Change You Can Be Skeptical Of
It occurs to me: you know what the Obama campaign needs to do?
Back in 2004, Mickey Kaus called attention to a group called “Kerry haters for Kerry” – not only because he was one of these, but because it expressed an essential truth about the Kerry campaign’s appeal, to whit: nobody actually likes our candidate, but we’ve looked past our dislike and realized that we have to vote for him anyway, because the alternative is voting for George Bush and Dick Cheney again.
That wasn’t enough, of course, but it got Kerry a whole lot closer to victory than one would have thought given what a lackluster candidate he was.
Obama has, for some time, been running on a much more positive message, a message of “hope” and “change.” He inspired enough people to win a Democratic primary against a candidate widely considered inevitable before the campaign began, and he anticipated a similar contest in the general election – a war of the future against the past, of change against the status quo, of energy against experience.
But now, things are different. The McCain campaign has managed to amp up their side’s enthusiasm. The Obama campaign’s attempt to win by tying McCain to Bush has largely failed, and he’s taken friendly fire from the media’s efforts to discredit McCain’s VP pick. (And let me just say, as one of those who was enthusiastic about the pick when he made it: it’s worked out great politically so far, but I am very disappointed nonetheless, mostly because the way the McCain campaign has used her reflects very badly on them, in my opinion.) Now Obama’s in a tussle over who has the “right” change.
Obama already has the votes of everyone he is going to inspire in this campaign; for the voters that remain, the magic hasn’t worked yet. He needs to win over people who are never going to drink the Kool-Aid.
The time has come for Obama-skeptics-for-Obama.
Because skepticism works for the Democrats this season. If undecided voters are skeptical of the claims of both campaigns – if they don’t think either one can change Washington, if they don’t think either candidate is above politics as usual, if they don’t think either candidate has the kind of resume that predicts an effective executive, if they don’t think either candidate can achieve energy independence or “win” the war in Iraq or lower their taxes or increase their wages – then I suspect they will break for the Democrat if for no other reason than to give the other team a shot, and they may break more strongly if the Democrats are right about how strong an issues advantage they have.
And skepticism works against the strongest anti-Obama story lines. Your neighbor says he’s a black radical out for revenge against whitey. Really? Your colleague says he’s massively corrupt. Really? Your mother-in-law says he’s a secret Muslim with ties to terrorists. Really?
Meanwhile your brother supports McCain because he always puts country before political expediency. Really? If you are comprehensively skeptical of the campaign’s positive campaigns, that also works for Obama, as McCain’s campaign depends almost entirely on people’s positive assessments of him as a man and a leader, much more so than the Obama campaign.
Finally, one of the many legitimate worries people have about Obama is that he might believe all his hope hype, that he’s naive and trusting and will wind up getting rolled by foreign enemies and domestic interests. Sounding a note of skepticism would reassure some people that he’s got at least a somewhat realistic view of how the world actually works.
A generic Democrat beats a generic Republican this season. Voting McCain/Palin is an act of faith that their ticket represents a profound break with the last eight years. If Obama can convince people to believe in him and be skeptical of McCain, then obviously he wins. But he probably wins if people are skeptical of both. Which means he should be selling a side of skepticism along with his main course of hope.
You are correct. But I wonder if you have fully thought out the implications of this post? The only way to win the skeptics for Obama vote is to destroy McCain’s reputation with a serious of viciously negative attacks.
And, yes, that is, indeed, the proper response from the Obama camp at this time. And they should come primarily from Senator invisible-since-the convention Biden.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 04:07 PM · #
Great post, Noah, and sign me up.
I was hoping Obama would do something like this with his convention speech — e.g., add two additional, complementary themes to his candidacy to 1) refine the Hope and Change themes he already has, 2) fill out the dimensionality of his vision, and 3) undercut the vulnerabilities and limitations inherent in the simpler thematic platform, particularly the messiah-jabs and empty-suit attacks, by responding to them on a superordinate level.
The themes were Humility, and Faith. The former tempers his Change message and suggests novel hues to his domestic and foreign agenda. For instance, on the domestic front: the country needs change, but our faith in God leaves us humble in our means and method, and respectful of contingencies and unforeseen consequences. Therefore . . . [insert procedural revolution here, one which prioritizes trial and error, modesty, and adaptation over stubbornness, arrogance and the inertia of DC politics-as-usual].
Same with foreign policy: we hope for a better world, and have faith we will see it, but we are humble in our power to change it for the better. (Etc., etc — the talking points suggest themselves, as do principled critiques of Bush and McCain.)
I thought this would bring the skeptics over to Obama, since his platform would be an explicit embrace of skepticism in general: skepticism of government and easy change, skepticism of good intentions and our ability to reduce them to practice, skepticism that American power can remake the world in our image, and skepticism that our first answer is always the right one.
And above this, shining like the sun, our faith in the inherent decency of ourselves and our cause, and our hope for a better tomorrow.
