History is Happening Now

John McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis says in an interview with Chris Cillizza that “[t]his election is not about issues… This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”

Tyler Cowen, meanwhile, writes:

There is one biographical fact about Palin’s life that the critics (Drum, DeLong, Yglesias, Klein, Sullivan and Kleiman are among the ones I read) are hardly touching upon.  I mean her decision to have a Downs child instead of an abortion.  This is the fact about her life and it will be viewed as such from now through November and perhaps beyond.

What’s wrong with these people?

The notion that the general population of the US is not interested in issues and policies, but is interested instead in the biographical storylines associated with each of our candidates for president, presumably what Davis means by a “composite view,” is deeply frightening.  More so because there are radical differences between the two candidates who are running for president, differences which matter to the lives of every American.  One of the most significant differences is the stance of each candidate on the EFCA, a law that would “change Americans’ lives more than any legislation since the New Deal brought us Social Security,” according to Mark Weisbrot.  McCain opposes the EFCA and Obama actually cosponsored it.

Though I do not always agree with Barack Obama on every position he has taken–and I advocate taking a skeptical stance toward everything he says, as we should with every politician–I give him credit for increasingly trying to focus this election on policy issues.  More and more, he has shifted from a candidate who has spoken (during the primaries) fairly abstractly (though policy details were always available on his website) to a candidate who can be, as of the convention, very specific about what he wants to accomplish.  His is, to be sure, a more centrist agenda than I would personally prefer, but no one can accuse him of being nonspecific or running on his “authenticity.”

The Republicans and more generally the Far Right, meanwhile, want to make “authenticity” and the “composite view” the deciding factor in this election.  (Do you want to have a beer with the candidate?)  They do this because, if polls are to be believed, they simply can’t win by running on the issues.  The vast majority of the American population consists of what George W. Bush called today in his speech, broadcast from Washington to the RNC, the “angry left.”  We want out of Iraq.  We want universal healthcare.  We like Social Security just the way it is.  We hate torture.

It is also fascinating that Republicans want to make this sort of authenticity the central focus of the election, but also cry foul when their candidates are attacked for character flaws and personal failings.  Governor Palin gets to run as an “authentic” “hockey mom” who lives up to her principles because she bore a child with Down Syndrome–meaning, in essence, that she is willing to use her newest child as a political bludgeon against her opponents–but also gets to complain about indecent personal attacks when (admittedly idiotic) pundits critique her “mothering” skills.

As I have stated, I think digging into Palin’s personal life is deeply immoral, but as a corollary I also think that her using her family as an example of what a wonderful candidate she is is equally, if not more, odious.

If we fall for this–again–what’s wrong with us?