Is Obama Reagan?

Things aren't exactly looking up for John McCain right now. He seems to be trailing Barack Obama by somewhere in the 5-10 percentage points range. More disturbing than just the numbers, the mainstream media has succeeded in painting Obama as the winner of Friday's debate, a conclusion I, as an actual viewer of the debate, find difficult to accept, but which non-viewers may find significant.

If I had to guess what's behind the Obama's strengthening numbers, I would say it's his success in presenting an image of himself that is cool-headed, moderate, and completely non-threatening. If it's true that many voters are only now starting to really focus on the candidates, then what those voters are currently seeing in Obama is nothing like the tax-raising, terrorist-befriending, infanticide-supporting, enemy-appeasing extremist they were expecting to see based on the campaign to date.

The situation reminds me of 1980. The conventional wisdom that year held that Ronald Reagan was a dangerous extremist who would set off WWIII and set back domestic social progress a hundred years. To the mainstream media, it was utterly unimaginable Reagan could actually become president of the United States.

What happened, of course, is that Reagan succeeded -- especially in the debates -- in presenting himself to the American people as a credible, non-threatening candidate, practically the opposite of the what the media and Jimmy Carter had been portraying. Once the "true" Reagan image began to take hold, moreover, there was nothing Carter could do to stop it. The more Carter protested that Reagan would destroy America, the more desperate he sounded, and the more reasonable and level-headed Reagan appeared by comparison.

I hate to say it, but John McCain may be in the same box as Carter was in 1980. If a majority of voters has now reached a comfort level with the prospect of Barack Obama as POTUS, it may be difficult with only 5 weeks to go to re-instill doubts about him in a way that doesn't undermine McCain's own credibility. I'm at a loss to figure out what McCain's strategy should be at this point. Fortunately, McCain is a smart guy with a lot of smart people working for him. Perhaps the path to victory is clearer in their eyes than it is to mine.

Of course, McCain has one thing going for him that Carter didn't. Unlike McCain, Carter should never have been allowed to get within 1,000 miles of the Oval Office. McCain is a credible and deserving choice for president even if you don't think Obama would be a complete disaster. That's not something you could say about Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Another way in which the analogy to 1980 fails is the fact that Reagan never tried to hide the fact that he was a conservative "true believer." To the contrary, he was running explicitly against the twin pillars of 1970s liberalism: (a) the notion that America's economic and social well-being depended on higher taxes and bigger government; and (b) the notion that the world had become too dangerous a place for the U.S. to exhibit a strong military and foreign policy.

Obama, by contrast, is not explicitly running as a liberal true believer. While he would undoubtedly pursue a liberal agenda if elected, it is not on that basis that he is seeking to win votes. Mainly, he's running on the symbolic strength of his youth and racial background. I don't think a lot of his supporters give a damn about his qualifications or positions on issues; they just think it would be cool to have a hip black guy who can give a good speech as president. They like him for the same visceral reasons they hate Bush.

Because Obama isn't running on ideology, I think the Dems may get in trouble if they treat his election as an indication that America has suddenly become much more liberal. Whether anyone in the Democratic party has the judgment and maturity to avoid that pitfall remains to be seen.