Actually, everything I think I know about the mortgage mess may turn out to be wrong. But here, for the record, is my take on the alleged crisis and its political impact.
First, there seems to be something approaching consensus-level agreement as to what went wrong. After the tech bubble exploded, the housing market was, by far, the best thing going in the economy. Washington policymakers decided to ride the housing boom as far as it would take them. The Fed encouraged massive mortgage lending by making money so cheap. The Democrats pursued policies that would enable people (minorities in particular) to qualify for mortgages they couldn't really afford, even as Republicans in Congress sought to rein in such dangerous practices. The Bush Administration failed to take aggressive action to stop the mortgage madness, while continuing to claim success for uninterrupted economic growth and increases in the percentage of the population that owned their own homes. Meanwhile, as Wall Street's portfolio of risky loans became ever more bloated, a bursting of the housing bubble threatened to bring down the entire credit industry.
While even this simplified version of events is probably beyond the ken of the average voter, at least there does not appear to be in currency a competing explanation for the current crisis. The average voter, I believe, will appreciate that the root cause of the crisis was too many bad loans.
The average voter will also perceive (correctly) that there is plenty of blame to go around. This was a problem of "greed" on the part of lenders, stupidity on the part of borrowers, and incredible shortsightedness on the part of the government. The Bush Administration will naturally take the lion's share of the blame for the government's role, but voters won't let Congressional Democrats off the hook and won't necessarily tag John McCain for the administration's failures.
As for the proposed solution -- using $700+ billion in taxpayer dollars to take the bad loans off the hands of the banks that now own them -- I don't think voters are going to feel confident one way or the other as to whether this is the right thing to do. On the one hand, the guys at the top (Bernanke and Paulson) seem genuinely convinced that this is the only way to head off a full-scale economic disaster. One the other hand, voters can't help but be skeptical of the forecasting skills of these men, who arguably should have seen this day coming a long time ago. Meanwhile, since the proposed bailout doesn't have any obvious partisan dimension, most members of Congress are at a complete loss in trying to figure out what to do. The best voters can do is pray that Washington guesses right on the bailout.
Although it will take a long time for the dust to settle, I do think Barack Obama has already made a big mistake in all of this. While he essentially supports the massive bailout, he is at the same time insisting that it be expanded in some way to give relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. I think he is badly misreading public sentiment. The vast majority of voters aren't facing foreclosure, and the reservoir of sympathy for those who are is running low. People who got in over their heads are perceived to share a great deal of the blame for this crisis. The average citizen is worried about how much this bailout will cost and whether it will even work to head off a major recession. The last thing they want to hear is how they now need to bail out low- or middle-income borrowers who had no business buying half-million-dollar homes.
The public reluctantly supports the bailout plan because it may be the only hope of saving the economy. There is no comparable necessity for bailing out individual homeowners having trouble paying their mortgages. Voters who understand this will not appreciate Obama's attempt to condition a bailout of Wall Street on a bailout of Main Street. For those doing the bailing, one bailout is quite enough, thank you.
I think Obama's position also undercuts his credibility with voters in at least a couple of ways. First, the average American understands that the people who are at risk of foreclosure are disproportionately black or Hispanic. According to recent polling, Obama needs to connect better with working class whites, some of whom evidently fear that a black president would be biased in favor of policies that favor minorities. Even ignoring Obama's own race, the fact that he built his career as an advocate for low-income blacks lends support for the view that he would favor minority-friendly policies as president. Obama's desire to include a bailout of borrowers now facing foreclosure only reinforces such concerns.
Obama's position also subtly undermines his image as a different kind of politician from the hacks that ordinarily run Washington. In trying to include "Main Street" in the massive bailout, he is implicitly treating the plan as a pork bill rather than the desperate rescue operation its advocates are claiming. Perhaps the plan is just another D.C. boondoggle. But in that case, Obama should oppose it, not simply try to get his own hand in the cookie jar.
