And He Has A Plan
After weeks of criticism from Republicans about the leisurely pace at which they seemed to be preparing for the general election, McCain’s campaign has apparently settled on a highly personal campaign theme that aims to differentiate McCain and Obama on both character and issues. ~The Politico
This is very much in line with what I have been expecting for some time now. Given that McCain knows nothing, or next to nothing, about policy (including his own positions!) and his biography is what has recommended him to voters all along, this strategy was almost guaranteed from the beginning. Furthermore, this approach seems to have some chance of working.
The article describes the plan this way:
The strategy: Paint Obama as conventional politician who always takes the safe and easy political road [bold mine-DL], then amplify the distinction by framing McCain as a patriot, somebody who has put sacrifice above self.
Since Obama does always take the safe and easy road, this won’t have to involve any real distortions of his record, either, which will end up winning McCain more plaudits from pundits for his allegedly abiding sense of honesty. The second part has already been done for him by the media a dozen times over.
Might I point out that this strategy, even if successful as an image-making device, is a disastrous electoral loser? Why? Because it turns Obama into a safe, and thus highly electable, political figure who will not radicalize the country or launch us on some strange and dangerous new course. It turns him into the candidate of “safe” change, which is probably the best possible combination for a candidate in the current electoral climate. At least Karl Rove understands that the winning strategy is quite the opposite: to paint Obama as a dangerous, unsafe radical who is outside the mainstream, who can’t be trusted, who has some hidden agenda that will turn the country upside down. He may be clumsy in trying to come up with an image that does this effectively, but at least he knows that this is what must be done to win. McCain’s strategy as described here runs completely counter to that, and effectively neutralizes both. Which, for Obama, is the best of all possible worlds, allowing him to define himself as he wishes, since the Republicans can’t get their story straight. I think we can safely say that in addition to knowing next to nothing about policy, McCain also knows next to nothing about political strategy. He honestly expects to be elected sheerly on the basis of his own biographical “story”, which sounds more and more like either a retirement party send-off, or a eulogy.
It’s an interesting point. Yet I think there is a certain logic to the McCain campaign’s efforts. Rove has had one idea for the last ten years, which is to mobilise the base, and I don’t think he has had another one since then. The McCain people are counting on the public to be eager for “change,” and so they try to undermine Obama’s credibility as a “change agent” at every turn by arguing that he doesn’t take unpopular or politically risky stands and contrast that with the totally overblown McCain legend of being the great contrarian truth-teller who fights special interests. It’s absurd, because McCain is as dull and establishment as it gets, but it might work.
I think the McCain strategy might work if he had an actual “change” agenda that was bolder and more of a departure from the present course 85% of the electorate thinks is going in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, despite his reputation as a “maverick”, McCain essentially wants to continue most Bush policies and only slightly modify others. If change is defined as a departure from present policies, Obama clearly represents more of a change. So portraying Obama as someone who “plays it safe” merely adds to the perception that our present course of policy is dangerous and unsound, and that Obama’s idea of “change” is in the direction of restoration to a safe and sane course of action, not some wild cowboy maverick heroism as McCain would like to offer, which really sounds like Bush redux with a few modifications that could make things even more dangerous and unsound. The point being that the electorate likes safety, and changes in the direction of greater safety are more appealing than stability on a course of dangerous ruination.
Of course, trying to get into McCain’s mind might reveal that he thinks he is offering a superior, heroic form of “change”, and that more politicians should be like him – going against the safe, easy course, and striking out into unknown territory with gun in hand, shooting first and asking questions later. People like this in movies, but they don’t really want this in real life. The Iraq war is an object lesson in this reality.