It's supremely weird when you see middle-school politics being played out on a national stage. Basically, the big choice for voters of both parties- if you can forgive sweeping generalizations (and if you read this, you probably can) is between the experienced Washington insider and the outsider with big ideas. Hillary and Obama. McCain and Giuliani (and maybe Romney.)
I first saw this false choice in middle school. Every semester, we'd elect two Student Senators to the Student Senate, and we'd elect a School President from among the ninth-graders. (The school ran 4th-9th grade.) And staring in the spring of 4th grade, the same kids we elected in the fall would run again. Never mind the fact that this governing assembly couldn't govern and barely even assembled- the incumbents would run on their "experience," and while using slightly simpler language, would promise to build on their accomplishments and track record of success.
Of course, there would always be another team or two that would run as the "outsiders." They would always drop the phrase "fresh ideas" in their speeches, and just like you couldn't go ten minutes without hearing Al Gore say "lockbox" in 2000, you couldn't go ten minutes without hearing "suggestion box" used. Never mind the fact that the suggestion box only seemed to garner intelligent commentary on Jimmy Campbell's mom, or on a certain elected student official's body odor. The always-proposed, never-enacted suggestion box was a perennial symbol of democracy, giving a hallway full of screaming fourth-graders a voice with which to speak truth to power.
The whole thing was ridiculous, and clearly served as more of a civics lesson than any real form of representation. The Student Senate's legislative accomplishments usually involved something to the effect of an extra dance per year, or more candy in the vending machines. (This was long before the era of healthy food at school.) But as a civics lesson, it worked, and it illustrated a fundamental question that gets continually asked, even in the 2008 presidential horse race- do you go with the experience or with the fresh perspective?
On the whole, I think it's a false choice. Back in middle school, "experience" versus "new ideas" really didn't sway the decision. It was about which kids had more friends, which kids were better at sports, or (in a move that would make Boss Tweed proud) which kids were smart enough to bribe their classmates with candy from the vending machines. (Whether you're quietly funneling highway projects to your Congressional district or furtively distributing Twizzlers among the electorate, no good politician is ever above buying votes.)
The point is that the new ideas were never really that new, and the experience was never really that valuable. You were voting for intangibles, and they rarely had anything to do with how the candidate made it to that point in their political career. Rather, it was about trust- whether you could trust, without question, that the person was going to do the right thing. Granted, "the right thing" in middle school involved pizza parties and sugar, not delicate foreign policy.
Trusting your guy (or girl) over their opposition is, loath as we might be to admit it, just another derivative of whether or not we like them. Nobody likes to oversimplify it this much, but we vote for candidates based on a Bush-like gut rather than a Gore-like brain. And that may be why Gore lost, in 2000- a few key voting districts thought Gore made some logical sense, but they trusted Bush to make the right call when it mattered.
A moment of silence for those voters.
Anyway. No one is going to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's spent two terms or so in the Senate, the same way nobody's going to vote for Rudy Giuliani just because his lack of national executive or legislative experience gives him a fresh perspective. You're going to vote for him because he's Rudy goddamn Giuliani and he pulled New York City together after 9/11, or you're going to vote for Hillary Clinton because you know she's got the guts to turn things around. Or Mitt Romney because he's a good, God-fearing man, or Barack Obama because it's about time we had a black man run this country.
The American public does not read political resumes, even if the news media and the Beltway population do. While it might be nice if the experience/outsider choice had some legitimacy, no one, on a fundamental level, really cares. While it may draw a thought or two, voters on either side of the aisle won't be hamstrung by how much experience, or lack thereof, their guy has. They're going to want who they want- and no burnished political resume is going to change that. (Eyes open, Chris Dodd.)
Although in my opinion, the suggestion box is vastly underrated.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Splitting The Middle
Here's what I like about the current field of Republican presidential candidates. There is no clear leader. Yes, that is abundantly obvious. But it also worth pointing out that the two frontrunners are both going to do an excellent job of fracturing the Christian-right's vote.
Jerry Falwell is dead. I feel sorry for his family and for those who loved him. But I think it's an appropriate observation. Their ability to mobilize, to influence elections, is dying. The Christian right, at the moment, has almost no influence with Rudy Giuliani, nor he with them. He's pro-gay and pro-choice, and to be honest, he's doing okay in spite of it. Actually, he's running away with the field. What does this mean?