Obama was correct, I think, to tie his support of the measure to restrictions on executive compensation. Although Congress needs to figure out a way to deal with that issue more comprehensively, I see no reason not to start to reform the system right now, when taxpayer's dollars are hanging in the balance. The idea that CEOs are being paid market value for their services sounds good, but assumes that executive compensation is really driven by competitive market forces. I think excessive executive compensation is the result of tacit price-fixing in the executive suite. After all, it's the guys in the boardrooms who are actually doling out the money, and they're doling it out to other corporate bigwigs. They all expect to cash in, and so they all have an incentive to keep executive compensation at absurdly high levels, without any real regard for the economic contributions of the people making the dough. It's the classic case of the wolves guarding the sheep, and conservatives would do well to recognize it rather than assume this is just the "invisible hand" at work.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Everyone should pay SOME federal income tax
Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds has latched onto the idea that everyone, regardless of income, should pay some federal income tax. (Go there and scroll away.). I couldn't agree more. It's not that imposing a minimum tax of, say, $100.00, would raise much revenue. Rather, imposing a minimum tax would promote good civic values.
People are often heard to say, "freedom isn't free." In fact, for a great many Americans, living in a free country, with virtually unconstrained opportunities for personal achievement, is free. They pay no taxes, enjoy extensive public benefits, and would never dream of enlisting in the armed services. While I'm not in favor of the draft and I'm not advocating the dismantling of the social "safety net," I see no reason not to require everyone to pay at least a minimum tax.
Allowing a sizeable portion of the population to avoid paying any income tax creates two classes of citizens: those who help pay for national security and other government services and those who do not. This can only lead to resentment among the former group and a sense of entitlement among the latter.
Joe Biden provoked a mild uproar in recent days arguing that upper-income taxpayers should consider it their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. However, if paying taxes constitutes an expression of patriotism, then the people at the upper end of the income scale must feel like every day is the Fourth of July. They're the ones paying all the taxes. This is, in fact, what bothers me the most about Biden's comments. It's not that he associates paying taxes with civil responsibility, it's that he apparently doesn't think the bottom third of taxpayers share in that responsibility.
People are often heard to say, "freedom isn't free." In fact, for a great many Americans, living in a free country, with virtually unconstrained opportunities for personal achievement, is free. They pay no taxes, enjoy extensive public benefits, and would never dream of enlisting in the armed services. While I'm not in favor of the draft and I'm not advocating the dismantling of the social "safety net," I see no reason not to require everyone to pay at least a minimum tax.
Allowing a sizeable portion of the population to avoid paying any income tax creates two classes of citizens: those who help pay for national security and other government services and those who do not. This can only lead to resentment among the former group and a sense of entitlement among the latter.
Joe Biden provoked a mild uproar in recent days arguing that upper-income taxpayers should consider it their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. However, if paying taxes constitutes an expression of patriotism, then the people at the upper end of the income scale must feel like every day is the Fourth of July. They're the ones paying all the taxes. This is, in fact, what bothers me the most about Biden's comments. It's not that he associates paying taxes with civil responsibility, it's that he apparently doesn't think the bottom third of taxpayers share in that responsibility.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ruminations over the role of race in the '08 presidential campaign
This column on NPR's website contains a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility that racism will cost Barack Obama the presidency.
The short version is this: The Democratic candidate ought to be way ahead in the polls right now. The fact that he isn't can only be attributed to race. A lot of undecideds harbor racial prejudices even if they don't realize it. There is a good-to-excellent chance McCain or his swiftboating cronies will use subtle appeals to racism against Obama, such as the "Celebrity" ad (which played upon white people's fears of black men preying on white women) and charges that Obama lacks experience (which imply he is an "affirmative action candidate").
While I agree that voters' impressions of Obama are influenced by race, I don't think it's accurate or helpful to apply the term "racism" to the problems Obama is having connecting with certain groups of voters. "Racism" implies a belief that one race is superior to another. I don't think racism is a significant factor in American politics. Bias in favor of people who are similar may be. Obama commands the support of something like 97% of blacks. Catholics turned out in droves for JFK. Southern Evangelicals love GWB. Irish politicians thrive in South Boston.
As a general proposition, nobody seems to think it's a sign of social decay that voters tend to favor politicians who are of the same ethnicity, or for women to want to vote for other women. It's only when this phenomenon works to the disadvantage of a black politician does anyone think to call it racism.
