There has been a lot of talk of late centering on what The Economist magazine recently termed "Obama Fatigue," which is, well, just that, really--the "burn-out" sensation a lot of American voters are feeling regarding Senator Obama's meteoric rise to fame, his near ubiquity on television newscasts (and on the internet and in magazines and newspapers) over the past year or so, and his sweeping speeches, which are complete with stirring-if-somewhat-generic "meta" phrases, such as (but not exclusively) "this is our moment; this is our time," "yes, we can," and "we need change in [filling in the blank with any of a number of areas of policy, domestic or foreign]."
With all of his media exposure over a lengthy period of time, it's no wonder that a certain percentage of somewhat politically ambivalent, rather independent-minded voters are feeling worn-out; these folks are generally reliable voters in presidential elections, and they also often tune-in for the presidential debates and follow the presidential race in the time between the conventions and the election, but they tend to tune-out the presidential goings-on prior to the conventions, especially in the summer. Yet this year, it's almost impossible for anyone to tune-out the presidential race--or rather it's almost impossible for anyone to tune-out coverage of Senator Obama.
That's my point, you see--Senator McCain is campaigning just as vigorously as is Senator Obama, but he hasn't grabbed the American (and, it seems, international) political zeitgeist by the throat at all, or at least he hasn't done it to the extent that Senator Obama has. This might suggest to those following the goings-on in a rather close manner that Senator Obama has the advantage come November, which in a sense he does because he has by far the larger legion of hyper-intense supporters, but it also might spell trouble with those for whom the political zeitgeist is less inspiring than it is often annoying, and who prefer their candidates to be centrist, sensible, and (sometimes above all) somewhat quiet, with very little hint of personal hubris.
That latter group of voters might very well swing the forthcoming presidential election one way or the other, which is what John McCain is banking on, because it may be the case that, without a bit of a change (there's that word again) of course and tactics, Senator Obama's campaign team may accidentially snatch defeat from the jaws of victory thanks to a potentially overheated, almost spiritual campaign that frightens/annoys independents into voting for the less-flashy "maverick" Senator McCain. (Many independent voters often like to think of themselves as "maverick" in a generic sense, but not when it reaches a sort of societal tipping-point into new paradigms; this is not a criticism, it's just reality, and it's of course the case that many independent voters do not fit that description...though enough just might to help Senator McCain to a November victory.)
So Senator Obama made entirely the right move when he took this week "off" for vacation (though he spoke to the media and issued statements on several occasions), which will allow folks to catch their breath in a moment when Obama-mania is at low ebb (it will be flowing in a major way in a few weeks...). It will also allow Senator Obama to work out a slightly altered strategy for the autumn campaign season--which starts at the convention, or perhaps just prior to it--in which he is both a bit more personable (which is to say less aloof) with independent voters by talking-up his very American roots (his international roots will be talked-up often for him, I'm sure, so he doesn't need to concentrate on that) and focusing heavily on policy proposals.
My suggestion would be that he begin previewing his convention speech after he arrives on the American mainland from his vacation in Hawaii, at which point he ought to begin to focus mostly on domestic issues, and primarily on how to jump-start the wounded economy, and leave the inspiring rhetoric in the background for a while. At the convention, his running mate should focus on foreign issues (with some domestic issues sprinkled into the mix), as he will surely choose a foreign policy expert as his running mate. That will allow Senator Obama to deliver an even-toned, rather centrist speech dedicated mostly to domestic policy, and he can weave in his own background to the speech, suggesting that the United States inspired both his native-born mother and foreign-born father economically and otherwise, and therefore as a native-born American he is dedicated to seeing the economy improve.
