The Politics of Hunger
By Dan Schnur
campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com
Dan Schnur was the national communications director for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2000. (Full biography.)
The loss of a congressional seat in Mississippi was only the second most disturbing sign for Republicans last week. The exodus of lobbyists from John McCain’s campaign wasn’t even close. The most ominous warning for what the fall might be like for the G.O.P. was the throng of 75,000 people that Barack Obama turned out for a rally in Portland over the weekend. The crowd would have almost filled Wrigley Field to capacity twice over and would have been either the fifth or sixth biggest city in Oregon. Or to look at it another way, it was roughly two-thirds the number of Republicans who participated in the Iowa caucuses this year.
Throughout the primary campaign, we’ve seen growing and irrefutable evidence of an enthusiasm gap between the two parties. The Democratic candidates are raising more money, attracting larger audiences and turning out greater numbers of voters. That’s no guarantee of an Obama win in November, but it’s a potentially bigger challenge for John McCain than age, war and recession combined. The excitement among Democratic primary voters, while not unprecedented, may represent the greatest level of political passion since the Republicans eight years ago.
Call it the “politics of hunger.” The longer it’s been since you’ve been invited to a state dinner at the White House, the more motivated you become. Conversely, when you’ve been in charge for eight years, it’s easy to get a bit fat and a little self-satisfied.
In 1992, after 12 long years of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Democrats were so hungry that they nominated a pro-trade, pro-death penalty, pro-welfare budget balancer. That’s how badly they wanted the White House back. At the same time, Republicans had forgotten what it was like to be outside the gates on Pennsylvania Avenue. So they barely went through the motions for that George Bush, flirting with Pat Buchanan, winking at Ross Perot and shrugging off the defeat of an incumbent president as if he were a temporary inconvenience.
It’s hard to remember what an unknown quantity George W. Bush was to Republican true believers in 1999, what with his lineage, his history of working with Democrats in Texas and his fondness for talking about compassionate conservatism. But after years of watching congressional Republicans play Wile E. Coyote to Bill Clinton’s Road Runner, the G.O.P. faithful were hungry again. So they took a flyer on the scion of the Bush they had turned away from less than a decade earlier. As for the Democrats, eight years of power took the edge off their hunger to a point where just enough of them decided that Al Gore wasn’t sufficiently liberal and that the luxury of a vote for Ralph Nader was an indulgence they could afford.
In both 1992 and 2000, the opposition party would have chewed off its own arm to win. So they did. The satiated incumbents, meanwhile, simply burped and went home. Now, eight more years later, the dinner fork and knife are back in the hands of the Democrats. Look no further than the way the potential third party candidates are being treated. In 2000, most Democrats found Mr. Nader to be amusing. In 2004, he was aggravating. When he announced earlier this year that he was thinking about another campaign, he was almost assaulted.
But when former Congressman Bob Barr declared recently that he planned to run for president as the Libertarian Party nominee this year, he heard barely a peep from either the Republican leadership or grassroots. Mr. Barr’s candidacy would hijack votes away from Mr. McCain just like Mr. Nader did to Mr. Gore eight years ago. But the howls of outrage from the left that greeted Mr. Nader’s announcement were not mirrored by conservative anger toward Mr. Barr. The Republican base did not rush to his candidacy either. Rather, most G.O.P. regulars just shrugged.
Shrugging is rarely the indicator of a motivated political party. And Republicans seem particularly unenthused. Worse, 12 years of a G.O.P. congressional majority have added to the complacency, and two years under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid don’t seem to have been enough to rouse the party faithful.
John McCain has no shortage of challenges in this uphill race. He is taking on the war debate full force, and is working hard to convince voters that his path toward eventual peace is less risky than Barack Obama’s. While he carries the burden of a recession that most voters attach to the current administration, Mr. McCain argues strenuously that tax increases during tough economic times is unwise. He turns questions about his age into answers about experience and preparation. Uphill fights all, but none more challenging than the broader task of reinvigorating a dispirited Republican Party. |