The short version is this: The Democratic candidate ought to be way ahead in the polls right now. The fact that he isn't can only be attributed to race. A lot of undecideds harbor racial prejudices even if they don't realize it. There is a good-to-excellent chance McCain or his swiftboating cronies will use subtle appeals to racism against Obama, such as the "Celebrity" ad (which played upon white people's fears of black men preying on white women) and charges that Obama lacks experience (which imply he is an "affirmative action candidate").
While I agree that voters' impressions of Obama are influenced by race, I don't think it's accurate or helpful to apply the term "racism" to the problems Obama is having connecting with certain groups of voters. "Racism" implies a belief that one race is superior to another. I don't think racism is a significant factor in American politics. Bias in favor of people who are similar may be. Obama commands the support of something like 97% of blacks. Catholics turned out in droves for JFK. Southern Evangelicals love GWB. Irish politicians thrive in South Boston.
As a general proposition, nobody seems to think it's a sign of social decay that voters tend to favor politicians who are of the same ethnicity, or for women to want to vote for other women. It's only when this phenomenon works to the disadvantage of a black politician does anyone think to call it racism.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Bailouts
For those who want to keep abreast of the latest public policy jargon, there is a new term you'll need to know. It's called "moral hazard," and it evidently refers to the idea that large corporate enterprises that become insolvent must be allowed to fail in order to prove to investors that poor management carries real economic consequences. It runs counter to the de facto policy that certain enterprises are "too big to fail" and therefore must be bailed out.
I doubt there are many serious economists who would disagree with the necessity of moral hazard. Why, then, do we continue to witness so many government bailouts?
I think a big reason is the dumbed-down notion that the federal government, and more specifically, the president, somehow controls the fate of the economy. In good times, presidents brag that they "create jobs" and they "grow the economy" (oh, how that use of "grow" rankles!). When the economy falters, the media and the party out of power try to pin it on the administration. It only stands to reason that, as voters are increasingly conditioned to view the government as the reason behind every upturn or downtick in the economy, politicians are going to feel more and more pressure to intervene when particular industries run into trouble.
Clearly, there are many ways in which government policies do affect the health of particular industries as well as the overall performance of the economy. However, it does the public no good when the media and politicians exaggerate the government's role. Promoting such misconceptions are not only bad for our politics, but for our economy as well, as it can only lead to a larger government role in the conduct of private enterprise.
I doubt there are many serious economists who would disagree with the necessity of moral hazard. Why, then, do we continue to witness so many government bailouts?
I think a big reason is the dumbed-down notion that the federal government, and more specifically, the president, somehow controls the fate of the economy. In good times, presidents brag that they "create jobs" and they "grow the economy" (oh, how that use of "grow" rankles!). When the economy falters, the media and the party out of power try to pin it on the administration. It only stands to reason that, as voters are increasingly conditioned to view the government as the reason behind every upturn or downtick in the economy, politicians are going to feel more and more pressure to intervene when particular industries run into trouble.
Clearly, there are many ways in which government policies do affect the health of particular industries as well as the overall performance of the economy. However, it does the public no good when the media and politicians exaggerate the government's role. Promoting such misconceptions are not only bad for our politics, but for our economy as well, as it can only lead to a larger government role in the conduct of private enterprise.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
On the lamentable state of modern journalism
I want to say something superficial about superficiality. We live in an era in which practically anyone can set up shop in the marketplace of ideas. Politics and public affairs are no longer the exclusive province of the so-called mainstream media. The rise of the internet means there are literally tens of thousands of outlets to which an ordinary citizen might turn for news and analysis. Sites like Memeorandum make it possible to follow the most talked-about news not just on a daily basis, but on an hourly or even minute-by-minute basis .
In one sense, the breaking of the MSM's stranglehold on the news and opinion industry is a good thing. It has been a particularly good development for conservatives, whose point of view would be marginalized and ignored if left to the care of the liberal media elite. It is also good from the standpoint of allowing citizens to learn practically everything there is to know on a given subject. Just today, for example, I learned that Sarah Palin had a tanning booth installed at the governor's mansion (at her own expense, thank God).
