I receive e-mail notices from the Economist weekly, its an adjunct to my print subscription and serve to wet my appetite for the brain candy the actual magazine represents each week. I’m a big fan of their coverage of American politics, because as a British magazine, they tend to be more objective in their coverage. In a blogosphere full of morons people who turn to the Weekly Standard or the Washington Times and Fox News for an objective view of the world, it is an escape into sanity.
So when the e-mail dropped into my box this week containing this little gem-which was pointedly on the mark, my head nodded up and down in agreement:
With the Democratic convention taking place next week, we look at Barack Obama’s loss of momentum. Unless the party can unite convincingly and Mr Obama show the sort of courage that John McCain has, the Democrats will lose the presidency. If that happens, after Katrina, Iraq and an economic crisis, they should consider an alternative line of work.
You think so? NS-Sherlock.
After all, McCain is helped by an electorate that will not take the time to understand anything in detail. Which is why John McCain is able to get away with what amounts to blatant deception-whether it be about the so called “surge” (which was never a surge, in any sense of the word) in Iraq, and how he was for it all along ( he was not till well into 2006-he was on his knees agreeing with Bush for the first three years); obscuring Obama’s position on Iraq by saying he was for defeat-even though the Bush Adminstration is on the verge of negotiating an agreement that is almost identical to that advocated by Obama. ( “The situation on the ground will govern troop movements-any coincidence of timing of agreeing to a timeline is just that, a coincidence”-So sayeth Saint Petreaus); to a bellicose policy against Russia without one smidgen of explanation on how he would back up that rhetoric. (Going to revive LANDCENT and put a few divisions in the Ukraine John? What is that you say? The Army and Air Force are not big enough to do that, because we have too many Soldiers out defending useless Arabs? I thought so.) And I’ll skip the economy for another post, where the Economist has done an excellent job explaining the risks of the “We’re fine. All is well! There are no real hard times that Americans have not brought on themselves” philosophy of so many conservatives. After all tax breaks increased revenue. ( That last statement can be shredded to pieces with just a little analysis, but I have not the time here-stay tuned.)
But the point is, people are buying it, Mainly because Obama is doing nothing to counter it. Its a Democratic problem that is not unique to Obama. The compromises to all the wrong groups that a Democratic candidate has to make to get nominated ( Feminists and the rest) make it hard for the candidate to build a coherent narrative-or get fighting mad and stick it right back up the old man’s kiester.
Which is exactly what Obama needs to do now. You know you are in trouble when Peggy Noonan and James Carville are saying exactly the same thing. First up? Noonan:
This is what they see:
An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he’s hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it’s a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No. He’s a community organizer (what’s that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so’s my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).
There is no pre-existing category for him.
Add to that the wear and tear of Jeremiah Wright, secret Muslim rumors, media darling and, this week, abortion.
It took a toll, which led to a readjustment. His uniqueness, once his great power, is now his great problem.
And over there is Mr. McCain, and—well, we know him. He’s POW/senator/prickly, irritating John McCain.
I’ll say it again, the whole Saddleback media appearance was a disaster for Obama and not for the “above my paygrade” reasons that so many of my reactionary right wing fellow bloggers may think. The quote has been taken out of context, and if you look at the whole reply Obama was sincere. However, nuanced, intelligent commentary is not the forte of most of Rick Warrens parishioners. Other wise they would be smelling the same coffee as Charles Templeton. He should have thought that one through.
Which gets to Carville’s point. Like Clara of 24 years ago, Carville says it’s time for Obama to show the people where the beef is:
Quite simply, he needs to create a more compelling narrative on change, use history as a context for the economy, and get mad about something.
First and foremost, Obama must bring a narrative to his position as a change agent. You can’t simply seek change for change’s sake.
The argument must be made that this is an election with two choices: the change-seeking good guys or the status quo-clinging bad guys. The campaign needs to brand every negative attack by the Republicans as just another desperate attempt of the status quo clinging to power.
Obama’s campaign should argue that all of our political friends have the courage to break from the same old game in Washington in order to provide the change we need, while all of Sen. McCain’s friends in Washington refuse a new direction for America.
McCain keeps trying to claim he’s a “change Republican.” I don’t really know what that means, but Obama and his team must continue to highlight the “McSame” that he offers: more of the same failed Iraq policy, more of the same tax breaks for oil and drug companies, more of the same Swift-boat-style tactics, more of the same on education and healthcare.
And he certainly offers more of the same failed Bush economic policy, which leads me to my next point.
Damn right! One of the reasons that I am not ready to climb aboard the straight talk express is that while McCain says repeatedly in his ads that America is worse off than it was four years ago ( a true statement), just like his arguments about the surge-he refuses to say that the occupant of the White House should be held to account for allowing the situation to deteriorate to the point that action had to be taken. Screwed up policy in Iraq?-not GWB’s fault. ( But don’t blame the Iraqis either.). Middle class pays through the ass for things they need?-that too is not GWB’s fault. ( But don’t blame the Iraq war for creating an unstable world economy). And whatever you do, don’t call the Chinese the lying bastards they are.
But at least it is a starting point of agreement. Only George Bush thinks the country is still in great shape. But now ask yourself, can Obama explain why GWB and by extension his clone party’s nominee is wrong? Carville again:
The campaign needs to say that, since 1900, Democratic presidents have not only “won” but dominated on every economic front: GDP growth, employment, deficit and income equality. Need more? How about a better performing stock market and a more fiscally-responsible spending.
There’s no need to listen to McCain’s marginal rates, death tax, deregulation, trickle-down, supply-side shenanigans because historically Democratic presidencies have produced better economies. And with the economy still in the forefront, it seems like a no-brainer for Obama to talk about the historical supremacy of economies under Democratic presidents.
And my last piece of advice to Obama and his team is to just get mad about something. Obama’s campaign seems so intent on branding him as a “cool and calm” leader.
Well, voters want to see a sense of urgency and outrage in their president: Outrage over our dependence on foreign oil; outrage over our increased cost of living, health care and education; outrage over declining incomes; outrage over an endless war and an idiotic foreign policy; and outrage over our country’s loss of prestige over the last 7½ years.
To put it bluntly, Obama needs to get outraged over something other than “attacks on his patriotism.”
Uh, James……….maybe before you do that-you might want to come up with an explanation for Jimmy Carter. Not sure how you keep that whole 15% mortgage rate thing and the Panama Canal giveaway from coming up in conversation. Even if the rest of your assertion is historically correct.
However, he’s right. Obama has yet to make a credible explanation for what he wants to do that’s better than McCain’s. So while he was in Hawaii getting rays, McCain was pouring a foundation with Republican base. And don’t forget this Mr Change-man, you still have a shark named Hillary swimming out there at the end of the beach. If McCain were to make good on Peggy Noonan’s idea of a one term pledge, watch how quickly she will jump out of the boat.
That’s what you have to love about the democrats though-they consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.