How "the devil you know" can survive a "change" election

The word "change" has held nearly talismanic sway over political commentators throughout this presidential campaign. The conventional wisdom held that 2008 is a "change" election, and that John McCain, as a living embodiment of the Republican status quo, would stand little chance against his young Democratic opponent. As the race has unfolded, however, it becomes increasingly apparent that the voters' thorough familiarity with John McCain, far from being the albatross that will sink him, is actually one of his greatest assets. In fact, for a number of reasons, it is the gift that keeps on giving.

First, the nature of John McCain's career in the public eye is such that he has managed to earn the respect of most Americans for something he has done, while simultaneously pissing off those very same people for something else he has done. He has done so not by changing positions on issues, but by involving himself prominently in a wide range of national issues, staking out clear positions on those issues, and refusing to hew to any particular partisan or ideological agenda. Accordingly, voters have known McCain when he was right and they have known him when he was wrong, but they all know him nevertheless. The advantage this gives him is he doesn't need to spend time or money in defining himself to the American people.

The second advantage for McCain derives from the first: Because he doesn't need to define himself to the voters, he can focus his campaign on defining Barack Obama (or, as he puts it, "drawing contrasts"). He could construct his entire campaign around the basic formulation of "Here is how Barack Obama is different from me," and the "me" half of the ensuing comparison would already be well-understood by the average voter. Being such a known commodity frees McCain's hand to run effective attacks on Obama's lack of experience, liberal voting records, and questionable personal associations.

Finally, because voters feel like they already know who McCain is, he is largely immune to the negative attacks that Obama might otherwise run against him. Negative campaigning works, but mainly it works against candidates who are not already well known. Candidates who lack a well defined image with the public are vulnerable to negative advertising because, at the same time they are trying to introduce themselves to the voters, they must contend with whatever counter-narrative their opponents are presenting. To take just the most recent example, John Kerry had little hope of establishing his self-defined image as a war hero once he was branded as a liberal Washington phony.

Negative attacks work only so long as they are credible. Because McCain is so well-known, certain attacks just aren't credible. The idea that McCain is some kind of Bush progeny out to give the President a third term is just silly. Everyone can recall innumerable instances in which McCain seemed to relish the opportunity to stick his finger in Bush's eye. Even household pets, moreover, would question the suggestion that McCain would adhere to any predictable policy agenda, whether Bush's or anyone else's.

This AP report on Obama's supposed "tearing into McCain" illustrates how difficult it will be for Barack to land a glove on his well-known opponent. In it, Obama is reported as having unleashed the following "attacks" on McCain:

1. "Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to 'John McCain's president, George W. Bush.'" (Again, this kind of general linkage won't work if Obama can't establish the predicate that McCain is some kind of Bush acolyte.)

2. Obama "prais[ed] the Arizona senator as a 'genuine American patriot.'" (There is no way at this point for Obama to undermine McCain's bona fides as a war hero. He must accept that as a given.)

3. "McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling." (McCain is a poll-driven political opportunist? Nice try, but everyone remembers McCain's wildly unpopular stances on immigration reform and the Iraq war.)

4. Obama noted that "many" of McCain's advisers "had been lobbyists in Washington before McCain asked them to sever all lobbying ties." (Fine, except voters will remember McCain as a vocal supporter of campaign finance reform who has spoken out on the need to reform Washington. Because of his history in this area, most voters seem to regard McCain as far less corrupt than the average member of Congress. Moreover, his basic reputation for integrity and independence would seem to supersede this rather parochial and ill-defined charge of having employed former lobbyists to work in his campaign.)

5. Obama attempted to label McCain as being unfair for questioning Democrats' approach to foreign policy. According to Obama, McCain's people "say this other guy is unpatriotic, or this guy likes French people [emphasis added]. That's what they said about Kerry." "They try to make it out like Democrats aren't tough enough, aren't macho enough. It's the same strategy." (While it's certainly debatable whether Democrats are "tough enough," McCain has hardly revealed himself to be a monster by calling into question the Dems' commitment to a strong foreign policy. This has been one of the defining differences between the two major parties since at least 1972. At worst, the charges to which Obama is alluding are just the usual rough and tumble of presidential politics. For Obama to become whiny and defensive about this kind of stuff -- he's been accused of liking French people? -- provides some insight into how frustrating this campaign is becoming for him. )

I've said before that I think Obama may have already peaked. Part of the reason for that relates to the fact that McCain is such a well-known figure. Americans have witnessed McCain in action for years and a large majority most see him as a credible chief executive and commander in chief. It will difficult for Obama, in the span of a couple months, to dramatically alter that perception.