That last tidbit illustrates what I see as the major downside of the internet age: rampant superficiality. The competition among those who traffic in information is so intense, the media are forced to hawk even the most irrelevant and mundane detail about a candidate as something people should care about. Naturally, this phenomenon is not confined to election coverage, although the presidential race provides plenty of disturbing examples of what I'm talking about.
The hawking of news can take a number of pernicious forms, all of which tend to defeat the reader's presumed objective of gaining an improved understanding of the world. One is to suggest that a piece of information is unusual or unexpected, when it is not. Another is to suggest that the information furnishes evidence of corruption or scandal. Yet another is to suggest that the information denotes a trend that can be expected to continue, often with alarming or uncertain results.
Purveyors of news have a number of tools available to them in order to inflate the perceived significance of the information they are peddling. For example, they can take information out of context. A good example of this occurred yesterday when the MSM ran headlines proclaiming that John McCain thinks the U.S. economy is fundamentally strong. This was labeled a "gaffe," and much of the subsequent coverage was devoted to the Obama campaign's mocking response to McCain's comments. But here is what McCain actually said (per CBS):
It should be noted that the entire news value of this story depends on the premise that McCain has no appreciation for the difficult economic times that America is facing. In other words, it's the idea that his words are completely divorced from the objective reality. However, in order to create that impression, and thus make the story newsworthy, it is necessary to take McCain's words completely out of context, so that it appears he is saying the economy is just fine.
It seems to me the appropriate role of the press would be to report what John McCain said. It is not to distort what he said in order to create the impression that he has no idea what he's talking about. To do the latter is create news, rather than report it.
Taking words out of context is just one method of creating news out of thin air. Another familiar tactic is to conflate unrelated events that, in truth, have no meaningful relationship to one another. Or, to parse statements made by two different candidates, or by the same candidate at different times, in order to create the impression of conflict or self-contradiction.
I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that the press never engaged in such nefarious journalistic practices prior to the explosion of the internet. I would suggest that the internet, along with 24-hour cable news, has created such an insatiable demand for information that the media apparently can no longer afford to apply discretion and judgment in their evaluation and presentation of newsworthy stories. They need to attract "x" pair of eyes every day to stay in business. To do that, they must supply a constant stream of stories that will amuse, anger, frighten, titillate, amaze, or otherwise interest their viewers or readers. That's a tall order, but it is rendered much easier once you abandon the requirements of truthfulness and materiality.
During much of the 20th century, virtually the entire journalistic establishment was controlled by just a handful of people. For example, Henry Luce published Life, Time, and Fortune magazines, which publications, taken together, practically determined popular opinion in regard to political and economic affairs. Luce was no rabble-rousing muckraker. He, and men like him, routinely huddled and conspired with political leaders to move public opinion in the ways they deemed necessary in the public interest. That is not to say America's political and journalistic elite represented a single, monolithic power. Fundamental differences existed between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and isolationists and internationalists. But the media endeavored to be, and in fact functioned as, a responsible participant in matters of public interest.
Now, it seems, so-called "legitimate" news organizations must engage in hysterical, sensational, and dumbed-down reporting simply to claim a share of an audience that can disappear as fast as you can say "mouseclick." All of the "old media" news organizations are living off reputations they earned decades ago, with diminishing results. In terms of their current output, they are virtually indistinguishable from internet upstarts that have no reputation to preserve.
The net result is that we no longer have a serious press, that is, a press that conceives as its primary mission furnishing the American people with the facts and perspective with which to make informed judgments as citizens. Instead, we have an information industry whose members are struggling to survive by hawking "news" designed to attract momentary attention at the expense of imparting any meaningful understanding of issues.
Being an optimistic conservative, I'm going to assume that the market will eventually correct this deplorable situation. In time, the public will assign so little value to the crap that is currently being passed off as news that no media outlet will be able to survive by continuing to peddle it. Some bright people will realize that people really do place a value on unadorned facts and careful, in-depth analysis, and they'll find a way to sell that for a lot more money than it costs to produce. The best of these information entrepreneurs will recognize that their long-term success depends on building a reputation for integrity and not giving in to the temptation to compromise their journalistic standards.
Until then, I'll continue to suffer and sulk -- and keep my eyes out for the latest "breaking news"!
