In today's Financial Times, Gideon Rachman writes the real problem with Samantha Power is that she is "too open for [her] own good." Although his tone is sympathetic, the logic of his argument reinforces a culture in which politics are merely another form of sports or war rather than a means to engage the public in substantive conversations.
According to Rachman--not to mention the political industrial complex-- candidates speaking candidly about their real thoughts, especially on policies such as Iraq and trade, would be "politically impossible."
Why?
Well, primarily because opponents could use that candor against you. Cf. the Clinton campaign's field day with Power's remarks--not to mention the slings and arrows John Kerry suffered when he tried to parse out the Iraq war, or even the outrage when Howard Dean said he thought Saddam Hussein deserved a fair trial.
To be sure, ad hominem attacks are one thing--Power knew she had gone too far in calling Clinton a monster and immediately tried to strike the words from the record--but honest discussions about trade (Goolsbee) or when we can realistically bring the troops home are conversations we as a country absolutely need to be having.
Instead, Power's candid comments sent the Obama campaign scurrying back into a foxhole and invited the Clinton campaign and the media to rain a storm of fire on their heads. If you're a political junkie, the episode is an unexpected boon in the lull between primaries and offers another opportunity to strategize as to what both campaigns should do next. But if you have any kind of good sense and decency and don't care for politics, the spectacle probably turns you off even more.
If I were the latter and not - as I sadly am -- the former, I would check out of the presidential election until about 10pm on November 3rd. Then I'd get online, read the candidates' biographies, check out a few pictures, and maybe download their speeches on YouTube or watch their guest appearances on The Daily Show or SNL. The following morning, when I walked into the voting booth, I wouldn't be choosing based on the issues or policies that we're all told are so important. I'd just go with my impression, because with honesty, nuance, and complexity so beaten out of political practice, I'd have no ability to know what candidates really believed or any reason to trust what they had said.
Loading comments… 
