JibJab is at again, providing much needed comic relief with a very silly video cartoon featuring some of our favorite characters: John McCain, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton.
This may not be the greatest political satire, but that’s not really the point. It’s a fun ditty set to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changing”.
I enjoyed this and I hope you do to!
John McCain and Barack Obama face the same challenge of all presidential candidates: to consolidate and energize the party base while winning over the center.
This challenge presents many dimensions for each candidate. Today I focus on John McCain and the Republicans, and soon I will post a separate article about Obama’s coalition.
John McCain is remarkably unpopular among conservative Republicans. During the Republican primaries, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity continually criticized McCain. At times their attacks were so vicious that they reached the level usually reserved for Democrats and liberals. One of my first articles on this blog was about this phenomenon: The right-wing attacks on John McCain.
According to some critics on the political right, John McCain is not a “true believer” in core conservative principles, especially on these specific issues: taxes, immigration, and the environment. McCain’s advocacy of campaign finance reform angered some conservatives. They especially dislike McCain’s willingness to sometimes work with Democrats. For purists of all ideologies, “compromise” is one of the most hated words and deeds, and McCain is guilty of occasionally committing this political sin.
Once McCain clinched the Republican nomination, criticisms of him from the traditional right diminished considerably as conservative talk radio shows shifted their focus back to what they do best: attack Democrats. “Hold your nose and vote!” This is a popular slogan for purists in both parties every four years. Most conservatives dislike McCain, but they see him as “the lesser of two evils”. In their perception of political reality, McCain may be a “liberal”, but he is much less dangerous than that “radical leftist”, Barack Obama.
The Three Legs of the Republican Stool
I always thought “stool” was a poor choice of words, but it holds an honored place in the Republican lexicon. Technically, “modern” conservative Republican thought goes back to William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, but Ronald Reagan was the culmination of theory and practice. Reagan effectively combined three key elements: 1) strong national defense, 2) limited federal government (especially low taxes), and 3) social conservatism.
These three concepts held special and specific meaning when Reagan was first elected president in 1980. The United States and the world have changed significantly since then. The Reagan administration was part of that change. In 2008, we face new challenges and none of the Republican candidates in 2008 effectively captured the hearts and minds of today’s conservative Republican voters.
John McCain won the nomination largely by default. He was perhaps the candidate closest to representing conservative principles simply by not violating any one of them too much. His biography as a war hero and one who has sacrificed so much is beyond reproach. McCain is especially popular with moderate Republicans and some independents. These voters gave McCain an important edge over his competitors. Without a Ronald Reagan in the mix, John McCain ultimately emerged as the compromise candidate for Republicans.
The Traditional Republican Base is in a Quandary
Of course, most people who voted for George W. Bush will vote for John McCain. Bush’s approval rating is among the lowest ever recorded at about 28%, but that still translates into approximately 34 million voters (Bush won over 62 million votes in 2004). Many believe that President Bush and his administration have greatly damaged the “Republican brand”.
A very effective theme for the Democrats in 2008 is: “John McCain would be Bush’s third term”. It would be political campaign malpractice for the Democrats NOT to use this.
Most of the Rush Limbaugh “ditto-head” Republican base will vote for John McCain. Again, the emphasis is on voting against the Democrat Obama. Many voters in every election vote against someone rather than voting for someone.
A segment of conservative voters may reject McCain and instead vote for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. (See my previous article: Libertarians, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the “Revolution”). Libertarians know that Bob Barr is not going to win the presidency in 2008.
Additionally, John McCain is not especially popular among “conservative Christians”, many of whom supported Mike Huckabee in the 2008 Republican primaries. This church-based constituency was a key to the success of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Political organizing of this base has been a cost-effective way for campaigns to tap into volunteers, resources, and many votes.
John McCain shares the same positions on some issues important to conservative Christians, especially his opposition to both abortion rights and gay marriage. However, candidates like Huckabee and Bush more “speak their language”, while McCain appears less comfortable talking about religion. McCain’s lack of familiarity with this community resulted in making ill-conceived alliances with “televangelists” John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama hopes to attract some of this constituency and widen the discussion with this community to include other topics central to Christianity, such as caring for the less fortunate. Conservative Christians are often misunderstood and unfairly pigeon-holed. Labels often cause confusion, for example, someone may be “conservative” in their religious beliefs without necessarily being politically conservative. Political campaigns would be wise to pay attention to these voters and avoid making assumptions about them.
Turnout is Key
The 2008 presidential election may be very close, especially if recent history is a guide. Both Barack Obama and John McCain must win overwhelmingly among traditional party voters of their respective parties. Turnout is perhaps the most under-rated key to winning elections. Even if McCain wins more than 90% of traditionally Republican votes, how many will turn out to vote? Obama’s success in the Democratic primaries was largely due to high turnout.
Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Republican presidential candidates especially have enjoyed the benefit of good grassroots “get out the vote” organizational efforts to produce high turnout on election day. While high turnout (for your candidate) is an important key to winning an election, having many highly motivated volunteers is a key to producing high turnout. This is perhaps John McCain’s biggest vulnerability. Many Republicans may “hold their nose and vote” for McCain, but few are motivated to work on getting their friends, neighbors, and undecided voters to do likewise.
McCain suffers “an enthusiasm gap” as reported in this article by Yahoo News:
For now, the numbers favor Obama: 38 percent of his supporters say the election is exciting compared to 9 percent of McCain’s. Sixty-five percent of Obama’s backers say they are hopeful about the campaign, double McCain’s, and the Democrat’s supporters are three times likelier to express pride.
The Fight for the Center:
John McCain and Barack Obama want to win over the center, the undecided voters, independents. At the same time, they need to keep their respective party bases happy and enthused. John McCain especially has enjoyed a successful political career by gaining the favorable label of a “maverick”. He does NOT mindlessly vote the “party line”, instead he sometimes “reaches across the aisle” to the other party in order to get legislation passed.
See my recent article McCain and Obama Are Both Flip-Floppers, So What? and check out our Interactive 2008 Electoral Map Calculator. The campaigns are focused on having a winning electoral map strategy, and honing optimal policy positions on key issues is essential to achieve this.
A good case study is John McCain’s recent flip-flop on offshore oil drilling. His earlier opposition to offshore drilling fit his somewhat popular maverick image by taking a pro-environmental stand contradictory to most of his party members. Voters in Florida are especially concerned about potential environmental hazards of drilling for oil off the Florida coasts. Soaring gas prices emerged as an immediate concern for many voters across the map and the ideological spectrum. The McCain campaign calculation is that flip-flopping to now support offshore oil drilling will pay off. They are hoping McCain’s flip-flop will gain votes in some key swing states while maintaining enough support in Florida to win there as well. It’s also a nice sop to the voracious ideological appetite of the conservative Republican base.
Republican political strategist Dick Morris is well known for his work in Bill Clinton’s presidential administration. His advice has often been effective, at least in terms of helping politicians increase their short-term popularity. Morris is especially associated with the concept of triangulation: take policy positions that remove an argument from the opposition, help win over the center, and leave your base with no where else to turn. Bill Clinton’s support of welfare reform and Bush 43’s policy of extending federal prescription drug benefits to seniors are two recent examples of political triangulation.
I have seen Dick Morris on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes several times recently. Sean Hannity, in case you don’t know, is one the guardians of conservative Republican ideological purity. While Hannity continues to urge John McCain to move to the right, Morris argues for the opposite approach. Read this Dick Morris article published by the Washington Post. This short excerpt sums up Morris’ broad strategy advice:
McCain can win by running to the center . . . His base will be there for him; indeed, it will turn out in massive numbers.
In some elections one candidate is able to unite and enthuse the base while also winning over voters in the middle. That candidate becomes President.
Note: Coming Soon - an article about Barack Obama’s coalition building challenges.
Sphere: Related ContentWill 2008 be the year for an insurgency of Libertarian politics? This could be the achilles heel of the John McCain campaign. The Republican coalition is breaking apart at least to some extent. The tremendous political success of Ronald Reagan is a distant memory. Reagan united all conservatives and Republicans while winning over much of the center and even some Democrats. George W. Bush successfully brought together enough of this coalition to win in 2000 and 2004, but the many problems of the Bush administration have alienated voters across the political spectrum.
Some conservatives even view Bush as a “liberal”. An interesting and popular sentiment is expressed as: “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.” Many conservatives are angry at the exploding federal budget, budget deficits, and federal debt. The new Department of Homeland Security especially represents expansive government contradictory to the conservative bedrock principle of smaller government. Additionally, some conservatives are unhappy with the Iraq War. Some viewed the invasion of Iraq as bad policy from the beginning, while others are more critical of the handling of the war.
Ron Paul ran a provocative and exciting campaign in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Without winning a single state and accumulating only 35 delegates (out of 2,380), Texas Congressman Paul nevertheless galvanized a highly enthusiastic following and won over 1.16 million votes (see this page from CNN for a good summary of Ron Paul’s performance in the primaries). Ron Paul was especially popular among younger conservatives critical of the Iraq War and angry that the Bush administration continued to expand the size of the federal government. While technically a Republican, Ron Paul advocates Libertarian Party principles: limited government, low taxes, and modest foreign policy.