In one sense, the breaking of the MSM's stranglehold on the news and opinion industry is a good thing. It has been a particularly good development for conservatives, whose point of view would be marginalized and ignored if left to the care of the liberal media elite. It is also good from the standpoint of allowing citizens to learn practically everything there is to know on a given subject. Just today, for example, I learned that Sarah Palin had a tanning booth installed at the governor's mansion (at her own expense, thank God).
That last tidbit illustrates what I see as the major downside of the internet age: rampant superficiality. The competition among those who traffic in information is so intense, the media are forced to hawk even the most irrelevant and mundane detail about a candidate as something people should care about. Naturally, this phenomenon is not confined to election coverage, although the presidential race provides plenty of disturbing examples of what I'm talking about.
The hawking of news can take a number of pernicious forms, all of which tend to defeat the reader's presumed objective of gaining an improved understanding of the world. One is to suggest that a piece of information is unusual or unexpected, when it is not. Another is to suggest that the information furnishes evidence of corruption or scandal. Yet another is to suggest that the information denotes a trend that can be expected to continue, often with alarming or uncertain results.
Purveyors of news have a number of tools available to them in order to inflate the perceived significance of the information they are peddling. For example, they can take information out of context. A good example of this occurred yesterday when the MSM ran headlines proclaiming that John McCain thinks the U.S. economy is fundamentally strong. This was labeled a "gaffe," and much of the subsequent coverage was devoted to the Obama campaign's mocking response to McCain's comments. But here is what McCain actually said (per CBS):
Today we are seeing tremendous upheaval on Wall Street. The American economy is in crisis. Unemployment is on the rise and our financial markets are in turmoil. People are concerned about our economic future. But let me say something: this economic crisis is not the fault of the American people. Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world," McCain's prepared text said. The text went on to say: "My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong. (Emphasis mine.)
It should be noted that the entire news value of this story depends on the premise that McCain has no appreciation for the difficult economic times that America is facing. In other words, it's the idea that his words are completely divorced from the objective reality. However, in order to create that impression, and thus make the story newsworthy, it is necessary to take McCain's words completely out of context, so that it appears he is saying the economy is just fine.
It seems to me the appropriate role of the press would be to report what John McCain said. It is not to distort what he said in order to create the impression that he has no idea what he's talking about. To do the latter is create news, rather than report it.
Taking words out of context is just one method of creating news out of thin air. Another familiar tactic is to conflate unrelated events that, in truth, have no meaningful relationship to one another. Or, to parse statements made by two different candidates, or by the same candidate at different times, in order to create the impression of conflict or self-contradiction.
I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that the press never engaged in such nefarious journalistic practices prior to the explosion of the internet. I would suggest that the internet, along with 24-hour cable news, has created such an insatiable demand for information that the media apparently can no longer afford to apply discretion and judgment in their evaluation and presentation of newsworthy stories. They need to attract "x" pair of eyes every day to stay in business. To do that, they must supply a constant stream of stories that will amuse, anger, frighten, titillate, amaze, or otherwise interest their viewers or readers. That's a tall order, but it is rendered much easier once you abandon the requirements of truthfulness and materiality.
During much of the 20th century, virtually the entire journalistic establishment was controlled by just a handful of people. For example, Henry Luce published Life, Time, and Fortune magazines, which publications, taken together, practically determined popular opinion in regard to political and economic affairs. Luce was no rabble-rousing muckraker. He, and men like him, routinely huddled and conspired with political leaders to move public opinion in the ways they deemed necessary in the public interest. That is not to say America's political and journalistic elite represented a single, monolithic power. Fundamental differences existed between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and isolationists and internationalists. But the media endeavored to be, and in fact functioned as, a responsible participant in matters of public interest.
Now, it seems, so-called "legitimate" news organizations must engage in hysterical, sensational, and dumbed-down reporting simply to claim a share of an audience that can disappear as fast as you can say "mouseclick." All of the "old media" news organizations are living off reputations they earned decades ago, with diminishing results. In terms of their current output, they are virtually indistinguishable from internet upstarts that have no reputation to preserve.
