2008: A CROSS ROADS ELECTION - AN ECONOMIC CRISIS The REAL new year has begun in October 2008 with a calendar twist. This is October 7, not December 7! But the United States seams to be facing a potential "financial Pearl Harbor". The endless election campaign seems less and less relevant as the politicians spend time and rhetoric on issues like Obama's friendship with a war protestor and McCain's connection with a lobbyist for the savings and loan industry. Although not constructive, these past events are more of the endless two year election campaign's "attack ads" syndrome.

This week the financial world of Wall Street has seen a drop between 300 and 800 in one day, bringing the Dow Jones level to below 10,000 for the first time in nearly a decade. This roller coaster activity is proof that economic results will take time, and that sweeping government legislation is not the complete solution.

Congress passed the controversial legislation that will require American taxpayers to bail out Wall Street for $780 billion; and we witnessed the hearing of Richard Fuld, embattled CEO of the Lehman financial giant, whose bonuses and salary combinations have totaled $480 million in that same decade. As we are forced to stomach a "bailout" legislation carrying baggage of Congressional "earmarks", (a new name for good ol’ fashioned "political pork" and bridges to nowhere), and we witness two more Presidential debates, the need to go beyond platitudes grows more necessary than ever.

To give some necessary perspective to the excesses of 2008 election rhetoric and the politics of Congress, let us first apply some historical perspective to elections past, some of which took place during uncertain economic times.


What is Past? Is it "Prologue"?

Every fourth year, during a Presidential election, the change is often hidden as summer fades and autumn begins. To a large degree, it is the final turn in what has become known as an endless campaign: two years of television and internet advertisements with more rhetoric than substance, consultants, political handlers, and money poured into a system that subsidizes both the media and those who "manage" the candidates.

As we approach the final turn of a national "Presidential Preakness" race, is the substance of issues and the candidates' capacity to actually govern as President becoming less important? Attack ads are not new. Here are just a few historical examples of what former politicians said before the media onslaught began to take over:

1860 "My opponent is a big-eared baboon".

Edwin Stanton referring to a Springfield lawyer, Abraham Lincoln. Stanton became Secretary of War during four of the most traumatic years in American history. As described in Doris Kearns Goodwin's revealing perspective, "Team of Rivals", Lincoln created a true coalition cabinet to shepherd the nation through a civil war.

1912 "He has the personality of an apothecary clerk".

Theodore Roosevelt speaking about Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 three man race where split votes between "Rough Rider" and heavyweight (literally) Teddy made a little known college professor a future World War I President.

1920 "I know he is not intelligent; but he looks like a President".

Henry Cabot Lodge, Senator and old school Boston aristocrat, in a Chicago hotel smoke-filled room session suggested that the Republican convention could best select appearance as the criterion for a campaign that was to call for a "return to normalcy". Result?: Warren Harding, a truly “lesser light" in the White House .

1932 "...an amiable country squire with no noticeable qualifications to be President".

Walter Lippman, the intellectual "wise man" of American journalistic opinion, commenting on Hudson River Valley aristocrat Franklin Roosevelt's campaign for President after just four years as New York Governor, in the midst of the worst economic crisis ever faced by the United States.

At the 1980 Presidential debate after a long-winded observation by President Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan smiled and sighed, "There he goes again." In this case, the humor was a preview of a candidate who, like FDR, had a unique way of connecting with the average voter and it worked in enabling him to reach far beyond the perception of an actor who could do little else. Ronald Reagan shifted the national gears toward "creative conservatism". Both Truman and Reagan were underestimated in the heat of the campaign process.

And, in 1968, Maryland's temporarily notorious entry into national politics was the nomination of its relatively unknown Governor, Spiro Agnew, for Vice-President. When asked why he was selected, Republican nominee Richard Nixon replied: "No one knows anything bad about him". Less than five years later, Agnew became the first Vice President to select resignation over court indictment and (likely) conviction for corruption.

Is What’s Past...Prologue?

Were these campaign observations predictions of anything to come? The answer is clear: No! With the exceptions of Harding and Agnew, all of those candidates belittled by opponents and commentators turned out as leaders under the pressures and demands of governance. What history says is that past campaigns have been silly, superficial and carried the potential of "surprise" in producing leaders who did lead. Lincoln and the two Roosevelts became surprise symbols of strength. Is that the benchmark of what lies ahead after a new President is inaugurated on January 20, 2009?

Did the debates separate reality from rhetoric? Will this seemingly endless campaign result in relief for American taxpayers and business owners?

Stay tuned for the conclusion of "2008: A CROSSROADS ELECTION -AN ECONOMIC CRISIS", to appear before the November 4th vote……….  10:50 AM •