Consider the debate over healthcare, and particularly, Medicare. Both candidates know, with certainty, that this program will go bankrupt, paying out benefits far beyond its revenues, within slightly more than a decade. Rather than address this fundamental problem with the program, both candidates are in 'pander' mode. Worse still, both advocate a new addition to the program in the form of a prescription medicine benefit to senior citizens. While George Bush would 'means test' (qualifying recipients on the basis of income) the new entitlement program, Al Gore would gladly hand it out to everybody who safely reaches retirement age. Either addition will quicken the pace of collapse for the program, so if 'saving Medicare' is among the imperatives, both candidates fail the 'responsible adult test.' Moreover, the issue is not being examined from an entirely different point of view: Should Medicare be saved at all? Both candidates are so deeply engaged in the process of appealing to seniors, particularly in the key state of Florida, that they cannot politically address this question and its moral components. Specifically, neither candidate will raise the issue of revenue, and its source.
With Medicare, current employees pay as beneficiaries collect. Neither candidate seems willing to ask the important question: "Why do retirees expect their children and grand-children to pay for a benefit to seniors that the younger generation can itself barely afford?" Gore is unconcerned by any underlying moral question, long ago discarding morality in favor of political expediency; Bush is terrified, because as a somewhat responsible adult, he might be forced to answer such a question truthfully: this, in today's "what's in it for me" electorate would certainly be the kiss of death for his presidential aspirations.
On the issue of taxes, both men step to a difficult dance, neither wishing to offend their respective bases, nor willing to risk offending the great 'moderate' middle. It is instructive then, that both men are willing to let the uninformed, often-ignorant, constantly knee-jerk, reflexive 'center' drive the campaign, not wanting to be perceived as 'extreme.' Moderation, in current political double-speak, has come to mean: "having no degree of affirmative support for any new idea." Moderates then, are the anti-action, status quo ante members of the electorate. This group, more than any other, wishes for the candidate to propose the most innocuous possible changes without ever implementing a single one of them. Al Gore proposes 'targeted tax cuts,' which in essence, means few if any cuts at all. The underlying idea behind this approach is to make it so difficult to actually become eligible for the tax cuts that few, if any, will ever be realized by tax-payers. Gore's base understands this encoded language aimed at the middle. They understand that the middle will perceive these as possible benefits, carefully undertaken, while in reality, the equivalent phrase would be 'non-cut tax-cuts.' Meanwhile, at Bush headquarters, they propose a 'simplification' to the Internal Revenue Service code. The idea is to create a 'flat tax,' or so they would have you believe. This terminology appeals to the moderate middle, seeming to imply fairness. The truth, of course, is somewhat removed from this application of connotative language. The primary dishonesty is that such a tax is only flat assuming a certain level of income. Below a certain range, you will pay no taxes whatsoever, and that, dear reader, is anything but flat.
All of these discontinuities, and yet, not one member of the mainstream media will ask a serious or substantive question. Quite to the contrary, they engage in the chase of the latest manufactured polls, ever happy to tell us which candidate is in the lead, or which compiled the greater number of gaffs on a certain day. The ignorant moderates will hardly become informed by watching television. In fact, if you watch both candidates closely, you will find that they are doing everything possible to portray their opponent as 'extreme.' This show is for the benefit of the ignorant, all aimed at garnering their support. One would do well to consider the meaning of the word "extreme." Often, this word is tossed about as though it were a javelin possessing its own weight. Quite to the contrary, 'extreme' is a word denoting degree. For instance, if one were 'extremely honest,' surely, this would be no detriment. Frankly, the United States could use a few more 'extreme' politicians: Extremes in objective morality, faithful service, candor and integrity would all be acceptable extremes. Extremes of dishonesty, disloyalty, and demagoguery would all be the sort of character trait to which we would rightly attach a negative value judgment.
In this regard, both candidates fail to pass the test. 'G. Dubya' calls his opponent an extreme leftist. 'Algorilla' calls his opponent a right-wing extremist. Both hurl these labels without ever seeking to attach definitions to them. They don't have to: For the 'moderate middle,' any extreme is a negative. Inasmuch as the 'moderate' segment of the electorate constitutes intellectual laziness, the two parties and their respective candidates are quite content to utilize the vague language that moves these slothful voters. As is plain, in too many ways, these two candidates are quite similar.
Gone are the days when libertarians such as Barry Goldwater pronounced "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." No current candidate would dare make such a profoundly ideological statement. Of course, even Barry Goldwater, after years of being pummeled for his 'extremism,' eventually moderated his position. Also gone are the speeches of such renowned statists as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and George McGovern who spoke plainly of their intentions to socialize the United States. Although they would never use the word 'socialize,' it was plain by their proposals where they would lead. Instead of strong candidates with whom to clearly agree or disagree, we are left with a crop of presidential contenders who are lightweight by any serious measure. Time is dwindling: research the candidates to see which actually assumes a firm stance on any issue. Don't get too excited, however, as neither of these warrant it.