The net result is that we no longer have a serious press, that is, a press that conceives as its primary mission furnishing the American people with the facts and perspective with which to make informed judgments as citizens. Instead, we have an information industry whose members are struggling to survive by hawking "news" designed to attract momentary attention at the expense of imparting any meaningful understanding of issues.
Being an optimistic conservative, I'm going to assume that the market will eventually correct this deplorable situation. In time, the public will assign so little value to the crap that is currently being passed off as news that no media outlet will be able to survive by continuing to peddle it. Some bright people will realize that people really do place a value on unadorned facts and careful, in-depth analysis, and they'll find a way to sell that for a lot more money than it costs to produce. The best of these information entrepreneurs will recognize that their long-term success depends on building a reputation for integrity and not giving in to the temptation to compromise their journalistic standards.
Until then, I'll continue to suffer and sulk -- and keep my eyes out for the latest "breaking news"!
Monday, September 15, 2008
HIllary as the White Knight
This article in the Huffington Post explains "Why Replacing Biden With Hillary Makes Perfect Sense for Obama." Unfortunately, the author fails to make mention of the single biggest reason it would never happen: Hillary would never agree to it. And why should she? Obama not only scuttled her plans to become the first woman president, he also declined to give her serious consideration as a running mate despite the fact that nearly everyone on Earth believed she would help the ticket. Even Joe Biden concedes Hillary would have made a better pick.
If HRC were going to come back as a White Knight to rescue this ticket, it would not be as vice president. That ship has already sailed. Of course she would take the top spot, nobody seems to be talking about that possibility.
I don't think Obama is so worried about his chances in November that he would consider changing running mates. However, even if he were that worried, I think he's smart enough to realize that Hilary would never go along with it. There is absolutely nothing in it for her. Best case scenario: the Obama/Hillary wins, and she gets to be vice president to a guy who clearly has no use for her with virtually no chance ever to become president in her own right.
Of course, Hillary's say in the matter is not the only important consideration missing from this article. The notion that a switch from Biden to Clinton would carry no downside for Obama is just silly. In fact, it would be embarrassing for several reasons. First, in the absence of any kind of scandal or other emergency (like an authentic Biden health scare), making the switch would call Obama's judgment and decision-making capabilities into serious question. It would clearly constitute an admission that his initial pick -- arguably his most important executive decision to date -- was a mistake. The move would also demonstrate an unsteadiness that could be attributed to a lack of nerve. People would ask, if three weeks of mediocre poll numbers are enough to get him to hit the panic button as a candidate, how is he going to react to the pressures he's going to face when he's the actual president?
A switch from Biden to Hillary would also enshrine McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as perhaps the greatest single political act in this history of American politics. It would make it appear that McCain's choice of VPs was so manifestly brilliant as to force the Dems to engage in a kind of comical, after-the-fact improvisation in order to try to match it. While I'm sure some people in the media would try to spin such a move as an example of Obama's thinking outside the box, it would really be seen as a desperate effort to copy McCain's outside-the-box thinking.
While it would be fun if this idea were to catch fire in Democratic circles, it's a major pipe dream.
If HRC were going to come back as a White Knight to rescue this ticket, it would not be as vice president. That ship has already sailed. Of course she would take the top spot, nobody seems to be talking about that possibility.
I don't think Obama is so worried about his chances in November that he would consider changing running mates. However, even if he were that worried, I think he's smart enough to realize that Hilary would never go along with it. There is absolutely nothing in it for her. Best case scenario: the Obama/Hillary wins, and she gets to be vice president to a guy who clearly has no use for her with virtually no chance ever to become president in her own right.
Of course, Hillary's say in the matter is not the only important consideration missing from this article. The notion that a switch from Biden to Clinton would carry no downside for Obama is just silly. In fact, it would be embarrassing for several reasons. First, in the absence of any kind of scandal or other emergency (like an authentic Biden health scare), making the switch would call Obama's judgment and decision-making capabilities into serious question. It would clearly constitute an admission that his initial pick -- arguably his most important executive decision to date -- was a mistake. The move would also demonstrate an unsteadiness that could be attributed to a lack of nerve. People would ask, if three weeks of mediocre poll numbers are enough to get him to hit the panic button as a candidate, how is he going to react to the pressures he's going to face when he's the actual president?
