How the Democrats Will Attack McCain... and Fail Miserably
BIG LIZARDS BLOG
By Dafydd
Patterico linked to a Politico post by Jeanne Cummings titled Gloves Off: the Dem Plan to Hit McCain. Ms. Cummings raises a number of policy issues on which the Democrats plan to attack John McCain during the general campaign; and she's doubtless right about that. But I don't think she appreciates the extent to which policy has become irrelevant in the 2008 election.
McCain's support falls into two categories:
1. Those Republicans who are voting for him primarily because he is neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama. For these people, policy is not particularly relevant to their vote, except insofar as the Democrats -- like the scorpion in the famous tale of the scorpion and the frog -- cannot help being what they are, hence supporting what they must support. Knocking down this or that policy of McCain's will not turn him into Hillary or Obama.
2. Those Republicans, Independents, and Democrats who are voting for him because he is who he is -- the charismatic, feisty, war hero, loudmouthed "straight talker" they have loved for a decade or more. For these folks, policy is irrelevant, because they are voting for the man, not his policies. No matter whether his policy is right or wrong, whether he's consistent or vacillating, or even if he's hypocritical on an issue or two... none of that changes who he is or why they swoon in his presence (real or virtual). (This love is not unconditional; things can change it... but not specific issues or policies.)
So policy simply does not matter in this election. The tiny minority of GOP voters for whom policy wonkishness is a way of life (I count myself in that group) should be bloody grateful that McCain's policies do more or less line up with those of conservative governance at least 75% to 80% of the time... because he would be the favorite whether his agenda matched Gary Hart's or Ronald Reagan's.
Here's how Patrick Ruffini put it in a discussion of the vital quality, the sand, the bottom that Mitt Romney lacked:
What Romney didn't account for is that it would take more than being a CPAC, or Agenda Conservative to win the nomination. Country Music Conservatives -- and frankly, most voters outside the Beltway swamp -- don't listen to your words; they listen to your tone of voice as you're delivering those words. Do you get angry when you should? What's your sense of humor like? For social conservatives, are you grounded in faith? And ultimately, are you the real deal?
This has nothing to do with being right on issues. It has everything to do with being authentic.
John McCain is going to win (or already has won) the nomination because he is the most authentic of any of the GOP candidates who ran. And he will win the general election for just the same reason: The only Democrat who can match McCain's charisma is Barack Obama... and he's as phony as Tree-Dollar Bill (our former president).
In this case, the question that will be asked -- not only by NASCAR conservatives but also by Superbowl-watching liberals and truck-driving independents -- will be, "Are you actually saying anything?"
McCain is actually saying things; the voter will agree with some and disagree with others. But Obama is saying exactly nothing... because he cannot say anything substantive without ruining what small chance he has.
Barack Obama is what Shelby Steele calls a "bargainer." The category comes from Steele's newest book, a Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win -- which I haven't read. But Brother Paul explains Steele's theory on a nutshell:
Steele views Obama as the first black politician to ride the strategy of "bargaining" to great success. For Steele, bargaining is one of two approaches blacks have used as a "mask" in order to offset the power differential between blacks and whites....
Today the bargain that works is this: I will presume that you're not a racist and by loving me you'll show that my presumption is correct. Blacks who offer this bargain are betting on white decency, and whites love this....
Leading [black] politicians have adopted another mask, that of the "challenger." They presume that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by conferring tangible benefits on them. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are paradigm challengers. The challenger strategy works beautifully in an institutional setting -- say a university -- but less well on a mass scale. Still, black politicians often prefer this approach because not adopting it leads to suspicion among black leaders and their constituents. They fear that if whites are let off the hook too easily, black power will be diminished.
Paul continues boiling down Shelby Steele's theory, explaining why Obama must remain void of content...
Why, then, does Steele say that Obama "can't win"? He bases this view (of which he admits to being less certain now) on the premise that ultimately Americans won't elect as president someone they don't feel they know. This puts Obama in a dilemma. Americans can't know him as long as he wears a mask. But the moment he takes off the mask, he loses his magic.
Paul Mirengoff himself expresses reservations about the first part of that syllogism; he is not persuaded that Americans will refuse to vote for a man they don't know. But I have more faith in both the American people and Shelby Steele, and I think the point carries. (If I'm proven wrong, I will be gravely disappointed in three major ways.)
So let's put it all together:
* Jeanne Cumming sees the Democrats launching a series of attacks on the specific policies of John McCain. But McCain's voters aren't supporting him for policies; they support him either because they admire his character -- or because he's neither Hillary nor Barack.
* McCain's greatest assets are his charisma (as I noted earlier) and his authenticity (as Patrick Ruffini describes it); his specific policies are not the point.
* But the Democrats cannot attack him on that score because neither of the two Democratic candidates has anywhere near as much "authenticity" as McCain... and one of them hasn't even any charisma, either.
Which leads to one conclusion: The Democrats cannot bring McCain down, because they have no idea how to respond to a character-based campaign, and no weapons to fight one even if they could understand it. The only person who can bring down John McCain is -- John McCain. And so far, he has avoided making the kind of deal-killing mistake -- like getting caught in an Abramoff-like money scandal -- that would do it.
McCain is going to win the general election unless he makes a staggeringly stupid mistake that leaves a vile stain, not upon some policy he espouses, but upon his very soul. biglizards.net |