One of two things is happening, and maybe it's a combination of both. The soft-right "values voters" are willing to overlook Giuliani's stance on the Rove-driven wedge issues in favor of his national-hero status and the Republican hat he's wearing. The guy who exuded leadership on 9/11 is running as the Republican candidate for President and his appeal to once-prodigal moderates put him in good stance to win. Or, the Christian right hasn't been able to find anyone to oppose Giuliani and he's essentially running by the grace of Pat Robertson (shudder.)
I really think it's the first. Giuliani can bring lapsed Republicans back to the fold, and even if they stay home, he's got enough of an appeal to the center that he could conceivably win. This eliminates the need for the Christian conservative vote in a general election. They get sidelined. No one needs to kowtow to their agenda. Nobody will even have to acknowledge it.
I can't express how happy this would make me, and you'd think they would swing immediately to Mitt Romney. He talks family values, he talks pro-life and anti-gay-marriage, but he's got no credibility whatsoever. He governed my home state, for crying out loud. (And did a crappy job of it, I should point out.) He got himself elected by claiming, "I'm not one of them!" and detailing his not-like-them positions, chapter and verse. And now he has to go and un-say all that.
I wouldn't think that would be a huge problem (I'm sure the Christian right could come up with some shit involving the road to Damascus or something) but Romney's a Mormon. And Mormons are to American religion what Vegas is to American cities. Nobody really wants to go that far out, or if they do, they're not going to admit it. Mormons vote like Christian conservatives and they gave up that whole polygamy thing, too! Honest! All kidding aside, I should point out that to their credit, actually act the way the Christians want you to think that they act.
But nobody on the Christian right wants to vote for a Mormon. Just doesn't feel right. The rest of the candidates are a little too wacky or a little too...I don't know, boutique would be a good word. (Duncan Hunter, for example. One-stop shopping for immigration and the military, but anything else? Next question.)
Given the choice, though, I really don't think hard-right Christian leaders are going to sit this baby out. They can't afford to seem irrelevant, even if that's what they've become. Sooner or later they're going to throw their weight behind Romney, or maybe McCain if he gets it together. And they'll make loud declarations about how they're going to compromise to advance Jesus's political agenda, or some crap.
But in reality, they will be irrelevant. And when Romney or Giuliani get the nod for Republican presidential candidate, their key constituents are going to stay home, because in their minds, they won't be voting for "one of them." The volunteer-driven networks who mobilized whole neighborhoods in the Bush elections are going to look pretty anemic in the event of a Romney or a Giuliani campaign.
And that's the thing. There's an enthusiasm gap (not my term) that's widening, not just between Republicans and Democrats but among anybody who isn't supporting Obama or Edwards. People like Hillary, and Rudy, and even Mitt, but nobody is excited about them. Obama especially has managed to defy people who said he was a flash in the pan and has somehow managed to get critical donors to hedge their bets with him.
I should point out that the reason we're talking about the Presidential primaries, and have been doing so since November 8th, is because of 24-hour news networks. These guys need stories. Period. And speculating about who's going to run for President drums up a lot of interest. Developing your own horse race around the whole thing (and using goofy metrics like who's got the most money to measure voter support wa-a-a-ay in advance) is just a way to fill airtime and garner ratings.
None of the candidates really wanted to start this earlier. They'd rather be on message against the President and trying to push their legislative agendas, or for those who aren't in Congress, building up their credibility and name recognition in other ways. This just pushes them to raise more money, sooner, and faster than the other guy. No runner appreciates the judges moving the starting line further and further back, even if they're doing it to everyone.
But that's the way it is. The horse race is on, and name recognition and enthusiasm are being built by media interest and ridiculously gun-jumping polls from Gallup and Quinnipiac. So by January, everyone will have gone through three or four rises and subsequent falls from glory and the outcome's going to be the same as it would have otherwise been. Just a lot more expensive.
But at least it will help us to establish the frontrunners way in advance, and from the way the frontrunners look on the Republican side, the Democrats are in pretty good field position. A strong Democratic candidate can overpower a Republican, regardless of star power, who doesn't have the support of the Christian right. Or even if, say, Giuliani can pull it off, he's not going to be beholden to their agenda.
If I have the fortune to see the nauseating power of the Christian right in America die during my lifetime, I will be a happy man.
Jerry Falwell is dead. I feel sorry for his family and for those who loved him. But I think it's an appropriate observation. Their ability to mobilize, to influence elections, is dying. The Christian right, at the moment, has almost no influence with Rudy Giuliani, nor he with them. He's pro-gay and pro-choice, and to be honest, he's doing okay in spite of it. Actually, he's running away with the field. What does this mean?
