This photograph from the U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper accurately captures the anxiety on Wall Street as the financial crisis worsened.
ON THE EVE of a watershed election, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman correctly wonders why both campaigns have avoided discussing the “actual challenges of governing that will confront the winner the morning after.” Friedman writes:
Watching [the Obama-McCain debates] in the context of the meltdown of the financial system was like watching a game show where the two contestants were kept off-stage in a soundproof booth and brought out to address the audience without knowing the context.
While both Obama and McCain have put forth general principles for how they plan on dealing with the economic crisis, Friedman criticizes both for trying to portray their answers as free of pain for regular folks — McCain through tax cuts for everyone, and Obama through tax cuts for everybody but the rich. “Neither is true,” Friedman writes.
Neither campaign stood ready with answers for the financial meltdown. In reaction mode what seemed to matter most to voters was not answers but attitude. Don’t whine; Americans have always tended to favor personality over intelligence in their presidents.
What made McCain unsettling was his cockamamie campaign “suspension” — intended to demonstrate his bipartisanship and resolve, but actually coming across as craven opportunism. Obama, on the other hand, didn’t have much to say, other than “calm down, we’ll work this out.” While not a lot of answers were forthcoming, his stay-the-course attitude convinced a lot of voters he had the temperament to be president.
You can criticize both candidates for their stances, but remember that this crisis, like most things in the world of finance, rests upon articles of faith, and it was faith that was in much shorter supply than credit.
The causes and effects, the domino theories, the computer modeling to describe what went wrong with the economy are difficult even for economists to unravel. Two presidential candidates late to the party weren’t going to be able to produce solutions so quickly.
Given that, what has come to matter to most voters is not who has the best solution — it’s too early to know that — but which candidate is more believably optimistic. And by “believably,” I mean which one has shown he will approach the crisis with the right mixture of resolve, intelligence and collaboration to steer the right course?
The right course, of course, is the one that restores people’s faith in our financial institutions and vice versa. Both those things have to happen before we’ll be all right. Not to mention that McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin did nothing to reassure most voters that she could lead this country out of this kind of crisis should something happen to McCain.
Friedman comes to the same conclusion, as he nods and winks his presidential endorsement for us readers (the Times prohibits its columnists from formally endorsing candidates):
First, we need a president who can speak English and deconstruct and navigate complex issues so Americans can make informed choices. We have paid an enormous price for having a president who could not explain and reassure us during this financial meltdown.
Second, we need a president who can energize, inspire and hold the country together during what will be a very stressful recovery.
Third, we need a president who can rally the world to our side.
Can anyone read that and not see Obama? McCain continues to focus on all the wrong causes for the financial crisis, he persists in preying on voters’ fear instead of rallying them to band together, and almost no foreign nations want to see him become president after the way Republicans have snubbed the rest of the world.