(Ack — I’m turning into a romantic like Freddie).
— JA · Sep 11, 04:41 PM · #
I was about to write that I thought this a good idea. Then I thought about how it would be implemented. The only way I can think of involves tying McCain to the Republican brand as it stands now, which means tying him to the Bush administration and to the 2004 Congress. Isn’t that what Obama has been doing? I guess you could advocate a “90% McSame” campaign with a lighter touch or something, but that hardly seems like the bold new direction you want to suggest.
Also, you write “If you are comprehensively skeptical of the campaign’s positive campaigns, that also works for Obama, as McCain’s campaign depends almost entirely on people’s positive assessments of him as a man and a leader, much more so than the Obama campaign.” I think you know this, but I just want to remind that the “assessments as a man” factor has been very important to Obama as well. If not, Hillary would be the nominee.
Lastly, just to rile things up, let me throw out there that while Obama has a more coherent domestic policy vision than McCain, the inverse is doubtless true when it comes to foreign policy.
— Blar · Sep 11, 05:59 PM · #
LarryM: Something like Mark Antony’s funerary speech for Caesar from Shakespeare’s play, perhaps? “McCain is an honorable man . . .” I’ve been expecting more in that line for some time.
Blar: I think making the whole case by tying McCain to Bush is a mistake, because it allows McCain to slither out by trading on the obvious personality differences and on the fact that Bush and McCain never liked each other personally. Also, against Hillary, Obama was the personality candidate. Against McCain, the shoe is on the other foot.
— Noah Millman · Sep 11, 07:02 PM · #
Noah, I certainly agree that it wouldn’t work, and that it hasn’t been working. I’m just not imaginative enough to come up with another possible execution for your proposal.
Also, while I grant that McCain is a personality candidate, I hardly see that Obama has stopped being one since the primary.
— Blar · Sep 11, 07:22 PM · #
“Vote Obama. ‘Cuz McCain frigging sucks.”
Catchy. Me likey.
— James F. Elliott · Sep 11, 07:51 PM · #
“the inverse is doubtless true when it comes to foreign policy.”
Well now, as someone who doesn’t like either candidate’s foreign policy, I think there is some truth to that. But coherence isn’t everything.
First, in one sense there is, I would say, a lack of coherence in the McCain foreign policy as well – in that his neocon on steroids, respond to every foriegn policy “threat” with force, threat of force, and basically maximum belligerence, is tremendously at odds with his “man of peace” schtick. I realize that his admirers try to square that circle by claiming that McCain’s belligerence will actually lead to peace because all of the “bad guys” will be intimidated into minding their manners, but this is a deeply incoherent (and naive) belief that shows a deep ignorance of history (sorry Reihan).
But if we assume, correctly, I think, that the man of peace schtick is just election season pandering, and that the real McCain is the madman who, left to his own devices, would most likely have sent the 82nd airborne to Georgia (and not the Georgia in the SE U.S.)(I exaggerate, but not, I think, by much), well that is a coherent policy, but a deeply troubling one.
The Obama camp? I’d say that overall his foreign policy is a fairly coherent liberal internationalism, not that that’s my bag, mind you, but I’l concede that, in trying to reconcile the more “dovish” wing of the party with the more “hawkish” wing he has engaged in some tightrope walking that might be characterized as less coherent than McCain’s reflexive belligerance.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 07:58 PM · #
Larry, you are right, coherence isn’t everything. For my part, Obama’s domestic policy is a coherent sort of old-school Democratic statism, a Jimmy Carter for the Pepsi generation, which is precisely why I don’t like it.
McCain is all over the map, but I can at least hope he’ll hire the right sort of advisers. A lousy choice for us economic conservatives, though.
— Blar · Sep 11, 08:33 PM · #
What is so bad about with vicious negative attacks? McCain is a belligerent, doddering old man, the guy who yells at you when your football bounces on to his lawn. He can play a valuable role in the Senate, but he shouldn’t be President.
— Steve Sailer · Sep 11, 08:47 PM · #
Blar,
Yes, I was, in fact, anticipating just that response. And, on balance, it is the most coherent defense that I have seen for conservative support for McCain. That said, given Palin’s incoherence on such issues (and many of her actions as governor), it doesn’t explain the level of conservative enthusiasm for Palin.
Yes, yes, her persona and social conservatism. But trying to make her a champion of small government/free market conservatism is a little like putting lipstick on a … well, I won’t say it, you get the drift.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 08:49 PM · #
I can’t think of a pithy way to put it, but shouldn’t the Obama response be:
“You’re promising change? Where were you for the last 8 years, McCain? Where were you when you were campaigning for George Bush in 2004? You’ve had your chance.”
Actually: “You’ve had your chance” isn’t bad. It’s simultaneously an ageist dog whistle and the substantive point that if John McCain wanted change, he shouldn’t have campaigned for Bush’s reelection.
— J Mann · Sep 12, 04:23 PM · #