Coincidentally, once Ron Paul’s campaign effectively ended, former Republican U.S. House Representative from Georgia, Bob Barr emerged as the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2008. Some of the energy and excitement for Ron Paul’s candidacy has transferred to the Barr campaign. A small but dedicated constituency for Libertarian politics hopes to shake up the U.S. political landscape in 2008. The most recent Zogby Poll released on July 10th shows Bob Barr at 6% nationally (with Obama leading McCain 44% to 38%, a 6% margin). Review the Zogby electoral map to see that Bob Barr has significant support in several swing states.
Unlike the other unsuccessful Republican candidates for president this year, Ron Paul has NOT endorsed John McCain. Many supporters of Ron Paul and Bob Barr hoped that Ron Paul would be Bob Barr’s running mate, but this did not happen. Wayne Allen Root is the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 2008. The selection of Root has not been well publicized. I never heard of him or even knew if Bob Barr had selected his running mate until I did some research to write this paragraph. I cannot even find information about Root on Bob Barr’s official campaign website. Libertarians, if you want more success, you must do better than this!
Ron Paul has yet to endorse either John McCain or Bob Barr. According to this article in the Atlantic Journal Consitution:
Paul has criticized McCain, and while Paul has not endorsed Barr, he recently praised his former House colleague.
Barr, Paul told CNN, “talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message.”
Some Ron Paul supporters are still undecided about how to cast their vote in November. An official endorsement from Ron Paul likely would help Bob Barr’s campaign tremendously.
If the Libertarian Party can make a splash in 2008, that would represent a minor “revolution”, to use the terminology of the Ron Paul campaign (and the title of Paul’s new book, Revolution: a Manifesto). Bob Barr’s campaign has the potential to break off a sizeable portion of the traditional Republican vote. It could signal the beginning of a real third party in American politics: a party strong enough to influence elections for the foreseeable future and end the stranglehold of the U.S. two party system.
Please see our previous articles in the Topic of 3rd Party politics and vote in our opinion polls on 3rd Parties.
Update, July 13, 2008: After I first posted this article, the website for Bob Barr’s campaign added a new link on their home page, “Meet Wayne Allyn Root“. Also, Time magazine published this article: “Libertarians: A (Not So) Lunatic Fringe“.
Sphere: Related ContentIn Defense of Flip-Flopping:
Imagine an American leader with a specific strategy to fight a foreign enemy and save New York City. Then this leader meets with leaders from France and instead adopts a very different strategy, the French strategy. As we celebrate the 4th of July, remember that this flip-flop by George Washington in 1781 enabled the fledgling United States to defeat the British in Yorktown, Virginia.
Abraham Lincoln was a big time flip-flopper, especially on the issue of slavery. Instead of holding to strong principles on the most important moral and social issue of the 19th century, Lincoln’s position on the slavery issue continually shifted according to the political winds. After many years and much tragedy, Lincoln finally abolished slavery for politically and militarily strategic reasons. Also, thank goodness Franklin D. Roosevelt finally flip-flopped on his position regarding fighting Hitler and the Nazis in 1941.
Changing your mind is not necessarily bad. History is very interesting and teaches us important lessons, but I’m much more interested in the future. What will a candidate really do if elected president? I want leaders who evolve and grow. The tragic mess of the Iraq War is largely the result of a myopic, inflexible, obstinate mindset.
Perhaps the greatest “invention” of all time is the scientific method. Science has the humility to start with the premise that we don’t know the truth, and perhaps we never will. We continually test theories and measure, learn and revise. Effective government is an ongoing process. Government is far from pure science, but the concept of learning and re-evaluating is essential. Each day brings new challenges and shifts in economic and demographic reality. Policies that made sense in 1984 are often not good choices today. Of course, in wartime, policies need to change instantly as “events on the ground” dictate and as our understanding deepens.
The Political Problem of the Flip-Flop:
Don’t misread my “defense of flip-flopping”. Just because flip-flopping is not always bad does not mean it’s always good. It is always a political risk in that it raises questions of character. People accuse candidates of not having strong principles, opting out to do only what is politically expedient, and of lying, breaking campaign promises, not being trustworthy.
Hearing that a candidate is a flip-flopper persuades some knee-jerk voters. All politicians are flip-floppers. John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” and Barack Obama’s “New Politics” are good campaign slogans. Each accusing the other of “flip-flopping” is easy, but hopefully a worn-out tactic and meaningless label in 2008. Often the flip-flop accusation itself is politically expedient. Emblematic of the dumbing down of political discourse, sound bites and meaningless labels replace intelligent discussion of difficult and intricate policy.
