The 2008 Presidential election-no time for sleepwalking

With the 2008 presidential campaigns in full swing, once again we are witnessed to a process that unfortunately has become progressively trivialized. Causal empiricism strongly suggest that elements of calculated populism and pricy electoral juggernaut have transformed this once extraordinary event into an extravaganza; a form of evening reality TV entertainment with lavishly organized fundraising events, colorful political impresarios, perpetual campaign stomps, snippet debate formats and catchy bumper sticker phrases with little substance regarding real issues facing the nation or presenting practical remedial measures in resolving social concerns. 

In this cycle of election, given the crowded line-up of candidates, the two major parties, Democratic and Republican, have been struggling to find the candidate with national popularity that could also consolidate an ideologically united front around the base. However, the GOP has been dealt a much heavier hand in this regard vis-à-vis Bush administration’s stagnant status. This has forced the Party strategists to completely by-pass “Bush dynasty”, reaching backward nearly three decades and resurrecting Ronald Reagan’s image as the Party’s icon in an attempt to tilt the election. 

During the last Republican presidential debate, we observed how participants took every opportunity to praise Reagan’s era and measuring-up their credentials against that backdrop. However, it seems that still to a fraction of party loyalists the true “Reaganite” with similar pageantry who would be able to “lift” the nation and once again deliver it to “the shining city upon the hill” is to be found in the most hesitant of all the candidates, former senator turning actor, Fred Thompson.  

Aside from the fact that Thompson’s hesitation in announcing his candidacy does not reflect well as the type of decisiveness promoted by his supports and the fact that the twenty-first century idiosyncrasies require a mind-frame more in-tuned with the existing geo-political complexities rather than the twentieth century ideological abstractions, an unbiased and careful review of the Reagan’s era would also reveal it as a period not quite as shining as what is being portrayed. In reality, Reagan’s presidency was a period of controversial economic policies, emergence of religion as a governing force, absence of political transparencies,  hegemony of monopolies and bureaucratic mismanagements, which interestingly seems too current.

To begin with, Reagan’s 1980 presidential victory was not necessarily result of his political grand standing or economic strategies, but rather a direct product of incumbency of Jimmy Carter and public’s disenchantment with the economic status at home and frustration with the “hostage crisis” in Iran. Absent such an environment, Reagan’s victory would not have been guaranteed as his previous presidential bids in 1968 and 1972 running on similar platforms against Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford respectively proved to be unsuccessful. 

For all practical purposes, Reagan’s presidency was a plutocracy; a governing environment predominantly framed by the defense industry lobbyists, financed by the Wall Street special interests and executed by bureaucrats. Unprecedented tax cut in favor of large corporations, which constituted the central theme of the Reagan’s supply-side “trickle-down economic policy” or better known as “Regeanomics”, in addition to the expansive military spending at the expense of social and environmental programs resulted in an explosion of nearly $300 Billion dollars deficit and consequential recession that took many years to control. Deregulation frenzy of the 80’s favoring large lending industry without any over-sight, caused catastrophic collapse of the Saving & Loans institutions that practically wiped-out hard-earned individual savings and cost consumers billions of dollars in bailing-out bankrupt financial entities, in return causing sharp increase in individual bankruptcies and deterioration in the blue-color economic power.

On the issue of foreign policy that is being portrayed as the Reagan’s golden pillar, there are also ample examples of missteps, including hasty pull-out from Lebanon, which resulted in a long and bloody civil war and further radicalization of the region; unequivocal support of brutal military juntas in Latin America that caused many lives and deterioration in the US moral standing amongst native population; lack of support for the anti-apartheid movement in South African and alliance with the racist regime in the country based on justification such as “Constructive Engagement”. Even in regards with collapse of the Soviet Union that has been naively attributed to the Reagan’s defense programs, in-depth analysis has clearly proven that USSR’s collapse was primarily a consequence of decades of internal economic mismanagement, global expansionism, concentration of power and political disenfranchisement causing the system stretched to the limits and its eventual implosion. It would be logically inconceivable that without profound internal factors, mere external input could cause collapse of a military empire.  

Also, on the issue of governmental ethics, Reagan’s administration does not shine as brightly as some try to make us believe. By the end of his presidency or within few years thereafter, numerous high ranking administration officials had been either subject of federal investigations, indicted or convicted, including James Watt (Secretary of Interior), Casper Weinberger (Secretary of Defense), Raymond Donavon (Secretary of Labor), Michael Deaver (Senior advisor) and the National Security Council’s team of Robert McFarlane, John Poindexter and Oliver North who in direct violation of law were involved in selling arms to the Islamic Republic of Iran in pursuit of administration’s secret war in Nicaragua, which was also in violation of the law proscribed by the “Boland Amendment”.   

Reagan’s era although perhaps glamorous by the Hollywood’s standard was not necessarily an extraordinary period. However, it is perhaps too remote in time for the younger sector of the society to fully comprehend its true experience, and symbolically too valuable for the party ideologues to be presented realistically. 

Given the status of today’s society namely economic uncertainty, deterioration in the democratic safeguards, absence of sound foreign policies, involvement in an unjust war based on fabrications, lack of enthusiasm concerning humanitarian and environmental efforts, bureaucratic corruptions, disregard for constitutional mandates and in general absence of a type leadership expected of the most dominant democracy in the world, the 2008 election is of tremendous importance. The next president not only has the burden of correcting many wrongs, but also must restore public confidence in the integrity of the government, which has been greatly damaged. This makes electing the most qualified candidate vital.  There is not much room for the margin of error or superficial glamour of a by-gone period.

As an old phrase says, I would rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don’t want and get it.