"Hindsight is 20/20."

I normally try to avoid this over-simple idiomatic expression. Unfortunately, sometimes, there is no simpler way to say that looking back gives us an advantage over the context of our lives; it helps us to see clearly what we missed the first time.

We're nearly a month out from the presidential election of 2012, so what can we learn in hindsight? What did we miss the first time? Specifically, I would like to talk about the issues that didn't get the attention they deserved. It is odd to me that there is a pre-determined list of issues for each election. That's to say, each media source or quiz that was designed to help you pick your president in 2012 had a list of issues well in advance of the election. These are your talking points. This is what we will use to pick our next leader. Here's what CNN had listed. You've got 12 things. ABC's Match-O-Meter had about 8 points to help you pick your president.

Surely there are more things to work on for our country than this list of 8 - 12 items. Something didn't make it to the party. What about the issues that didn't make the spotlight?

One of the clearest issues that was missed in this election is poverty. The numbers are staggering. Based on research at The Urban Institute, in 2010, number of Americans living in poverty rose to a 20 year high 15%. It is also possible that the current measurement for poverty isn't hitting all of the at-risk population. That's to say, it is very likely that the number of people who are living right on the edge of this everyday is much higher than we can currently gage.

So, why didn't the media talk about this? Why weren't the candidates' hands forced? Why were there no poverty based talking points? In this transcript of TELL ME MORE, Michael Martin talks to three guests about some of the issues missed during this election cycle. Melinda Henneberger, a political writer for the Washington Post, suggests that "... it's because it's the perception that there's no constituency for that, that since poor people don't vote, we don't have to address that incredibly important issue." She goes on to say that when poverty does get mentioned on the campaign trail, it is to denigrate Obama's administration for the number of people getting food stamps. I think she is spot on in her assessment of why the campaigns skip the topic, but why would the media skip over the discussion of poverty? Could it be something as insidious as "poor people don't buy newspapers, cable etc.?"

Another issue that didn't make it to the dominant discourse of this 2012 presidential election was the issue of civil liberties. In December, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which would allow for indefinite military detention without charge or trial for the first time in American history. Between NDAA, the continued reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and the President's failure to follow through on a 2008 campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp, this could have been a useful chink in the armor for the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. According to the Huffington Post, this issue is one where Obama followers have been the most disappointed. There are those that think "disappointment" is too weak a word to describe the damage. In an op-ed piece for the LATimes, Johnathan Turley said that Obama was a disaster to Civil Liberties. The worst of the crimes, he says, is reducing the topic of civil liberties to a whisper. 

 

Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.

The media seems to support this idea, if it mentions the differences at all, it is with a tone of "sticking with the devil you know."

While some civil liberties issues made their way into the election cycle by asserting a place on state by state ballots, nothing came up at any of the debates. The reason for this seems to be that the candidates generally agree on how to proceed. Since Romney and Obama see eye to eye, there's no reason to talk about it, right?

Wrong.  According to Pew, American's trust in government is at an all time low. The issue seems to be about government surviellance laws that the Patriot Act enables. Americans have more qualms about government monitoring and data collection efforts. More oppose (55%) than favor (42%) the U.S. government methods for collecting data about potential threats.  It seems that giving up civil liberties as a balance for national security is a deal the American public is growing tired of and it will have to change.  As a nation that prides freedom above all others, it does seem odd that there was not a sufficient outrage in media outlets to keep the topic of eroding civil liberties at the forefront this election.  

Poverty and an assault on our civil liberties are not issues that are going to be resolved quickly.  We just need to start talking about it.  And voting about it.  But hind-sight is 20/20 and we missed our chance this last time.