Something strange is happening in this strangest of all
presidential contests. The longer it goes on, the less we know about what
either of these men would really do if he were in the Oval Office next
year.
John McCain and Barack Obama have been asked twice — once in the
Mississippi debate and again on Tuesday night — what their priorities
would be. McCain flat-out refused to choose, arguing that the United States
can do it all. Obama mentioned energy, health care and education, but did
not acknowledge that he might have to choose among them.
Similarly, they declined to spell out what sacrifices they might have
to ask Americans to make, beyond moderating their energy use or easing
their demands for Washington-financed projects.
It was a stunning rejection of reality. This nation is mired in two
wars it does not know how to end. It is struggling to escape the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression. The federal government is
staring at record deficits, with no plausible plan for financing the
retirement and health care needs of a giant generation of retirees. Our
transportation and education systems need help, and we are dependent on
other countries for the energy we use.
In the face of all this, Obama and McCain are stubbornly repeating
promises they made in happier times — tax cuts for all, new health
benefits, big government-financed projects.
To govern is to choose, and next year, the trade-offs will be much
tougher than usual because of the mess the Bush administration is leaving
behind. At a moment when few Americans can muster much confidence in the
leaders in Congress or the White House, McCain and Obama have used two of
their three debates — three hours when they had the attention of millions
of voters — to conceal more than they revealed about their agendas.
That is why these debates are the opposite of game-changers. The
campaign is being driven by real-world events, not the words of the
candidates. Obama has moved ahead, by every measure, in part because voters
consistently rate Democrats over Republicans on the big domestic and
economic issues, and in part because his hard-working supporters are
changing the electorate with their registration and voter-turnout
campaigns.
The candidates did do the country — and themselves — one favor by
avoiding the personal attacks that their campaign associates had been
making for the previous five days. It was a relief to be spared more
discussion of Bill Ayers and the Keating Five.
But the frustration that is growing stems from their mutual reluctance
to talk candidly about the situation one of them will inherit.
If either of them has a clue about what to do to help stabilize this
tottering economy, they are keeping it to themselves. McCain threw out the
notion of buying up distressed mortgages, but in such an offhand manner
that no one could tell what he meant — or what it would cost.
Even when they have been specific, it is hard to credit their words.
Both have promised sweeping tax reductions, targeted to different
populations. But neither has given any indication how the promises will
stand in the face of the massive new spending needed to rescue embattled
financial institutions.
Absent any reliable information about their programs, voters must fall
back on an examination of their records and characters. The records are
admirable, but sketchy, because neither of them has had to assemble or
direct or motivate a large administration. Their executive abilities are
untested.
By contrast, we have every reason to admire their characters —
including their willingness to deal seriously with members of the opposite
party. The good news is that both these men are willing to listen.
It may be that we will not know what policies we're getting until one
of them takes office. But I was struck by the survey of economists reported
in the current issue of The Economist, the London newsmagazine that covers
America so well. It found much greater confidence in the economic views and
advisers of Obama than McCain. The 142 respondents included far more
Democrats than Republicans. But even among Republicans, the Obama team was
rated superior — and among the unaffiliated, the choice was overwhelming.
That is less satisfying a measure than the candidates themselves could
provide, if they were more candid. But it may be the best we can get.