A switch from Biden to Hillary would also enshrine McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as perhaps the greatest single political act in this history of American politics. It would make it appear that McCain's choice of VPs was so manifestly brilliant as to force the Dems to engage in a kind of comical, after-the-fact improvisation in order to try to match it. While I'm sure some people in the media would try to spin such a move as an example of Obama's thinking outside the box, it would really be seen as a desperate effort to copy McCain's outside-the-box thinking.
While it would be fun if this idea were to catch fire in Democratic circles, it's a major pipe dream.
Dems need to update their playbook
Here's a random observation to start off the new week: Whenever Democratic presidential candidates appear to be underperforming, armchair strategists within the party always offer the same two pieces of advice. First, the candidate needs to attack the Republicans much more forcefully. Second, the candidate and/or party needs to move further to the left.
How is that working out for them? In 1996, Bill Clinton received 54% of the two-party vote against Bob Dole (i.e., 54% of the votes cast for either him or Dole). In 2000, Al Gore broke away from Clinton's centrist, "New Democrat" image in favor of a more liberal "I'm-fighting-for-the-little" guy kind of campaign. He received just over 50% of the two-party vote. In 2004, hard-core lefties essentially took over the Democratic Party. This was the year Howard Dean exploded onto the national stage (literally?) and Michael Moore was accorded the honor of viewing the Democratic National Convention from a seat next to Jimmy Carter. The Kerry/Edwards ticket received less than 49% of the two-party vote.
Although correlation does not equal causation, two pretty obvious trends have taken shape over the span of the last dozen years that may not be entirely coincidental. One is the Democratic Party's rejection of centrist politics and strident move toward the left. The other is a steady erosion of Democratic voting strength over the last three presidential contests.
This year, the Dems have nominated the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate as their standard-bearer. As Obama's campaign appears to be faltering in the polls, campaign officials are openly promising to "take off the gloves" and sharpen its attacks against John McCain. While this will undoubtedly please the party's leftist base, history suggests it's the wrong strategy. This country simply isn't that liberal. In fact, it's rather conservative. In order for a liberal to win the White House, he or she would be well advised to present an optimistic, non-threatening profile to the American people. Obama was at his best when the country perceived him as a thoughtful and inspiring leader who rejected the "politics of the past" and who symbolized America's racial progress. Attacking McCain, a certified national hero, as a disgraceful stooge does more damage to Obama's image than it does to McCain's.
In order to avoid a repeat of the last few elections, the Dems should consider tossing out their old playbook.
How is that working out for them? In 1996, Bill Clinton received 54% of the two-party vote against Bob Dole (i.e., 54% of the votes cast for either him or Dole). In 2000, Al Gore broke away from Clinton's centrist, "New Democrat" image in favor of a more liberal "I'm-fighting-for-the-little" guy kind of campaign. He received just over 50% of the two-party vote. In 2004, hard-core lefties essentially took over the Democratic Party. This was the year Howard Dean exploded onto the national stage (literally?) and Michael Moore was accorded the honor of viewing the Democratic National Convention from a seat next to Jimmy Carter. The Kerry/Edwards ticket received less than 49% of the two-party vote.
Although correlation does not equal causation, two pretty obvious trends have taken shape over the span of the last dozen years that may not be entirely coincidental. One is the Democratic Party's rejection of centrist politics and strident move toward the left. The other is a steady erosion of Democratic voting strength over the last three presidential contests.
This year, the Dems have nominated the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate as their standard-bearer. As Obama's campaign appears to be faltering in the polls, campaign officials are openly promising to "take off the gloves" and sharpen its attacks against John McCain. While this will undoubtedly please the party's leftist base, history suggests it's the wrong strategy. This country simply isn't that liberal. In fact, it's rather conservative. In order for a liberal to win the White House, he or she would be well advised to present an optimistic, non-threatening profile to the American people. Obama was at his best when the country perceived him as a thoughtful and inspiring leader who rejected the "politics of the past" and who symbolized America's racial progress. Attacking McCain, a certified national hero, as a disgraceful stooge does more damage to Obama's image than it does to McCain's.
In order to avoid a repeat of the last few elections, the Dems should consider tossing out their old playbook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
