Politics - the First Presidential Debate 2008

Analysis of The First Presidential Debate in 2008

I watched the first Presidential debate of 2008 between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. I have numerous thoughts on what I saw and heard. As far as composure, debating style and technique, Senator McCain won the debate. As far as embracing political principles that I believe in, Senator Obama won me over.

I saw Senator McCain be on the offensive through much of the debate. I saw Senator Obama be on the defensive and stutter when replying to Senator McCain’s accusations and statements. Senator McCain also used a good debating technique by telling personal one-on-one stories to emphasize his points. All these techniques indicate that Senator McCain won the debate.

For me personally, I disagreed with Senator McCain’s content. I was turned off by his personal stories because it felt like he missed the big picture by focusing on the details. I totally disagreed on his overall foreign affairs political philosophy, I felt much more in line with Senator Obama’s view of foreign affairs.

I am a registered independent and always have been. Over the last several Presidential elections I have voted for Republican, Democratic, and third-party candidates. Each election I evaluate who is the best candidate, independent of which political party he is affiliated with, and cast my vote. I believe I am fairly objective in my analysis though I may not have always voted for the best candidate in retrospect.

As far as criteria, I heavily emphasize ability in foreign affairs over domestic affairs in evaluating candidates. I believe the President has a lot more influence and power in foreign affairs as an individual than in domestic affairs. I believe that Congress exercises a lot more influence directly over domestic affairs than foreign affairs, diluting the President’s influence.

President Bush has emphasized security over cooperation since 9/11 and has alienated many foreign countries and cultures. I believe his approach to fighting terrorism has directly caused a rise in terrorist activities worldwide. Many people of different cultures have reacted negatively to Bush’s arrogance and have taken up terrorism against Western values. Obviously, I have a problem with this.

I believe that the United States needs to improve our image outside this country. I believe that our President needs to actively improve our relationships with foreign countries. I believe the way to do this is not by rattling our sabres but to be open for dialogues for cooperation. Relationships with countries as diverse as Russia, Pakistan, and France are not as good as they were eight years ago. And don’t confuse cordiality by those country’s leaders with a good relationship. With good relationships with many of these countries, it is easier to exert multi-national pressure on misbehaving countries, it is easier to positively influence other peoples.

I recently read that there is new thinking that to only negotiate with unfriendly countries if certain preconditions are met does not work and could even aggravate an already tense situation, that to be open for negotiations without preconditions has a better chance for success. By setting preconditions, we appear obstinate and arrogant, not a good way to start successful negotiations.

Given my beliefs on foreign affairs, I felt that Senator Obama embraced these principles and Senator McCain opposed them. I also sensed that Senator Obama would be better at bringing about consensus among diverse interests both domestically and internationally. I sensed that he is less intransigent than Senator McCain. It felt like Senator McCain was thinking like a soldier, ie military solutions, and not like a diplomat. It is too easy to misunderstand another culture and too easy to kill each other off. If the answer is to kill the next terrorist, there will always be a next terrorist (and many more). This leads to an international death spiral, not a happy scenario. That is why I favor Senator Obama over Senator McCain from what I saw and heard during the first Presidential debate.

Changing Oneself

People are unique individuals, no two are really the same. We start with different genetic makeup and grow and develop in different environs. Even identical twins will have different experiences, even if so slightly. Though we are all shaped by our genetics and environs, we all have the choice to better ourselves and not let “deficiencies” from our youth dictate who we are and who we become. Choice is not a static activity, every single second of the day, we choose. When we do not choose, be default we choose no change, and let circumstances dictate who we are and what we do. Since significant change is change on our personality foundation, it is not easy and not something we can do once and forget, like changing the channels on the television. Changing ourselves involves more than just a determination to change, more than rational effort, more than logic. The more fundamental the change, the harder it is to do and maintain.

I believe that for someone to successfully change an aspect of their personality, several criteria has to be met. 1) He has to want to change on his own. If he wants to change for someone else’s sake, it probably won’t work. He has to want to change himself because he wants it, even if nobody else notices it. 2) He has to be able to make the change more than surface deep, more than just outward behavior. He has to be able to fold the change into his soul, to make it his own. Any kind of change can manifest itself in numerous ways. He must use a way which is totally consistent with his existing personality and not use some generic form. 3) He must have will power. All of us have some will power, or “will”, some more or less than others. If he has weak will power, he must develop stronger will power because changing yourself will require will power. 4) He must know and be willing to work on his change for the rest of his life. Without constant effort, he will fall back onto old patterns and behaviors. Those patterns and behaviors are easier and more natural, that’s why constant vigilance is required.

Ex: He is very active, with a full social life, but would forget some appointments or may be late. He would like to change just this one aspect of his personality and become more responsible in this area, though it is unlikely that he can change into a person where these occur as second nature. He will have to develop techniques to help him with this area and be very conscious of performing these tasks. It probably will always be an effort for him but it can be done. It will probably take some time to get into a rhythm of achieving this but with continuous effort, it can be done. He must choose to change every day in order to realize his desire to change.

Ex: He loses his temper very easily and acts on his temper in a socially unacceptable way. This situation involves several steps for change to happen: recognition of a problem with his temper, wanting to change, finding a way to recognize the situation during its occurrence, and developing a real-time method to defuse it. Each step is easy to say that he can do it, but the actuality is extremely difficult and very rarely can be done JUST by wanting to. The bigger the change, the longer period of time he must practice in order to become even partially effective.

There are numerous levels of magnitude of change and each is unique. Changing when you are younger is probably easier than changing when you are older. But ultimately, each of us has the capability to change ourselves and we are responsible for whom we are.

BLOG UNDER CONSTRUCTION