Volume 3: 20 Days Out, Both Presidential Campaigns Score a D- On the Issues.

At the beginning of this Presidential election season, I likened political campaigns to brand campaigns, proposing that both could be judged on the strength of five criteria: a tagline everyone can remember, a bio people recognize, a set of issues you stand for, a clear target audience, and an edge against the competition.  With 20 days to go before the election, I’m disappointed to see that both campaigns are getting a failing D- in the category of “issues,” and our country is worse off for it.

The most educated country in the history of the world is suffering through some of the least edifying political campaigns in history. The campaigns are trading in tropes, stereotypes and name calling while issues get short-shrift and are contorted beyond recognition. While we have advanced in so many ways, we are facing political devolution. 

In 2016, Trump ran a rough and tumble campaign. This year it’s more of jumble. In the first campaign he had a slogan every American knew, squared off against the Washington establishment, and championed a litany of issues like immigration and trade that drew Democratic working-class voters into the Republican Party. It was fresh, unexpected, and upended America’s political order.

This year, there’s no new slogan and no new set of issues. Up until the virus, Trump had an economic record that would be the envy of most presidents and yet he has barely campaigned on it. Generally, he spends most of his time calling Biden mentally incompetent and maligning the press and the left wing of the Democratic Party. The Republican convention this summer appeared to be a turning point, featuring dramatic personal stories and new, diverse faces – but they have barely been seen on the campaign trail since, nor in the rather rudimentary campaign ads to come from Trump’s team. Perhaps representative of the seeming chaos of the campaign was that first campaign manager essentially blew a gasket and was arrested in a domestic dispute.

Trump is not alone in this turn away from issues and towards even more personal attacks. The Biden campaign has also traded in exaggerations and half-truths, labeling Trump  responsible “for each and every” of the more than 200,000 lives lost to the coronavirus when the record shows cascading system failures at every level of governmental response to the pandemic, and every nation in the world at large has suffered its toll.  Perhaps the most memorable moments of the first debate consisted of Biden telling Trump to “shut up” and calling him a “clown” amid constant interruptions from the President – hardly the height of political discourse. And for days, Biden, who barely took any questions this entire campaign, refused to answer whether he would pack the court on the grounds the answer might make headlines. In other words, why tell the voters what they are voting for?

The brokenness of our discourse extends into the political ad realm. The heralded Lincoln Project consultants are simply churning out all manner of acerbic ads with distorted quotes and jabs at the President’s relationship with the military based on reports that have been only thinly authenticated. Their ads were a discredit to politics when they were working for the Republican party and are just as low brow now that they are trying to tear the Republican party down.

Imagine for a moment that the two candidates for President were John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon, who participated in the first televised debates. Rather than playground bullying, we’d be treated to a spirited debate on whether the right way to shepherd the economy out of the pandemic is lower taxes and fewer regulations or higher taxes, expanded infrastructure, and more aggressive efforts to combat climate change.

On immigration, the two candidates would be debating whether we should have immigration reform that tightens the borders in exchange for legalizing DACA recipients or whether it is time to keep our borders more open and be more welcoming to higher levels of immigration.

In true Kennedy and Nixon style, the candidates would be debating whether Russia is the biggest threat to America or whether China and Iran are a new axis of evil. The real worth of NATO in today’s world order would be debated and we would be having a discussion about whether to maintain our present troop levels in the Mideast.

They would openly debate whether racism today in the result of systemic inequity that justifies extraordinary efforts to boost diversity and inclusion or whether racism today is far more limited and should be addressed by reforms that strive for a society that is color blind.

And, of course, each candidate would have a 5-point-plan to end the virus rather than just finger pointing at each other over who supported an early ban on travel from China. The debate over masks and lock downs would be backed up with facts and figures and both candidates would eagerly anticipate the announcement of a vaccine. They might even announce a successful vaccine candidate via a bipartisan press conference, knowing that after months of tragedy what Americans need most is unity.

And of course the debate about whether to repeal and replace Obamacare or to expand Obamacare and re-establish the mandate would be a lively one even in the Kennedy-Nixon era.

Instead of being educated about these differences, the average voter sees nothing but charges and counter charges leveled in the most exaggerated forms possible. Insults have won out over issues.  

The die is cast for this election, but 2024 will be a crucial chance to lift our politics out of the mud. It will take an electorate that stops responding to Twitter and campaigns that know there are more ways to win than just personally savaging your opponent. It will take candidates who run on a clear agenda and are willing to defend it against rigorous intellectual attack. Maybe the most educated electorate in history will demand politicians and leaders who appeal to their higher instincts for a change.