Everything until now was merely preseason.
The 2012 Presidential Election officially began last night when Mitt Romney's attack-dog running mate Paul Ryan delivered a brazenly deceitful/brilliantly inspiring take down of Barack Obama at the GOP convention. Liberals have been quick to counter Ryan with all the pesky facts that he so willfully ignored, distorted and flat-out lied about. Conservatives then fact-checked the fact-chekcers, and claim the liberal squaking is only proof that Ryan "hit a home run."
An essay published at FOX News sums Ryan's speech up in three words: Dazzling, Deceitful, Distracting. Liberals lustily point to the essay as proof that even FOX News says Paul Ryan is lying, without bothering to note that the essay was written by FOX News' "progressive voice," Susan Kohn.
The voices in the peanut gallery drown each other out, and all that's left is what we had to begin with: Paul Ryan has framed the 2012 election with a warm smile and a coldy calculated speech, and the American people will have to sort out, each on one's own, what to make of it.
As I wrote in February, the 2012 election was always bound to follow one of two paths: either the summer would bring economic recovery, and Barack Obama would win a Reagan-over-Mondale landslide. Or, more likely, the economy would continue to send mixed messages over the summer, and Obama's run for a second term would mirror George W. Bush's uninspiring 2004 victory.
Thus far, 2012 couldn't be following 2004 any more closely.
Not surprisingly, America's economy, like every other economy in the world, remains tepid at best, and Barack Obama's potential re-election will depend more on the GOP's failings than his own successes.
Tell me, once again, if this sounds familiar: A vulnerable sitting President reviled by the other side of the aisle is running for reelection against a flip-flopping, empty-suit challenger who won nomination because his party was too directionless to choose a stronger leader. Empty-suit challenger chooses a young, good-looking, smooth-talking runningmate who is supposed to humanize the ticket, appeal to blue-collar voters, and serve as the rhetorical attack dog.
Barack Obama, meet George W. Bush. Romney/Ryan, meet Kerry/Edwards. America, get ready to make another depressing choice in November.
What's going to happen? The guess here is that Americans will listen eagerly to what Mitt Romney has to say and earnestly try to get to know him, only to find that he has 1.) nothing substantial to say, and 2.) a stiff personality that they can't relate to. The more they get to know Paul Ryan, the less they will trust him, and the only reason history will see him more favorably than John Edwards is because it doesn't get any worse than John Edwards.
Americans will have a hard time making sense of Barack Obama, the man they swooned for four years ago, who ran on Hope And Change only to govern on moderation, caution, and aspirations of compromise that were torpedoed at every turn by cynical Republicans. They'll see him as a good man, but they'll wonder where the inspiration went, where the answers are.
Both sides of the aisle try to frame every Presidential election like it is the most important of our lifetime, or our generation, or whatever. But the truth is, for America, the result of the 2012 election really isn't that important because the candidates aren't that different.
Both Obama and Romney are moderates that the other side tries to paint as extremists. Romney talks like a hawk on foreign policy to satisfy his base, but he won't steer America's foreign relations off the course it's on because he's got domestic issues to worry about, and no foreign policy expertise. Obama talks like a dove on foreign policy to please his base, but continues to take the same illegal shortcuts that Bush/Rove provided to the Office of President. And for crying out loud, the two dudes devised the exact same government health care plan, one that eschews real political risk for the sake of making safe, incremental advances.
There will be moderate differences in Obama's domestic economic policy, versus Romney's. President Romney would make modest reductions to social programs under the name of being "pro-business," but behind the rhetoric, both men will merely kowtow to Big Business, let Wall Street do whatever it wants, pay lip-service to the poor, and maintain America's stagnant status quo.
Maybe America, and the officials we elect, aren't ready yet to follow a bold course. Perhaps it will take another decade or two of stagnation in a shrinking global economy before we demand something better. A combination of technology, terrorism and bad environmental policy has changed the face of global economies, but geo-politics isn't catching up. America is slumping, Europe is collapsing, Africa is starving, Russia is rebelling, Japan is trying to find its heartbeat, and China is leading a new Asian economy that is re-writing the textbook for un-sustainability.
Maybe the people who can lead us out of the morass are out there, and maybe we'll meet them over the next ten years. But they sure as hell aren't on the 2012 ticket.
But it was a nice speech anyway, Paul Ryan. I'm sure your rhetoric professor would be proud. Or ashamed, depending on what he's reading today.
Follow Bison Messink on Twitter: @BisonMessink
Comments (2)