"the cosmetic is the new cosmic."
--rem koolhaas
the candidates shook and blocked the teleprompter and posed and didn't shake. and on soundstages across the land, talking heads and focus-group participants of all backgrounds and political inclinations seemed finally unified in the manner that both campaigns have promised since their inceptions, and cried aloud in a single, resounding voice, "meh." in soundbite upon soundbite, the complaint was repeated: no details, no specifics, no substance.
it's a fair point; i learned more about obama's proposed policies from the new yorker endorsement than a year's worth of speeches, interviews, and college auditorium royal rumbles combined. (the ham-handedness of mccain's plans often renders specifics deeply unhelpful; how much elaboration does "spending freeze" really require? it is a broken contract, the government's willful failure of its citizens, no matter how long you talk about it.)
and so we are left with the punditry's insipid blathering on the subjects of posture and demeanor and tone. is this actually all there is to talk about? should the casting of my vote really hinge on whether these men address each other by first names, or either's willingness to return the other's gaze?
i think probably yes. i suspect this is one of those rare occasions when style is in fact substance; we are watching the candidates enact their respective approaches to foreign policy on an intimate and observable scale. despite their mutual reluctance to delineate their personal me-doctrines, it is a question that both men have already answered, explicitly, substantively, and in exhaustive detail.
mcain is, after all, a cold-war kid (he was roughly eleven at its onset). for all his reassurances last night that our relations with russia would never return to that state, what can you call his dealings with obama at the last two debates, as well as on the senate floor during the bailout proceedings, but a cold war? he will not address obama or approach him, he will not meet him face-to-face any more than he would ahmadinejad. it is clear that he does not consider obama an opponent but an enemy, and despite what heavily-qualified intimations he may make to the contrary, we now know that mccain does not talk to his enemies. he will sanction, he will cut off, he will employ those same diplomatic tools that have proven so effective against cuba and iraq. and when that fails, he will bomb.
but he will not negotiate, even when negotiation is clearly and obviously called for, and if you need proof, just watch the debates. this is why no volume of pestering from jim lehrer can persuade him to address or even look at obama. it is why he seemed to require all his earthly strength to endure the ceremonial opening handshake. it is why, rather than look obama in the eye and say "you," he points over his shoulder and says "that one."
obama, by contrast, comes to us from trinity united church of christ, from the liberation theology preached (in his more sober moments) by jeremiah wright, and the coalition-building that was at the heart of 70's activism. he believes that consensus can be built on specific issues despite disagreement on others, and his debating style demonstrates as much. we see it in his eye contact, his inherent comfort with the second-person, his conciliatory refrain of "john, you're absolutely right..."
one campaign promise on which we have already seen obama make good is his assurance that he would never fear to negotiate. no one who has seen him march himself (much to the chagrin of many kossacks) into the lions' dens that were saddleback church and the o'reilly factor should have any doubt. (by contrast, mccain's campaign would not even agree to an nbc-sponsored debate until they brought brokaw down from the attic.) and in both cases we saw this same tactic, a proliferation of concurrence: "on this point we agree," and "what i think you're right about...." we heard it also in the most compelling movement of his acceptance speech, in which he addressed abortion and gay marriage and all those issues that politicians of both major parties avoid like the plague, and insisted that despite their divisiveness, there were aspects of each contentious front in the culture war on which most people could agree.
i am willing to concede that obama does not have as extensive a record on foreign policy as one might hope. but i do not think this makes him, by any means, an unknown quantity. all the evidence, and there is now a great deal of it, suggests that he will employ this kind consensus-building with mccain's "rogue nations" and "failed states," that he will attempt to convince hostile leaders, despite very real and enduring differences, of the priorities our nations share: a robust world economy, international consumers for the goods we produce, and perhaps in some cases, the peacable resolution of conflicts.
mccain has attempted to paint obama's foreign policy as dangerous, and it may be (although in what way that would distinguish it from his own eludes me). but it is being tested at this very moment, all across the country. come november 5th, we'll know if it works.