The Democrats can't afford to underestimate Palin as they did Bush. Not because of the candidate herself is anything special, but because the RNC knows how to frame the debate, and they don't.

What a disappointing debate. Far from the walk-over that many Obama fans were taking for granted, Biden and Palin seemed to demonstrate just how little the Democrats have learned in the past 25 years.

If we look at the debate in strictly intellectual terms, Biden did as well as everyone would expect. He clearly and concisely defended Obama’s positions on the major issues- most impressively in regards to Iraq and the issue of taxation. Palin, to her credit, appeared to have come a hell of a long way since her disastrous CBS interview earlier this week, showing at least an awareness of what McCain’s positions were. Her answers consisted largely of pre-prepared talking points and soundbites, and were a long way from the grounded, systematically explained arguments put forward by Biden. In intellectual terms, the candidate with the superior experience, background knowledge and education won unequivocally.

But both Al Gore and Kerry were beaten by Bush. And as Biden stood there, reeling off lists of arguments, statistics and policy positions- even going so far as to number them for us on several occasions- Palin stood there smirking, just as Bush did in ‘00 and ‘04, and as Reagan had done 15 years before that.

Despite what the political junkies who have the benefit of background knowledge might think, all those facts, arguments and policy positions just bounced right off her. You could see Biden getting more and more exasperated, desperately searching for a knock-out statistic that might elicit a gasp from the audience or an ‘oooh’ and an ‘ahh’ and send Palin dashing out of the room in tears. And poor guy- he just kept repeating himself; wondering why that killer fact didn’t have the desired impact first time round and saying it again, just in case nobody had heard him clearly.

And know-nothing Sarah, who had been drilled to parrot slogans, stood there smirking. When it got to her turn, she barely talked about the issues, and she certainly didn’t waste time explaining her ticket’s reasoning for holding those positions. Instead, she told us stories.

At every opportunity, she told us little details about herself which made her look human, like a normal person rather than a politician. Sure, both candidates engaged in the ‘When I was in Smallville I met superman and he can’t afford to fill his gas tank/ pay for an operation’ rhetoric, but Palin perfected the art of Bush and Reagan, and took it 10 miles further. “Is it all right if I call you Joe?”, she asked loudly as the candidates appeared on stage.

She constantly hammered home the idea of her and McCain being Washington outsiders, on several occasions completely ignoring Biden, the audience and the moderator, and, the down-home outsider she is, talking directly at the camera, and thus to the American people. For those that understand the seriousness of the debate, it’s easy to scoff at these kind of stunts- after all, they’re pre-planned hogwash, about as far from being spontaneous as it comes. But for a nation which prides itself on defying formalities and talking straight, and which is fed-up with Washington convention, they were stunts that resonated.

When Reagan won his first election, the polls indicated that something funny was going on. The majority of people actually disagreed with his stance on many issues, but intended to vote for him anyway.

They voted for him because, while the Democrats gave them lists of facts, Reagan (a man who, it must be said had little more time in Washington than Obama) sold them a dream- a world-view – a set of ideas. He spoke about a country restored from the ignominy of Watergate and global recession, in which the American spirit of free enterprise and self-reliance would be restored, evoking the spirit of the frontier.

Whilst bare logic said that they didn’t necessarily sign up for Reagan’s platform on the immediate issues- his ability to connect with voters, to communicate a more abstract set of values and a character the voters trusted and could relate to meant that, while they didn’t agree with him on everything, they nonetheless had confidence in his ability to handle the unforeseen.

People like (and vote) for people who are like them- even if they don’t always agree with them. The empirical, rationalist model which says that people will naturally vote along the lines of their own self-interest has been proven to be wrong, time and time again. The human brain is more sophisticated than a mechanical instrument of narrow, self-interested logic, and is designed to make decisions based on more than the facts before us. People will ignore facts that don’t fit into the frame they have chosen to view the World through.

