that can be easily rolled.  We can always threaten to impose economic sanctions, embargoes, etc, although these measures are useless against metanational terrorist groups.  But the proverbial big stick is only going to carry us but so far in the modern age.  What will we threaten foreign/terrorist leaders with in twenty years when it’s likely that most nations/terrorist organizations will not only have access to nuclear weapons or some futuristic equivalent, but also the means to direct these weapons to our shores from some remote location?  

The ability to find common ground is essential on the home front as well.  There are essentially two Americas right now – a red America and a blue America.  While there are obviouly divergent views within each “America,” there are nonetheless fundamental differences between many of the “Reds” and many of the “Blues” re: the direction this country should take in the next eight years.  What’s needed is a leader who’s confident enough to note the areas of agreement without fear of giving away some silly tactical advantage, in order to bring people together and get things done.  McCain and Obama both contend that they have the ability to bring people together to solve problems, but McCain’s actions and demeanor at the first debate strongly suggest otherwise. 

For those pundits who think Obama conceded too much, as a practical matter of debate strategy, by agreeing with some of McCain's statements, the debate transcript reveals that when Obama “agreed” with McCain, he really didn’t give away anything other than some soundbytes that McCain could take out of context and use against him.  I do agree that Obama did miss some opportunities to really blast McCain, by pointing out Ms. Palin's fondness for earmarks, for example, and I do think Obama should have confronted McCain directly re: McCain's repeated assertion that "Obama doesn't understand" various issues of national importance.  But the latest McCain ad is nothing more than pure political spin, taking Obama's comments out of context to manufacture the impression that somehow Obama "endorsed" McCain's position on certain issues.

Let’s look at the actual exchanges between Obama and McCain, taken out of context in McCain’s new ad, where Obama purportedly "agreed" with McCain:

EXCHANGE 1:

LEHRER: Are you going to vote for the [bailout] plan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN:  . . . . Sure. But -- but let me -- let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess, and CEO pay, and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.

But there's also the issue of responsibility . . . You've mentioned President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.

One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.

And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

Somehow we've lost that accountability. I've been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We've got to start also holding people accountable, and we've got to reward people who succeed.

But somehow in Washington today -- and I'm afraid on Wall Street -- greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, and corruption -- or certainly failure to carry out our responsibility is rewarded.

As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.

LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.

And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: I do not think that they are.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: Well, the -- John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And...

MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn't hear him?

LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try.

OBAMA: The -- and I just fundamentally disagree. And unless we are holding ourselves accountable day in, day out, not just when there's a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they've got a little financial crisis going on.

This exchange reveals that the only point on which Obama expressed agreement with McCain is that there needs to be more accountability.  Should he have disagreed with a statement that virtually 100% of Americans probably agree with just because McCain said it first?

"AGREEMENT" NO. 2:

Obama then agreed with McCain that the earmarks process has been abused and that lobbyists and special interest groups are responsible for “introducing these kinds of requests.  Again, would the vast majority of Americans disagree with this statement?  I don’t think Obama was required to disagree just because McCain stated a commonly held opinion before Obama had a chance to. 

"AGREEMENT" NO. 3:

Here’s the last “agreement” cited in McCain’s ad:

MCCAIN: Well -- well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax.

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in -- in the United States of America and create jobs . . .

OBAMA: Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.

It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem?

In this last exchange, Obama's not really agreeing with McCain at all.  McCain says business taxes are high, and Obama counters by pointing out these taxes are high on paper, but that McCain has failed to tell the American people the whole story - in effect, American businesses are taxed at some of the lowest rates in the world due to gaping loopholes in our corporate tax code. 

The bottom line: reports of Obama's over-geniality are greatly exaggerated, both as a matter of fact and as a negative aspect of Obama's debating style.  The thoughtful reader will agree that Obama's performance at the first debate demonstrates that he has the ideal characteristics for a twenty-first century leader.