One of two things is happening, and maybe it's a combination of both. The soft-right "values voters" are willing to overlook Giuliani's stance on the Rove-driven wedge issues in favor of his national-hero status and the Republican hat he's wearing. The guy who exuded leadership on 9/11 is running as the Republican candidate for President and his appeal to once-prodigal moderates put him in good stance to win. Or, the Christian right hasn't been able to find anyone to oppose Giuliani and he's essentially running by the grace of Pat Robertson (shudder.)
I really think it's the first. Giuliani can bring lapsed Republicans back to the fold, and even if they stay home, he's got enough of an appeal to the center that he could conceivably win. This eliminates the need for the Christian conservative vote in a general election. They get sidelined. No one needs to kowtow to their agenda. Nobody will even have to acknowledge it.
I can't express how happy this would make me, and you'd think they would swing immediately to Mitt Romney. He talks family values, he talks pro-life and anti-gay-marriage, but he's got no credibility whatsoever. He governed my home state, for crying out loud. (And did a crappy job of it, I should point out.) He got himself elected by claiming, "I'm not one of them!" and detailing his not-like-them positions, chapter and verse. And now he has to go and un-say all that.
I wouldn't think that would be a huge problem (I'm sure the Christian right could come up with some shit involving the road to Damascus or something) but Romney's a Mormon. And Mormons are to American religion what Vegas is to American cities. Nobody really wants to go that far out, or if they do, they're not going to admit it. Mormons vote like Christian conservatives and they gave up that whole polygamy thing, too! Honest! All kidding aside, I should point out that to their credit, actually act the way the Christians want you to think that they act.
But nobody on the Christian right wants to vote for a Mormon. Just doesn't feel right. The rest of the candidates are a little too wacky or a little too...I don't know, boutique would be a good word. (Duncan Hunter, for example. One-stop shopping for immigration and the military, but anything else? Next question.)
Given the choice, though, I really don't think hard-right Christian leaders are going to sit this baby out. They can't afford to seem irrelevant, even if that's what they've become. Sooner or later they're going to throw their weight behind Romney, or maybe McCain if he gets it together. And they'll make loud declarations about how they're going to compromise to advance Jesus's political agenda, or some crap.
But in reality, they will be irrelevant. And when Romney or Giuliani get the nod for Republican presidential candidate, their key constituents are going to stay home, because in their minds, they won't be voting for "one of them." The volunteer-driven networks who mobilized whole neighborhoods in the Bush elections are going to look pretty anemic in the event of a Romney or a Giuliani campaign.
And that's the thing. There's an enthusiasm gap (not my term) that's widening, not just between Republicans and Democrats but among anybody who isn't supporting Obama or Edwards. People like Hillary, and Rudy, and even Mitt, but nobody is excited about them. Obama especially has managed to defy people who said he was a flash in the pan and has somehow managed to get critical donors to hedge their bets with him.
I should point out that the reason we're talking about the Presidential primaries, and have been doing so since November 8th, is because of 24-hour news networks. These guys need stories. Period. And speculating about who's going to run for President drums up a lot of interest. Developing your own horse race around the whole thing (and using goofy metrics like who's got the most money to measure voter support wa-a-a-ay in advance) is just a way to fill airtime and garner ratings.
None of the candidates really wanted to start this earlier. They'd rather be on message against the President and trying to push their legislative agendas, or for those who aren't in Congress, building up their credibility and name recognition in other ways. This just pushes them to raise more money, sooner, and faster than the other guy. No runner appreciates the judges moving the starting line further and further back, even if they're doing it to everyone.
But that's the way it is. The horse race is on, and name recognition and enthusiasm are being built by media interest and ridiculously gun-jumping polls from Gallup and Quinnipiac. So by January, everyone will have gone through three or four rises and subsequent falls from glory and the outcome's going to be the same as it would have otherwise been. Just a lot more expensive.
But at least it will help us to establish the frontrunners way in advance, and from the way the frontrunners look on the Republican side, the Democrats are in pretty good field position. A strong Democratic candidate can overpower a Republican, regardless of star power, who doesn't have the support of the Christian right. Or even if, say, Giuliani can pull it off, he's not going to be beholden to their agenda.
If I have the fortune to see the nauseating power of the Christian right in America die during my lifetime, I will be a happy man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)