Hi Alea
I'm sitting here and watching the debates from New Hampshire tonight. Both the Republicans and the Democrats held debates. There was a fair amount of dialogue between candidates, not the carefully scripted formats of the presidential debates after the nominees are decided. Overall, I would say that Obama and McCain acquitted themselves well, while Romney and Clinton made poor showings.
The debates of which you speak are definitely a part of the parties philosophies today. Democrats tend to believe that government monies should be spent on attempting to solve social ills, which increases the amount of regulation over our lives. Republicans tend to believe that the government should limit it's intrusions into social affairs. The Republicans in the decade before the current President made limiting the size and spending of government a major part of their platform. After their performance under Bush's leadership, they can hardly make that claim anymore. Spending is through the roof, but most of the money is going into the hands of corporations. Not a good situation, IMO.
You would probably find the presidency of Ulysses Grant interesting. Grant was a strict constructionist in his political beliefs. He believed that a president should confine his activities to just what the constitution said his powers were. Since the constitution does not say that the president should play a role in the construction of public policy, Grant did not attempt to influence Congressional legislation. It was probably because of his beliefs that those in power in the Republican Party (which was still pretty young at that time, and the liberal party of the two) chose Grant to run as their candidate.
The men in control of the Republican Party at that time were in favor of a massive expansion of federal power, especially over the South in the years after the Civil War. They passed reconstruction acts that placed US states under the control of the military, and three amendments to the constitution to guarantee civil rights for African Americans in the South. Those things are good, but often in America there are unintended consequences. One of the amendments-the 14th-has been used to assert corporate personhood, and thus, equal protection for corporations under the guarantees of freedoms found in our constitution. This has resulted in a massive expansion of corporate power, which neither the government nor private forces have been able to quell.
It is this power that John McCain has made a name for himself fighting against. He has attempted for years to get campaign finance reforms passed that would block corporations from contributing to candidates for public office. Because of the 14th amendment, corporations have been able to successfully block any efforts at meaningful reform. Contributing to political campaigns has been declared to be a form of free speech, and since corporations are persons in the legal sense, they can claim the same right to free speech that our constitution gives to any individual citizen here in the US.
Grant is usually listed as among the five worst presidents that we have ever had. His administration was corrupt and scandal plagued, and he did little to exert any power to reign in those who were conducting shady activities. After all, the constitution didn't say anything about providing leadership within the party. While he was president, the Republican party slowly became filled with people who were trying to take advantage of all the new government power. By the end of his administration, which had started with such promise of finally solving the ills of the South, the Republicans had to back off reconstruction in the compromise of 1877. Without the compromise, the scandals and rip offs occurring under Republican rule had reduced the party's standing among the people to an all time low.
My point would be that debates about great principles are fine, and should be a part of our election process, but I have seen too many grand pronouncements of principles fail when confonted with the realities of the office. I want a candidate that can think on his (or her) feet, and respond to challenges in such a way that the challenge is negated and their overall platform/goal is carried forward. Abraham Lincoln was able to do that, even while fighting a Civil War, and that is why he is among our greatest presidents. Obama has done that in these debates thus far, Clinton has not, and the rest are thus far not standing out. Even Ron Paul. When you have no chance of winning, it is easy to say just exactly what you believe is right. You don't care who you offend, and you call attention to yourself by sticking out. Put Paul in a competetive position, maybe just a few points behind McCain, and you would hear a different tune.
AI
