October 16, 2008
America has lost confidence in its leadership. Without in any way denying the exceedingly serious American and world economic situation, at the end of the day it will be confidence in our leaders which will reduce our fears, eliminate panic, and lead the nation back to stability. In fact, this election is coming down to that very question: Which candidate will inspire confidence at home and abroad so that Americans will believe that the economy truly can be turned around?
Americans are genuinely afraid. They see homes being foreclosed (if not theirs, then their neighbors’); they see banks turning down small-business requests for loans (even if such firms have a strong credit history); they see banks and large, venerable institutions crumbling (even if they have no personal attachment to them); they see Asia taking away business (even though it is all part of the intertwined global economy); they see their retirement nest eggs disintegrating (even though many of them may be years from retirement); and they see stock market gyrations that can only make them believe that Wall Street has become just another casino.
Economic crisis calls for a leader who can inspire a sense that the right man is in charge.
Historians have written extensively concerning how the United States came out of the Great Depression. Many have pointed out that President Franklin Roosevelt did not so much accomplish any magical turnaround for the economy — for it actually took years for the economic system to change and right itself — but rather he instilled a sense of confidence. In reality, life became much more challenging for most Americans during the early months of Roosevelt’s first term, but people believed that there was someone in the White House who could guide them through their dire economic crisis.
Proof of FDR’s political success was his overwhelming and unprecedented landslide reelection victory in 1936.
For more than a year polls have shown President Bush’s approval rating consistently hovering below the 30 percent level. Even a popular president entering his final months in office would have trouble asserting his leadership; however, Bush has engendered no public confidence or leadership as the entire country has watched the economy spin out of control. Were it not for Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his people — whom Bush admittedly is responsible for bringing into his administration — Americans could rightly assume that they were back in the leadership morass of 1929 with Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon in charge of the store.
Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama will assume the mantel of leadership until Jan. 20, 2009; but, beginning on Nov. 5 — the day after the election — either one must begin to restore Americans’ confidence. It is this question of confidence and trust on which American voters appear to be focused as they approach Nov. 4.
Yet to find a candidate who instills confidence, Americans will have to wade through one of the sleaziest and slimiest campaign finales that has been seen in America, at least since the Bush-Dukakis election of 1988. Sadly, the campaign team of Sen. McCain — a man who previously had given integrity, patriotism, and honesty a fine name and who himself interrupted a supporter’s attempt to paint Sen. Obama as a Muslim — has persuaded McCain to take the lead in the deterioration of political debate.
Unless the McCain campaign pulls back to focus on the faltering economy, it’s easy to see their Bill Ayers’ guilt-by-association tactic growing to include repeated attempts to link Obama with the four reverends: Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, and Al Sharpton. Such a strategy, which may well inflate Jewish support for McCain in key swing states, is bound to inflame the race issue.
Ironically, McCain strategists will need to determine whether such tactics will rev up their base to turn out on Election Day or whether Obama can exploit that strategy to energize all of his newly registered minority and young voters to actually show up on Nov. 4.
The Obama campaign will need to decide whether these persistent hits may actually backfire among swing voters who are sick of the mud-slinging in the midst of an economic crisis, or whether Obama will return the innuendo and character attacks in kind.
Regardless, this type of public attack will not instill any type of public confidence in the voting public as they beg for new leadership. It will only besmirch the process. For Jews who already are being blamed by some fringe elements for precipitating or manipulating the economic crisis, a strong, confident hand on the tiller can’t come soon enough.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union (e-mail gkahn@kean.edu).
Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