Earlier this year, the Obama campaign, almost uniquely for a Democratic candidate in a long time, showed signs of understanding this. He beat Hillary, not because they differed substantially on the issues, but because voters bought into a story- a wider narrative of a little skinny kid who, from the most unlikely of backgrounds, had forged himself an identity in America, the nation of opportunity, and who would once again restore that opportunity to the nation as a whole. Presidential elections are about selling characters, not issue positions. If the electorate believes in the character, they’ll trust them to handle the issues.

The Obama campaign- as the Bush and Reagan campaigns did too, ran on the reasoning that if voters responded and bought into the ‘Obama dream’, and the values and principles implicit within it, then agreement on the facts and policy positions would follow. Palin, and John McCain, by presenting a story of a pair of mavericks taking on the World, are doing the same thing. The two most successful Democrats of the 20th century- FDR and JFK, did it too- not by setting out specific plans for economic renewal or for winning the cold war, but by embodying the concepts of renewed confidence, youth and vitality, thus winning the confidence of the American people to handle the challenges facing the nation.

Over the past few months though (I suspect due to the increase in the DNC’s influence since he became the official nominee), the Obama campaign seems to have lost its nerve. They came under attack for not talking about the issues enough, and while it was definitely time to have some plans prepared in more detail that could be referred to in rebutting some of McCain’s more outrageous claims, they’ve done this at the expense of abandoning the key ideas and narrative that won Obama the primary.

Which is the reason why Palin could stand there and smirk, ignoring the issues whilst hammering home her personality, life story and what she (at least pretends) to represent. And Biden was doing half the work for her- did anybody count the number of times he said the word maverick? As George Lakoff predicted an in an excellent article at the beginning of this month, the more the Obama campaign uses the word ‘maverick’- even if in order to negate McCain-Palin’s claims to be one, the more they unwittingly re-enforce the concept.

Nixon standing before TV cameras to say ‘I am not a crook’, simply made us all think of him as a crook. Same principle. Yet Biden stood there and repeatedly said that ‘McCain is not a maverick’, and we all sat there and thought of McCain as a maverick. Use any other phrase- call him a ‘Washington insider’ as Lakoff suggested, a ‘friend of lobbyists’, ‘yesterday’s man’ or any other phrase you like- but got goodness sake, Biden should know better than to fall into line and obediently parrot McCain’s own choice of (largely positive) language to describe himself.

What has our action in Iraq accomplished, other than to give Al Qaeda time to regroup following our botched escapade in Afghanistan? It has split the nations of the free world, destroying international relations on a scale not seen in decades, disuniting us, and tearing apart the institutions that, however inefficient and weak, offered us the best opportunity of bringing the world together around one table. Saddam Hussein is gone, but where is he? Freedom has been brought to Iraqis, which I agree, they will one day thank us for, if they survive the anarchy and chaos, which, under the leadership of the United States, Britain and 25 other nations (mostly from the developing world, enticed or threatened for the sake of lucrative trading agreements), shows no sign of abating.

Iraq is becoming a Mecca for terrorists. Where Saddam Hussein brought tyranny and security (at dreadful cost), anarchy is prevailing. With the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime gone, and security on the streets a distant prospect, Iraq is fast becoming a place for any young aspiring jihadist. Just as Al Qaeda learned their line of work in the Mountains of Afghanistan in the war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, Iraq is becoming the training ground for the next generation of terrorists. With American soldiers out in the streets, in heavily insufficient numbers, a resentful population, and with no security, Iraq is the ideal target for any young radical who dreams of jihad against America.

The Irony of Iraq is that despite its’ almost self-defeating consequences, it was never a haven for terrorism or a hotbed of Islamic radicalism. Saddam Hussein was not sympathetic to Bin Laden and his religious motives, rather, like most dictators, he was merely motivated by a dangerous lust for power, and all the wealth, guns, and women that came with it. He was the ‘godfather’ of Iraq, running it along much the same lines as a gangster. Iraq was the ‘family business. Besides, Iraq was on America’s agenda long before 9/11, and although I agree that it would have been necessary to confront it at some point, It is wrong to convince ourselves that Iraq ever posed any significant threat through links with terrorism, or to equate the cold, intelligent, ideologically driven Osama Bin Laden to a corrupt, inefficient, and merely power-hungry dictator that remains in Iraq (as far as we know), having it seems, deluded himself into thinking he can one day reclaim power.