Then he should unveil somewhat sharper if lengthier versions of his domestic proposals in a serious way that displays his convictions without making him look as though he doesn't have a sense of humor (a few jokes would help with this). Whereas his running mate should repeatedly criticize Senator McCain's proposals, both domestic and foreign, as well as speak in an optimistic manner about Senator Obama's proposals, Senator Obama should most likely stay focused on his own domestic ideas (while occasionally criticizing Senator McCain for his), which will suggest a positive attitude married to serious thought in order to overcome the present economic troubles. He ought to stay serious, presidential, occasionally personable, and always pragmatic in his speech, and he ought to put the primary focus on the state of the economy and other domestic matters, while discussing the connections between the economy and foreign relations, as well. (During Senator Obama's speech, all roads ought to come back to the economy.) The soaring rhetoric should make an appearance (probably toward the end of the speech), but it ought to be minimized to the extent that his proposals take center stage; he needs to look like a home-grown pragmatist--a political version of a plumber--not a professorial preacher.
When the convention is over and he is on the campaign trail, Senator Obama should stick with this domestic-first method of campaigning, with proposals that have meat on their bones, and leave the inspiring rhetoric for certain "proper" moments. He ought to hit Senator McCain on multiple occasions regarding Senator McCain's political links to President Bush, but far more often he ought to draw distinctions regarding his own practical plans and those of Senator McCain, which will have the effect of making him look "presidential"--he should leave it to his running mate to really hammer away at Senator McCain.
If all of this sounds familiar, it's because it is--this is a tried and true method of winning a presidential election. It does not always work, but it works far more often than any other kind of campaign strategy, which obviously recommends it. In the specific case of Senator Obama, what also recommends it is that he is most certainly not what one might call a "normal" presidential candidate, at least not insofar as what most people would have considered "normal" up to this point. As the first mixed-ethnicity candidate (his father was Kenyan, his mother a white American), he has already blasted one door off of its hinges, for which I applaud him, but I would caution him to avoid blasting another door off of its hinges too quickly by campaigning in what some swing-voters might see as an "overly exotic" manner, which would be too hip by half and might very well lose him the election. (He's already ahead of the curve; if he gets too far ahead of the curve he might set a template for how to win the presidency in 2012 or 2016, while nonetheless losing in 2008.) He ought to stick to the rather traditional meat-and-potatoes type of autumn campaign, with an emphasis on the domestic side of things, and he ought to have his running mate stick to the traditional red meat attack strategy, with a further specialization in the foreign policy side of things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I am constantly reassured by you, thanks for that, Hasslington.
Dick is such a twit sometimes
Forever grasping at straws is a sign of desperation.
"We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people. And, above all, we know that he won’t raise taxes."
LOL
"Were these calmer times, with less of a threat from abroad and less economic danger, we might indulge our penchant for change and elect a neophyte in the hope that he will offer something different. We might be more easily captivated by his charisma. But, in these times, we may want to stay with the safer candidate."
The safer candidate, LOL ....
McCain is clueless
To me, this is about a possible (and necessary, in my opinion) governmental and cultural paradigm shift for the U.S., on a number of levels. We've had major paradigm shifts before (Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan), so that's nothing new, but it's often a difficult process to achieve because by definition each new paradigm is a new, unique scenario.
So this election may come down to Senator Obama's ability to utilize traditional campaign methods (with a few new ones, of course) in order to reassure folks that while some things will change in a potential Obama administration, others will not. It's a tricky tightrope to walk, but it's been done by others from both major parties before (though it's been tried by still others, who have failed), so we'll see how he does. I'm pulling for him.
Here's another reason why people may be turning against Obama. He won't make a good president. He can employ whatever campaign strategy he'd like. At the end of the day, people don't want to return to the failed policies of the 1970's and 1960's that Obama is advocating.
And, I'll take Dick Morris opinions over any blogger. How many candidates have you gotten elected?
The above is an instance of something that Senator Obama must fight back against, and he can do so successfully by letting people know that what the McCain camp says are Obama's "huge tax increases" would actually put the top tax rate lower than it was during the boom years of the Clinton Administration, when the top tax rate was about 39.6% or so. It was dropped to about 35% or thereabouts under George W. Bush. It would be raised slightly under a potential President Obama so that the middle class can have a small tax cut in order to offset energy costs. The wealthy cannot complain because the rate would still be LOWER than it was in the 1990s, and WAY, WAY lower than it was in the 1970s, and the middle class will not be as badly squeezed with high energy prices as it is right now.
