The soon-to-be-failed campaign of John McCain seems to me to be the culmination of the gutter electoral politics practiced by Republicans since the days of Richard Nixon. I'd sum that up as voters being prompted to choose their candidate based not merely on the relevant issues of the day, but also on poignant though largely irrelevant cultural cues, often accompanied by scurrilous personal attacks. (That's obviously a simplification, though the basic thrust of it holds up.) Thanks in large part to electoral kidney shots and rabbit punches, the Republicans have controlled the White House for 28 of the last 40 years. This time around, the attacks were an order of magnitude sillier and more transparent, and they failed. Ironically, the man who resembles (cosmetically, I mean) the largest bloc of the American electorate less than any other president in history will have defeated a war hero.
So where do the Republicans go now? Will they ease up on their rough electoral tactics, or will they play even harder next time around? What happens to Sarah Palin will provide some clues. If she is anointed the front-runner for 2012, as Jon Chait predicts, that'll be a pretty good indication that the Republicans view the loss as an aberration, and think that Americans will still respond to their tactics in other circumstances.
But I hope they consider the possibility that culture warfare doubling as campaign strategy may have finally run out its string. (Way to go Americans!) McCain, the Republican presidential candidate with probably the most natural appeal to independents since Reagan, lost because he went too far right, and Palin was a big part of that. Just as Geraldine Ferraro became a timeless emblem of over-the-top identity politics, I don't think Americans are going to be quick to forget what Palin was about in 2008 (incoherent and thoughtless answers to vital questions, baseless personal attacks against her opponents, et cetera), and how much they disliked that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The great concern is that if Obama is elected, that event will be taken as endorsement of his far left wing Socialist ideas. He would have a Demo-dominated both houses of Congress, can be totally out of control, a drastic deviation from the fundamental basis of US Govt, one of checks and balances. Obama's popularity to date proves one more time that Populism can succeed in the US with all its short term visions and long term chaos. Look at Argentina for a role model, apparently heading at full speed to its second massive sovereign default in the same decade.
Disgust with McC's campaign holds the massive danger of electing Obama by default. If such is the case, we can expect disaster. Don't forget the Dems were both the sponsors and implementers of the mortgage idiocy that resulted in today's world wide financial crisis. Obama's efforts as a "community organizer" provided a significant part of the crisis. We can expect much worse if O. is elected.
Yes, this election seems to be one of selecting between two poor choices, a matter of weighing each and hoping to elect the less worse for our Nation. About the only hope is that if Repubs are defeated, the defeat will cause serious self-examination as to the future direction of that Party. And we all can hope desperately for only one Obama term.
Maybe the Repubs will do something similar as the PRI's attempts to remanufacture themselves. Our Nation is in desperate straits.
Hi Charlie,
I don’t think the Obama-as-socialist claims hold up. It’s a claim based more on his tax code than anything, and even if it was implemented exactly as he wished, the rich would have less of a tax burden than they did before Reagan got to Washington. Which is to say, our wealth redistribution system would be less redistributive than it was a little over a generation ago, and no one was seriously calling Nixon or Ford socialists based on those taxes. I also don’t see him as a populist, certainly not in the sense of Kirchner or Peron. Of course I can’t speak from personal experience, but everyone who knows Obama talks about his temperamental conservatism, which would seem to be irreconcilable with the radical populism that has done Argentina so much harm.
I also think it’s a mistake to assume that support for Obama comes mostly or even largely from disgust with McCain, although I guess I sort of imply that in the post. It’s not by default that Obama has more people giving money than any candidate ever, and could well be the first Democrat elected with a majority since LBJ (right?). As far as the mortgage idiocy, from what I understand (and I’m not very knowledgeable on this) Clinton beat back regulation of mortgage backed securities and supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, though with the help of a Republican congress. In the Bush years, the same basic hands-off approach prevailed , and Greenspan used the real estate boom to bounce back from the dot-com bust and 9-11. And then when he raised interest rates in ‘04, mortgage rates (set by the market not by the fed) didn’t jump with it, so the housing bubble grew. Laying blame at the policy-makers’ feet is OK, but both sides need to take their lumps, and I think the banks who were cutting and selling mortgage-backed securities as if they were flea market vendors without any idea of what they were picking up or letting go of should be at the top of the list. As far as Acorn, I’m not all that familiar with specifically what they did to encourage their clients in depressed communities homes, but their part in the crisis is significant like Jack Haley’s contribution to the Bulls’ titles in the late 1990s was significant.
Ah, that wonderful word, "But…". Most often when it appears, it gives a clear dividing line between an initial factual statement, then the emotional disclaimer that follows. Such as "I don't know much about…, BUT…", and all that follows is emotional, not factual. Unfortunately, most follow emotions, cannot handle facts that may be uncomfortable.
Maybe delve a little deeper into the mortgage and resultant financial crisis and there may be a 180 degree change in opinion. It's a sickening chronicle set in place by Carter, enhanced by Clinton, implemented by such as Obama to the inevitable disaster of discovering "There ain't no free lunch!"
The issue, a HUGE ISSUE, is what O. specifically will do when backed by a subservient political Congress. Probably (??) not a clone of prior populists-- he'll set his own Populist course to inevitable chaos for our Nation.
Read at least from Part Two of the new book, "Austerity Britain" for a chilling view of Obama's potential, all in the name of "doing good", and supported by an ignorant (not stupid) populace who never look beyond their next paycheck, and implemented by like-minded legislators. A preview of what Obama can do to the US with a Demo dominated Congress. We are in for massive redirections that unfortunately are well described over and over and …, with same disastrous results. Only names, dates, places change, and the story remains the same.
As far as LBJ is concerned, delve into his background for a sickening visit into the political sewer. I knew personally many of the people who had a finger into that pudding. Ballot Box 13, Jacob Floyd, Jr's murder, Billie Sol Estes, and on and on.
I cannot comment on bulls, cows, chickens, or any other barnyard animal.
Post a Comment