Assorted Afflatuses

Watching the presidential elections in France over the last year has given me a great deal of insight into how much change the American political system needs. But before I even begin to bemoan the American political system, I must turn my attention to France.

French politics are to American politics as Escoffier-style cuisine is to a fast-food at McDonald's. From what I have seen, watching the campaign on French television, it certainly trumps the American system. The French participate in politics the same way they participate in the World Cup; political rallies, or, as they call them in France, "les meetings," resemble something closer to a rock concert or sporting event than the dry, insipid political gatherings American office-seekers put together. Perhaps that could explain the record 84% voter turnout in the runoff election to choose France's two primary candidates.

But more importantly, nearly everything that the French discuss actually concerns policies and politics. I have yet to hear Ségolène Royal, the socialist candidate, attack her opponent, the more conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, on a personal level. Instead, she denounces his economic policies, or explains why his immigration plan would hurt the country. And, for that matter, most of the rhetoric the candidates use focuses on the positive aspects of their policies, not the negative aspects of their opponent's plan.

The French media also does a much better job of covering the elections. Instead of giving candidates the opportunity to attack their opponent's character flaws or evade the question, French interviewers ask tough questions and demand answers. Just yesterday on "A Vous de Juger" — a Larry King Live-style interview program, but without the softball Larry King questions — Ségolène Royal was forced to answer a number of questions that, based on her attempts to evade the questions, she did not want to answer.

Even the way the candidates dress seems more thoughtful. American politicians look like American politicians. Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal, however, would not look out of place on the runway in Milan, give or take a few pounds and a few years.

In America, the picture is much more bleak. Earlier this evening I plopped myself down on the couch to endure a ninety-minute debate on MSNBC between the eight (six, really) men and women who hope to become the Democratic presidential nominee next year.

To begin, I doubt whether the candidates answered half the questions. Brian Williams, the debate's so-called "moderator" even remarked at one point how absurd it was that his question about global warming somehow led to five speeches about Iraq. He should have done something about it. He seemed very timid, like a small child being bullied by "the big kids." It's really no wonder he could never cajole the candidates into answering questions with one word when he asked for it. I hope that his timidness was an editorial choice by a facile-minded MSNBC executive, not the choice of Mr. Williams.

The candidates were also more inarticulate than I would have liked. I would give Barack Obama a pass, barely, and the other candidates, in my mind at least, failed miserably. I tend to measure a candidate's articulateness against my own, which, admittedly, is not difficult threshold to overcome. But few American politicians manage to do it. I often ask to myself, "Could I have done a better job of delivering that message?" and, more often than not, the answer is "yes." Alternately, if I look at someone who can genuinely speak, like outgoing British PM Tony Blair, I find myself struggling to even begin drawing a comparison.

All eight presidential hopefuls also had a bizarre fixation on the Iraq issue. It almost seemed pointless for Brian Williams to even raise the question. Every candidate had the same response: we need to pull our troops out of Iraq. The candidates, however, put Iraq in the spotlight, at the expense of many other important issues, like the environment or innovation. Undoubtedly it was some charade to illustrate Bush's missteps. But I cannot understand how knowing not to vote for President Bush, who cannot even run, makes me want to vote for them.

Someone from Evanston, Illinois (read: Northwestern University) asked, in an email question, what the candidates would do to increase the number of American students pursuing careers in science and technology. One candidate said something about paying teachers more — not something that would help the situation — and the rest managed to contort the question into something related to Iraq.

Later in the debate, Brian Williams confronted Delaware Senator Joseph Biden with an observation from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman: of the myriad of presidential hopefuls who have entered the race so far, not one has a serious energy policy. Senator Biden countered by presenting his not-serious energy plan. If elected, the senator would implement such bold measures as ensuring that ten percent of American gas stations could pump ethanol by 2009. In space-race terms, Biden's proposal would be the equivalent of John Kennedy saying that the United States would have a launch pad built by 1975.

At this point I would probably support Barack Obama, though not enthusiastically. He definitely has the most poise and the most brainpower of primary candidates. And I admire his genuine effort to clean up the mess in politics. But I worry about his inexperience and his lack of a real energy policy. Still, considering the other choices, I hope Barack takes the cake.