History is Happening Now

Writing for McClatchy, Steven Thomma reports on a recent Zogby poll, which indicates that “Barack Obama has lost ground among some of his strongest bases of support, including young people, women, Democrats and independents.”  Let me quote at length from this article:

Zogby called the results a “notable turnaround” from a July survey he did that showed Obama leading by 46-36.

“McCain made signifciant [sic] gains at Obama’s expense among some of what had been Obama’s strongest demographic groups,” Zogby said.

His findings:

-Among voters aged 18-29, Obama lost 16 percent and McCain gained 20. Obama still leads, 49-38;

-Among women, McCain gained 10 percentage points. Obama now leads 43-38;

-Among independents, Obama lost an 11 point lead. They’re now tied;

-Among Democrats, Obama’s support dropped from 83 percent to 74 percent;

-Among Catholics, Obama lost the 11 point lead he had in July and now trails McCain by 15.

Zogby said Obama also lost ground among minorities.

Zogby attributes Obama’s declining numbers to “McCain’s criticisms of Obama as inexperienced in the wake of Obama’s trip to Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq and to Obama’s flips on some issues.”

But it seems implausible that McCain’s attacks on Obama’s inexperience have been very effective, at least among Obama’s base.  Did former supporters of Obama not know about Obama’s relative experience level?  They knew.  Was his relative newness to the political scene not in fact an asset to his campaign?  It was. 

It seems more plausible to me that Obama’s base is dissatisfied with his apparent reversals on issues they care about.

This new data convinces me more than ever that defensive and post-partisan campaigning is a serious mistake.  Republican campaigning tactics–of the sort used even against McCain by Bush in ‘00–may be vile.  Using character assassination or deploying patriotism as a bludgeon to destroy political enemies is disgusting, but I think the general idea of being aggressive-as aggressive as possible–is a good thing.  We can learn that much from our political opponents. 

I like Obama’s ad that claims McCain is “in the pocket” of big oil.  It shows that the campaign is toughening up and developing a so-called “populist” line of attack.  The campaign should never give ground to McCain.  It should pound on him again and again, on the war, on health care, on the environment, on immigration, on internationalism.  Be unapologetically liberal. 

These are issues that put McCain on the defense.  These are issues on which Obama can win, if the polling numbers are right. 

Barack Obama has recently altered his positions (or at least his rhetoric) on two issues related to energy policy:  (i) offshore drilling and (ii) selling off pieces of the strategic petroleum reserve as a method of curbing oil prices.  In both cases, I think he has reduced the effectiveness of his campaign–and unnecessarily put himself on the defense–by seeming to concede to Republican talking points and frames. 

These concessions are especially pernicious because they overwhelmingly dominate the journalistic ledes that describe Obama’s energy policy.  Look, for instance at the NYT’s description (“Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve”) of how the Democratic candidate “altered his position on Monday to call for tapping the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices.”

Only later in the article does the reporter explain that Obama and McCain have vastly different energy policies, that Obama (rightly, in my view) favors massive government investment in alternative energy (to the tune of $150 billion).  Now that’s big government we can believe in!

This is all symptomatic of what I find most unsatisfying about the Obama campaign:  its commitment to the ideology of “post-partisanship.”  This ideology claims that our political problems stem from gridlock caused by our overly polarized ways, rather than from the rabid ideological agenda of the far Right.  Anyone familiar with the rise of the political Right since the 70s would be hard-pressed to think that there is some analogous obstructionist Left in this country.  I mean, c’mon, the Right in this country acts as if Ted Kennedy is the anti-Christ!

This post-partisan strategy is, as far as I can tell, the same losing strategy that Gore and Kerry adopted.  If mainstream polling is to be believed, voters systematically prefer left-leaning policies–on a host of hugely significant issues, ranging from the Iraq War to international diplomacy to universal health care to the environment.  Why don’t Democrats take the lead, and destroy their opponents, by hammering this point home?  It is frankly shameful that Obama isn’t overwhelmingly in the lead in this race–Mr. Bush is the least popular president in modern memory–and that some polls, shockingly, show him just barely ahead of Mr. Maverick, within the statistical margin of error.

Why are our media cycles dominated by Republican talking points about stupid irrelevant issues like offshore drilling?  It is the height of irrationality to act as if offshore drilling is anything other than a diversion from our very serious energy crisis.  Obama successfully–and unambiguously–defined the gas tax holiday proposed by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain as stupid pandering.  He won that battle.  He ought to have done the same thing with offshore drilling and with proposals to release part of the strategic petroleum reserve, but he didn’t and this makes him look weak or indecisive.

What successful frames could he have used?, you ask.  Here are two, off the top of my head:

(i) John McCain wants to destroy the national treasures of our environment–our coasts and our wildlife preserves–and for what?  For what?  Offshore drilling will not reduce gas prices more than a few pennies, at best.  Stating otherwise is a blatant lie.  Doing this would be like blowing up Mount Rushmore–a treasure we preserve for our children and their children–to get an ounce of gold.  We lose much that we as Americans love and we get nothing in return.  This is nothing short of short-sighted greedy pandering.  I, Barack Obama, have a better energy policy, one that would actually reduce the price of energy and wean us off oil, one that will safe guard the energy security of future generations of Americans.

(ii) John McCain apparently doesn’t understand basic economics.  He wants to sell off our energy insurance policy for a quick buck.  But the laws of supply and demand work against his short-sighted theory.  Yes, releasing oil from the reserve may reduce prices, though don’t count on it being reduced by much, but then we would be vulnerable to oil shocks.  John McCain wants to put us at the mercy of our enemies, the petro-dictators.  He seems to be against America having all sorts of insurance:  health insurance, energy insurance.  If we’re not careful, he might outlaw car insurance if he becomes president.  I, Barack Obama, have a better vision.

Fighting a partisan battle is not hard.  It is not cynical.  It is not immoral.  It is the opposite of all these things:  it is the very purpose of our electoral politics.  You can be post-partisan after you’ve won the White House.  Why isn’t Obama (metaphorically) punching McCain in the nose?  I ask only because I believe that he would win that fight, because the American people overwhelmingly prefer his professed policies, because he is the far superior candidate but does himself a disservice when he acts as if his opponent might have some sort of reasonable sensible point when the fact is his opponent doesn’t.