The Political Parties Battle Over Themes
The national conventions are political shows staged to influence voters. Soon, we can measure the bounce that the two tickets have received from their gatherings. But the more important question is whether the conventions establish arguments that are sustainable—over the course of the campaign and, for the winning ticket, over four years of governance. Four years ago, John Kerry's convention produced a narrative that proved unsustainable. George W. Bush's convention produced one that was sustainable until Katrina and the 2005-06 meltdown in Iraq—yet that may be redeemed in history by the success of the surge and the rapid response to Gustav.
One of the themes hammered home at Barack Obama's convention was McCain equals Bush. That never struck me as sustainable and was pretty well demolished on the first full day of McCain's convention. Neither Obama nor McCain is a generic candidate; they are distinctive individuals, to whose specific characteristics voters respond, positively or negatively. The Republican convention's premise is that McCain is the maverick reformer—an American version of France's Nicolas Sarkozy, who replaced an unpopular president of his own party. There is plenty in McCain's record to back that up. Not least is his selection of Sarah Palin for vice president.
Palin's record of successfully battling establishment Republicans and oil companies in Alaska clearly appealed to McCain. And that was amplified by the mainstream media attacks on her. Now the media, which was not alarmed by Obama's thin record, is worried about Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency. Other women who were stay-at-home moms for years and then emerged into public life have outperformed their résumés— namely, Katharine Graham, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright, Nancy Pelosi, and Geraldine Ferraro. Palin, who has negotiated a natural gas pipeline with the oil companies and Canadian federal, provincial, and Inuit authorities, may do so, too. We'll see if that argument is sustainable.
Voters express great dissatisfaction with the economy, even though it grew 3.3 percent in the last quarter. The Obama convention contend-ed that the Democratic nominees understood people's woes from personal experience and that their programs would provide economic security. But the substance of those programs—refundable tax credits (i.e., payments to those who pay no income tax) and a national health insurance option—are not well known to voters, and their details can be hard to explain.
Unfamiliar. The McCain convention's thesis is that higher taxes on high earners in a time of slow growth will squelch the economy (this was Herbert Hoover's policy, after all). These assertions, too, are unfamiliar to voters. And, up to this point in the campaign, neither party has set out its programs clearly (or characterized the other side's fairly).
During the course of the year, two issues have unexpectedly turned in favor of the Republicans. One is Iraq: It is becoming plain that the surge has succeeded and victory is in sight. McCain can argue he was right; Obama can argue it is safe to leave, as he has long urged. But the issue has lost much of its salience.
The other issue is energy. Four-dollar-a-gallon gas has produced majorities for offshore drilling, which McCain now favors and Palin always has, and which Obama and Joe Biden still dismiss as insignificant. Despite the recent drop in gas prices, the Republican position looks more sustainable to me, likely to trump the Democrats' quasi-religious fervor for renewable energy sources. Al Gore's speech was well received in Denver, but voters are not prepared to accept the sharp economic sacrifices he demands.
This election cycle has been full of surprises and unpredicted turns. Both can-didates' vice presidential choices tended to undercut, at least marginally, their basic themes of change and experience. The political fundamentals—an unpopular president, a sluggish economy, an unpopular war—still favor the Democrats. But my sense is that the Democratic meme is less sustainable than the Republicans' appeal. Which leaves things roughly tied.
Tags: Democrats | politics | presidential election 2008 | Republicans | Barack Obama | John McCain | Democratic National Convention | Republican National Convention
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (10) | Print
Reader Comments
DEPRESSION
BE CAREFUL AMERICA,,4 MORE YRS OF BUSH WILL BE DISASTROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY...MC CAIN HAS A TEMPER & DEMENTIA ..HE WILL REINSTATE THE DRAFT..PALIN WANTS WAR W/RUSSIA..A DISHONEST TEAM...MC CAIN WAS @ THE BOTTOM OF HIS CLASS @ ACADEMY..OBAMA WAS @ THE TOP OF HIS CLASS @ HARVARD..H CLINTON WAS @ THE MIDDLE OF HER LAW SCHL GRAD CLASS....I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS COUNTRY IN SUCH BAD SHAPE & I'VE LIVED A LONG TIME..PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD HATE BUSH..THEY & WE ARE WAITING FOR SMTHING FRESH..OBAMA/BIDEN WILL BE HONEST & DO THEIR VERY BEST...COME ON DEBATES...MC CAIN WILL SOUND LIKE BUSH...& CHENEY & ROVE....
McCain, Boyd, OODA Loop
Can Sen. McCain get inside the minds of the "greenpeace" generation?
John S Boyd
Change , Fact or Fiction
This article is only another example of the struggle we face as a nation. The two parties will exploit anything they can to try and get that small group that will in the end settle elections. People of FAITH can be a strong group that a minority desiring control can user to build towards a small majority. Christians today have been found as necessary for the otherwise smaller Republican party. There is not likely any way the small number of wall street high income folks and corporate people could win elections with out adding other groups . They have learned to attach people of FAITH to them by using their platform as the draw. Also noone desires to pay taxes so another group can be added.
The abortion issue is a difficult problem for Christians to deal with. I am PRO-LIFE in every situation except when medically both mother and child will die anyway if the baby remains, and even then every attempt to save the child when delivered (in what ever way it can be delivered) should be done. The truth of the abortion issue is that the Republican establishment will never let it go away. If abortion was outlawed, the most faithful supporters of their party might then look elsewhere at other issues as to who to vote for. If you faithfully vote Republican now because of their pro-life platform they will never allow that to change. Unfortunately abortion is too good politically to lose as an issue. Once again the sheep are being sheered. Things being what they are I think improving the lives of women to the point none would ever want an abortion might be the best hope we may have to stop abortions from happening.
This business about which party will bring the most change kind of brings to mind the book "Animal Farm,” where all the barnyard animals want to get their freedom from the human farmer. The farmer somehow was removed and they were working (so they believed) for the benefit of themselves collectively. Before long, the story was about the Pig then living in the house and getting most of the benefits from the collective efforts of all the animals on the farm. The Christians that have become for the most part Republicans are like the animals in the barnyard believing voting Republican will help stop abortion, make the country more moral and create a better world to raise their children. The sad truth is like the Pig in Animal Farm the benefits go mostly to high income folks on Wall Street and International Corporations that move the very livelihoods these grass roots families need disparately to be able to provide for their children. McCain/Palin seem hopeful at first glance but does anyone actually believe the Wall Street group that has controlled the Republican Party for at least one hundred years are going to give up that control to anyone. I doubt it. The Republicans has been in control for at least the last eight years so any REAL CHANGE has to come from somewhere else.
advertisement



