You’re definitely right about that. I don’t know where to allocate the blame for that– a policy-averse media, a biography-heavy campaign, or a combination of those and other factors.

McCain showed that he could defeat the wonkiest of wonks in the primaries.

I’d argue that the content of the policy proposals matters. Democratic proposals, such as health insurance coverage, not-100 years in Iraq, reducing our debt, etc., are more popular among the general electorate than Republican proposals. (Was Romney the “wonkiest of wonks”? I suppose you can’t be referring to Giuliani or Huckabee. Romney had significant problems with his campaign, such as a none-too-convincing effort to run as Mr. Social Conservative instead of as a technocrat).

I guess it comes back to my belief that the general election will be fundamentally different than the primary. The differences between the candidates will be more stark. And with the neverending, ineffective occupation of Iraq, and our teetering economy, I think that actual issues will be at the fore.

Of course it’s possible that the media will fall into its default mode of issuing stories about McCain’s mavericky goodness and Obama’s pastor’s scary blackness. And McCain certainly doesn’t want the election to have anything to do with the policies he’d try to implement as president. So you may well be right, but in the face of all experience and reason, I’m predicting you won’t be.

I disagree. Obama has relatively detailed policy proposals, particularly compared to McCain. Because Clinton and Obama have pretty similar policy proposals, the Democratic primary campaign has been personality heavy, I concede.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand now the point I was confused over at Rod’s.

That said … I think the reason for this gap between policy and values is the dynamic you note on another issue above — the GOP’s trust gap with social conservatives on abortion, gay “marriage,” etc. The populace simply doesn’t trust the Democrats on national security. That “value” is a threshold that has to be (and should have to be) passed before any talk of policy or details will be listened to. The populace may disagree with the means the GOP chooses (or more likely in the case of the Iraq War, is just tired of those means), but they fundamentally think the Democrats don’t give a crap about national security.

As to whether the anti-American/unpatriotic narrative is a outrageous lie or absolute garbage — well, if the arena of political ideas were so simple that one could just make up lies without reference to reality and have them stick, politics would be simple and one-dimensional — just make up whatever passes fancy: “Victor Morton hates apple pie, stars in child- and animal-porn to fund his crack habit, and sacrifices strangled puppies on Satan’s altar.” So, no … nothing successful in politics can be merely a lie.

McGovern is a very good analogy, though not in the sense I think you intend. “Acid, amnesty and abortion” was obviously not the case about McGovern himself as a man, but equally obviously was the case about the party he led. And one doesn’t just elect a person, you elect a whole party. They will man the bureaucracy and Cabinet; they will be appointed as judges; their priorities will take over; their works, thoughts and worldview will gain influence; they will deal with the unexpected “new” issues, according to that worldview (this is why Rev. Wright matters).