Recent Flip-Flop Disasters:
We have two big examples of the flip-flop label impacting recent elections. In the 1988 presidential campaign, Republican George H.W. Bush promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes”, and then during his presidency, Bush raised taxes. This especially angered some Republicans who either voted for Ross Perot or stayed home for the 1992 election. This flip-flop was one factor enabling the election of Bill Clinton. In 2004, Democrat John Kerry recorded this most unfortunate sound bite: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [in funding for the Iraq War] before I voted against it.” Republican operatives used this in their larger negative portrayal of Kerry as being unreliable. The flip-flopper label stuck on Kerry and hurt his public image.
McCain/Obama Flip-Flops: 2008 Greatest Hits:
We are going to hear much about candidate flip-flopping until November. The flip-flop label hurts the most when it sticks to just one candidate. Both McCain and Obama have each accumulated sizeable lists of flip-flops. Attacking each other as a “flip-flopper” makes as much sense as criticizing their opponent for being a Senator.
Basically, flip-flopping doesn’t really matter unless: 1) people really care about that specific issue, and 2) a candidate clearly breaks a promise important to many voters. Another scenario is an established pattern of flip-flopping in which a candidate rapidly changes positions on many issues. Neither McCain nor Obama have flip-flopped in a way that will hurt them significantly.
Here’s a short list of some well-publicized McCain and Obama flip-flops and a quick review of why each doesn’t matter.
Obama on Campaign Financing: in 2007 Obama promised to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a public financed general election”. Obama clearly flip-flopped on this one when he announced last month that he would opt out of public financing. This means Obama will not accept the $84 million of federal government funds available to him. In doing so, he is exempt from fund-raising limits. Obama has kept his promise to not accept money from PACs (political action committees) and corporations. Individuals are limited to donating a maximum of $2,300. Few people follow the intricacies of campaign financing rules. Those who actually follow this realize that Obama’s new approach saves the federal government $84 million. Also, the problem with campaign financing is precisely that PACs and corporate interests have too much influence. By accepting only small donations from individuals, Obama’s campaign exemplifies what campaign finance reform laws strive to achieve. Reference.
McCain on Privatizing Social Security: John McCain has recently taken both sides of this controversial topic, as quoted in the Baltimore Sun:
Two weeks ago, Mr. McCain said, “I am not for privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Funny that categorical claim, too, because according to a Wall Street Journal story March 3, here’s what Mr. McCain said just three months ago: “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines of what President Bush proposed.”
This is an important issue that divides people, but McCain has time to clarify where he really stands. He may anger some Republicans/conservatives if he clarifies that he is against privatization. Given recent stock market performance, support for privatizing Social Security is dwindling.
McCain and Obama cut ties with controversial religious leaders: Both McCain and Obama had embraced religious leaders who ended up being campaign liabilities because of their inflammatory statements and fiery rhetoric. Both presidential candidates flip-flopped by ultimately denouncing, renouncing, and rejecting their former allies. Very few voters will change their vote because of they dislike these rejections.
McCain on Off-Shore Drilling: McCain has been a long-time opponent of offshore drilling, but recently (three weeks ago) changed his position in favor of offshore drilling. This is like many flip-flops: people are much more concerned about the actual issue than the act of flip-flopping. McCain is hedging his bet that his new position will be more popular than his previous opposition to offshore drilling. Reference.
Obama on Iraq: This is a case in which no flip-flop happened. Obama has been remarkably consistent on the issue of the Iraq War. Some anti-Obama operatives (e.g., Fox News) are attempting to manufacture a controversy simply by accusing Obama of flip-flopping. This is compounded by complaints from a few left-wing “purists” who abhor any suggestion of nuance and especially any move toward the political center. Example (Barack at Risk by Tom Hayden).
Barack Obama has often repeated his well-crafted sound bite that “we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as George Bush was careless getting in.” Obama has always been clear that he wants a quick but orderly withdrawal from Iraq based on the recommendations of the generals in the field.
Obama has recently re-iterated his belief that U.S. policy in Iraq needs flexibility based on the advice of commanding officers. Some have jumped on this statement to characterize it as a “flip-flop”. Attempting to couple the flip-flop label with a key issue is a good campaign tactic, but it is much more effective if it is based on at least a shred of truth. The hope must be to alienate some of Obama’s strong anti-war supporters. In all fairness, this tactic should hurt only the credibility of the false accusers. Reference.
More McCain and Obama Flip-Flops:
The Move to the Center: Politics 101 teaches that once the primaries are over, the presidential nominees from each party move to the political center and away from respective left and right extremes. As John McCain and Barack Obama attempt to win over the political center, we will see more real flip-flopping and accusations from both of the candidates and their campaigns. The bottom line is that you can’t simply vote against the flip-flopper: all candidates flip-flop and maybe that’s even a good thing.
The left-wing purists are a problem for Obama, and the right-wing purists are a problem for John McCain. This sounds like a good topic for my next article.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Loading ...
Who will you vote for?
Total Voters: 451
Loading ...