As McCain has experienced his post-convention bounce in the polls, I have been asking myself a few questions.
Why, if George Bush is so hideously unpopular, and if we so hate the Iraq war, does anything McCain say have traction with the American public? Why would McCain’s selecting a running mate who resembles no one more than George W. Bush–an inexperienced, “compassionate conservative,” vetted on foreign policy by hawkish neoconservatives–improve the Republican ticket’s chances of victory? Why is Barack Obama’s huge money advantage not translating into more votes?
I ask these questions out of genuine ignorance. I think I suffer from living in a fairly insular world where everyone more or less shares my political values. The reasons not to vote for McCain are so obvious and transparent to me and many people I know that I literally can’t conceive of how anyone would find his brand of “maverick” politics in any way convincing. It’s not clear how a Republican candidate can run as a “reform” candidate, when it is his own party that has been in complete control of the US government for five years, until 2006.
I tend reflexively to blame Democrats for their own failures. The Democrats spent two years, following their 2006 Congressional victories, studiously avoiding any significant challenge to George W. Bush, on the war, on torture, on illegal wiretapping. The Democrats did not arrest Karl Rove when–ignoring its subpoenas–he refused to testify before Congress. The Democrats did not even make minimal or symbolic gestures toward impeaching Bush, a move Republicans took against Clinton for far less significant offenses.
And now Barack Obama and his surrogates call McCain an honorable man whose military service we must respect with whom Democrats have a few policy disagreements. Not a bad guy, you see, just out of touch. John McCain and his surrogates imply, meanwhile, that Obama is an unpatriotic, elitist, arugala-eating, vaguely exotically foreign, arrogant, radical, dictator-appeasing, quasi-terrorist-lover. Sarah Palin, McCain’s surrogates say, had more experience on day one as mayor of Wasilla than Obama and Biden put together. And it works. The charges stick. Obama’s numbers drop. And Republicans surge ahead.
What is wrong with us?
By us, I mean those of us who prefer Obama to McCain. Why do we take this abuse–why do we let ourselves get punched in the face–again and again, then hit back by saying that our opponents are out of touch, they don’t get it, etc.? Why does MSNBC cave in under the mildest of pressure from the American right-wing establishment, pulling Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from regular coverage of the election, while someone like Britt Hume gets to keep hosting his right-wing news program on Fox News? Where is the call for John McCain to be interviewed by Olbermann or Rachel Maddow in exactly the same way that Obama was interviewed, after months and months of the most scurrilously biased coverage, by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly? Why isn’t the Democratic party slamming Fox News every single day, at every opportunity, using some of its money to start “Fox News Watch” or a similar website? Olbermann is MSNBC’s top-rated host, but the network’s brand is supposedly, in some mysterious way, “damaged” by its biggest cash cow. The same cowardice in the face of the right-wing was evident during the run-up to the Iraq war; Phil Donahue, one of the only antiwar voices on American television, not to mention MSNBC’s highest rated host, was sacked by MSNBC as the war began. Apparently, speaking out against the war was politically incorrect.
Do we believe in our own politics? Do we genuinely believe that this is a life or death election? Do we not think, whatever Obama’s flaws, that his election will represent a non-trivial improvement over the last eight years, let alone over a McCain-Palin administration? I’m just asking, because from everything I see, we act as if we don’t believe any of these things.
The point of the post above seems to be that Democrats are losing because they aren’t tough enough. Congress is weak for not fighting harder against Bush/Rove, Barack Obama is weak for not attacking John McCain’s character more aggressively, MSNBC is weak for not defending Olbermann more proudly, the Democrats are weak for not doing more to fight the right-wing spin machine.
And the conclusion you draw is that if “we” are weak, it must be because we don’t really care about the outcome of this election.
But I would point to two different reasons for the apparent troubles Dems are having right now. First, we “tend reflexively to blame Democrats for their own failures.” Blaming Dems for losing perpetuates the idea that in spite of all their success at winning elections, Republicans are somehow weak — it says Republicans would keel over pretty easily if only Dems would get off their asses and fight.
Republicans aren’t weak. They are strong. The problem isn’t that Dems refuse to fight, it’s that Dems fight their hearts out and still lose.
We need to stop blaming Democrats for losing. We need to start blaming Republicans for winning. We need to stop blaming the Democratic Congress for caving in on war, torture and illegal wiretapping — and start blaming Republicans for pushing unnecessary war, torture and illegal wiretapping.
Obama says we should be the change we are looking for in the world. So let’s be the change. Let’s stop relying on other people to fight our battles (and complaining when they don’t), and start fighting our battles ourselves.
To Lee: Do you believe John McCain is a bad guy? If he is, then I think it would be good for Obama if you explained why. (And if you really want Obama to win in November, I would urge you to keep the phrase “Obama’s flaws” out of your posts. Just a thought.”) If you don’t think McCain is a bad guy, then please stop blaming Obama for saying so. You can’t expect Obama to slander his opponent to win an election, can you?