This "Obama will return us to the Carter years" is poppycock nonsense. In a sense, the Reagan tax cuts have remained fairly permanent, and they will continue to do so, in one form or another, no matter who wins the election this time, because the top tax rate will remain in the mid- to upper- thirty percent range. The question is where we are willing to put the emphasis--do we raise taxes very slightly on the wealthy so that the middle class can have a bit of a break (and consumer spending can re-coup a bit) without adversely affecting wealthy investment, or do we carry on with the Bush plan, which sounds just fine until one understands that the middle class is squeezed right now, and will remain squeezed in the short run--and possibly the long run, as well.
I repeat: this "Obama is Carter Part II" ridiculousness is complete nonsense, but people have to be willing to look at the numbers to believe it. The trick for the Obama campaign will be to properly display the fact that his is a centrist economic policy (supported, by the way, by Warren Buffett, who is rather well known for both short- and long-term economic development investment...).
Your glossing over of the facts is amazing. The number of things Obama have said he'll would reinstitute many failed policies of the Carter-era. They may not be exact policies, but they are all of the same vein - higher confiscation of income and regulation to "protect" the low and middle class.
While you are correct about rate on the top earners bracket, you conveniently miss the other two planks of his tax policy: repealing the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends; and slapping them with additional Social Security taxes. Raising the capital gain rate to that of ordinary income is nuts - 18 to almost 40 percent. With the number of people now owning stock as part of a 401k, the first idea will hit everyone, not just the "rich." Raising the social security income level will make it more expense to employ people, and likely hurt those lower and middle class people you profess he wants to protect.
This is just one individual income tax, I won't even get into his windfall profit tax idea. This is quite possibly the worst economic policy any candidate could persue. And Carter actually did that one.
It would be nice if people like you would just admit what he wants to do, rather than try to make excuses or outright misrepresent what he wants to do. Be honest for a change.
The above suggestion is asinine. Raising the top rate slightly taxes IS repealing a portion of the Bush tax cuts. It does not mean that the middle class will see their tax cuts repealed. (In fact, Senator Obama would like to give them a somewhat larger cut.) So when one suggests that the Bush tax cuts will be repealed, one does not mean that we return to the Carter years, or even to the Clinton years.
As far as corporate taxes are concerned, though I do not believe we ought to do everything that Senator Obama suggests, I think doing what Senator McCain suggests is also wrong, particularly given our burgeoning debt. A middle ground must be found, and it will be found in congress. That's what presidential candidates do--they lay out broad positions, and then they compromise with the national legislature. As long as the national legislature is focused on re-vamping (as opposed to doubling-down on) our energy sources and outlook--and the Dems are at present more interested in doing that--we'll be better off in the long run.
I find it extraordinary that, when I admit the opposition has a few good ideas, they say petulant, childish things like "be honest for a change." (That's straight out of the sixth-grade playground playbook.) The myopia is always astonishing and constantly depressing; we truly have become a singularly polarized country. Perhaps if some of us lived and worked abroad for lengthy periods of time, we'd see what works so well at home (several things do), and (gasp!) what doesn't.
But that makes me an "elitist snob," I know....
Fine, it's not dishonesty, but you didn't address my points about Obama's tax policy proposals. Your suggestion that pesky details that are difficult be worked out by Congress is at best wishful thinking, at worst shows you don't have an adequate response.
What about the capital gains repeal? By and large, people's retirement savings are tied into the stock market and other capital assets. Obama wants to raise to be the same as ordinary income. After 2010, this means instead of paying 15%, you could be paying 28% or more. Instead of encouraging more people to save for retirement, you'd be doing the opposite.
Eliminating the cap on payroll taxes means families and individuals makes this problem even worse. And, there's no credits or deductions against that, so there's no way to avoid it.
When it comes down to it, the federal budget is $3 trillion per year. We don't need more revenue, and we don't need to take from the most productive aspects of the economy. There's a reason the top 1% pays 34% of income taxes - they produce a lot of economic activity. We need to wring as much value of every dollar as possible.
Post a Comment