Is that the existential question? There's been much made of recent comments by Obama advisers that came back to bite them. Economic adviser Goolsbee talked to the Canadian Consulate in Chicago regarding NAFTA, Samatha Power told a UK journalist that Hillary was a “monster.” Both learned the hard way that campaign advisers are fair game in this overheated contest.
I worry that the tone of this campaign will get uglier and every comment will get such scrutiny and opposition spin treatment (which is in turn picked up by the press) that the quality of public debate will suffer. If Benjamin Barber is right (see Desa Philadelphia's post below) in saying that the candidates can no longer discuss candidly trade and other issues, and candidates’ advisers are chastened not to speak out, we will be left not with a campaign but a race to the least common denominator of politics: pandering. And then we will get the kind of thoughtless and superficial policies in the next President that the public now rightly condemns.
The good thing about the campaign for the U.S. Presidency is that it is getting unprecedented attention both at home and abroad. The not so good thing is that, because of what used to be known as the “CNN factor” (now “Youtube” and the Blogosphere), media reaction is instantaneous, unfiltered, “raw.” NPR is doing a good job of taking a more distanced, nuanced view of how the world sees the U.S. campaign. Its dispatches from Iraq, South Africa, China and Britain can be accessed here. I highly recommend them. I will also be heading to Europe in the coming days and will be trying to gauge foreign perspectives on the race and sharing them with readers here.
Given the pressures on candidates to pander, it may very well be that the best place now to observe the campaign is from a distance.