Comment by Ian — September 9, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
[...] sure am (and so is Lee). In that crazy 48-hour period after John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (Sarah who?!) to be [...]
Pingback by Understanding Republicans — September 9, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
This isn’t a post about Obama, so mentioning or not mentioning his political flaws is beside the point, though I will say I conceive of my purpose on this blog as analytical. I think I am good at political analysis, but not as good at political campaigning. I am perhaps a symptom of the problem that Democrats more generally suffer from. This problem is NOT that I allow instances of “Obama’s flaws” to appear in my postings – right-wingers are very aware of McCain’s flaws, and did not censor themselves from going on at great length about how McCain fails them on immigration and other issues. The problem is that my arguments often aim for the head and not for the gut.
Beyond my flaws, let’s talk about the liberal Democratic establishment, who were (more than Obama) the target of my post. Let’s suppose that you oppose Republicans for “pushing unnecessary war, torture and illegal wiretapping.” Let’s just pretend you believe these things and after 2006, after you campaign against these bad things, you have control of BOTH houses of Congress, a turnaround of historic proportions.
What next? No, really, this isn’t a hypothetical question… What do you do next? What have we done? Why did Nancy Pelosi block attempts to impeach Bush, for crimes that merited impeachment? The Republicans did not hesitate to use their power to impeach Clinton on ridiculous, stupid charges. Why do we accept this double standard? I think the case against George W. Bush was a compelling case. It was just. It was worthy. It could have been pursued.
We need to study why Republicans have been successful and adapt to their tactics. I am proposing that we do this. I don’t have many answers, but I believe that if we “start blaming Republicans for winning” then we will likely deprive ourselves of understanding WHY they win. That’s what I want to know.
Democrats need to learn from Republicans.
Comment by Lee — September 10, 2008 @ 3:23 am
I agree we need to understand why Republicans win. I didn’t mean to suggest that “blaming Republicans for winning” would mean not studying why they win.
But you’re making the argument that Democrats lose because they don’t do the things they should do, like try to impeach Bush. I’m not sure that’s true. It might be that Pelosi was worried that trying to impeach Bush would actually make it harder for Dems to win elections — and she might be right! Just because it’s what we want, that doesn’t mean it will help Democrats win elections — after all, if the general voting public wanted what we want, Obama would be up in the polls right now by about 100 points.
Comment by Ian — September 10, 2008 @ 10:13 am
I guess I’m not talking about impeachment per se, but the impeachment situation is a great example of symmetrical situations where the Republicans do what they want and get what they want, no apologies, and Democrats don’t even try to do what they presumably want, perhaps on the theory that doing what Republicans have successfully done against them will lead to their losing subsequent elections.
I think it’s important to note that the reason Republicans have lost popularity is because of their government mis-management, not their hard-ball political tactics; every election cycle the “American people” have forgiven them for doing exactly what they want.
As a country, we reelect them after they impeach Clinton, after they call Al Gore a lying nerd who claims that he invented the Internet, after they say John Kerry is a flip-flopping traitor to this country, after they bully networks who show even minor dissent to their preferences, after they repeatedly and successfully threaten to use the filibuster in the Senate to block the new Democratic majority, something Democrats rarely did when they were in the minority. Now, if McCain-Palin wins, we will have forgiven them for launching the Iraq war.
And Democrats will say “we couldn’t do any of the things Republicans did because it would have cost us votes.”
I propose an alternative: the Republicans keep winning power specifically BECAUSE OF their aggressive, disruptive, nasty, personal tactics. Not in spite of them.
Comment by Lee — September 10, 2008 @ 11:33 am
I should also add that the choice is not black-and-white. I am not proposing that Democrats call McCain a child molester or something equally nasty, but rather:
That they do not hesitate to filibuster bad Republican majority legislation (should the Republicans regain the majority), that they always impeach Bush-like war crimes by Republican presidents, that they turn toward the camera at their conventions and shout as one party “Shame on you Fox News!,” that the Democratic nominee for President and his or her surrogates sharply and personally undermine the personal narrative of his or her opponent.
What I am proposing is a change of ethos for the party, its surrogates, and its supporters. I think your appeals to patriotism are an effort to do just this, though we have had discussions already about what I see as the strengths and limitations of that sort of stance.
I am willing to be persuaded that this ethos–let’s call it the Fightin’ Democrat–is bad path. Or do you agree that we should promote the ethos of the Fightin’ Democrat?
Comment by Lee — September 10, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I agree 100% that we should follow the ethos of the Fightin’ Democrat.
My point is that we should be fighting the fight ourselves, not constantly attacking our political allies because they won’t fight the fight for us. I think we should stop complaining that our leaders aren’t fighting hard enough, and start fighting hard ourselves.
But you don’t have to be stupid to be a fighter. And it may be a stupid idea for Democrats to yell “Shame on You, Fox News” at their convention.
I’ll say it, though: Shame on You, Fox News!
Comment by Ian — September 10, 2008 @ 6:03 pm