At home, too, the War on Terror is having a disastrous effect on our society, as law after law such as the Patriot Act is introduced allowing the government to spy on US Citizens and detain them without trial, slowly threatening our civil liberties, and the very freedom we aim to protect. Our treatment of those suspected of terrorism in Guantanamo Bay has shown how easily the terrorists can corrupt our principles and rights, which apply to all, even terrorists. Even our right to protest against the actions of our governments are being eroded not by the law but by our societies, as our of fear shock, and insecurity, we are being reduced to nations of flag-waving Chihuahuas, forced by those around us to stay silent, to wave our flags and support our government, lest we be accused of support for terrorism. Religious intolerance, one of the causes of 9/11, is being fuelled by our reaction to the war on terror, bringing suspicion, hatred, and fear into our communities of all Muslims and those of Islamic and Arab heritage. We seek to protect our freedom by suppressing it, to fight intolerance while becoming intolerant, to bring democracy while suppressing those who speak out against us, and to destroy those who hate us while caring nothing of what others think of us.

Those that suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order. – John Lindsay

While America, with or without its allies, can destroy all those that hate it, no amount of guns, bombs, and missiles can make people love us. As long as people hate us, there will always be terrorists no matter how many we kill. The War on terrorism is only escalating this hatred, spreading the pain and destruction of downtown New York all over the world. It can win a war anywhere, kill anyone it wishes, and destroy any regime is disapproves of, but as it is painfully learning in Iraq, one thing it cannot do alone is win peace.

Global turmoil, destruction, and resentment should not be the legacy of those that died on September 11th, 2001. Further hatred, war and destruction will only multiply itself, the consequences of which we will have to live with for years to come. Two years of this has brought little that we can be proud of, nor a safer world. The cost of this global crusade is costing Americans more than money, for our future will be shaped less by the events of 9/11 than by our response to it. The future, freedom, and standing of America in the world is being destroyed by reckless decisions made by a government that seems committed not to peace and true security for Americans, but the implementation of policies that prior to September 11th would have been unthinkable. Next year it is time for a new direction, something that only Americans can provide, and for which the rest of the world can only hope.

We need to sit down and remember why we are fighting this war against terrorism. Is it so that we who perceive ourselves to be ‘right’ can act as we see fit against any regime that dare threaten or oppose us? Or is it because we believe in the principles of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law? Will the new post-9/11- world-order we are fighting for stand for these values? If so, then why are dozens of prisoners being held without charge and trial in Cuba? Our civil liberties are being eroded away, as the rule of law is compromised in the name of freedom and democracy. ‘Saddam Hussein would not give us the same treatment’, I hear the hawkish right shout- yes, that is true, but should we ourselves descend into terror in the process of fighting it? Our values and beliefs for which we are fighting must not be destroyed in the process of defending liberty or we have already lost.

The UN should, and for the sake of a stable future, must have the authority, impartiality, and power to form, and implement rule of law over nations, lest we return to the darkest hours of the 20th century with all the bloodshed associated with it. The turning point in our search for democracy was when we realized that no person should be above the law. The same should apply to nations; to act unilaterally is to turn your back on democracy and the rule of law among nations. George W. Bush in September gave the United Nations a choice; support the United States and do as America believes is right, or become insignificant. How can it expect Iraq and other ‘rouge states’ to comply with the decisions made by the UN when it itself threatens to flout international opinion, and is withholding millions of dollars in dues?

As the worlds only Superpower, with unparalleled economic might and military muscle, the United States should heed the advice of its’ friends and allies, and learn the lessons of the mistakes made in the past. The nations of Europe and Asia, have all paid the price of mistakes made in the name of empire, each sure of their moral righteousness, and with the power to implement such a world view. They each in turn betrayed the beliefs on which they were based, resulting in the horrors of Colonialism and Empire.

The United States is in a very different position today, there is much more at stake, and the fight much less clear, against an enemy who can take any shape or form. Yet there are still comparisons to be made, and history to be heeded. The message is clear: In fighting for your values, do not destroy them