In the past week and a half, the typical political narrative has been turned on its head. As Peggy Noonan describes in her article “Party of One”, John McCain’s decision to run back to Washington and put the campaign on hold has turned the cliché of “the impetuous young man [throwing] the long ball… [while] the more measured and less excitable older man [says] easy does it” on its head.
McCain’s move to “suspend” his campaign was bold, risky, and outside of his recent character, but the jury remains out as to whether it was a good idea. It was possibly “too cute” for its own good. By deciding to go it alone in an attempt to de-politicize the issue of the economy, McCain may have accidentally achieved the exact opposite, by appearing confrontational in a time where “Bipartisan spirit would be more reassuring.”
This move, however, is the latest in a string of ways in which McCain has resumed pulling away from his party’s MO, which follows the story of the rest of his career. He is using the choice of Sarah Palin as his VP pick to help “hold up the right flank” while he lives up to his Maverick ™ moniker and makes the choices that his party wouldn’t necessarily agree with. The example the article mentions is his sudden direct mentioning of immigration reform rather than sidestepping the issue, which was one of the main differences between himself and his opponents in the Republican primary.
Obama has a similar disconnect between himself and his party. While the economy is typically an issue that favors Democrats, Obama’s poll results have not reflected that typical boost, possibly because he is not “a Democrat”. He is “an Obama.” He picked Joe Biden in part to Velcro himself to his party.
The article asks a good question: Shouldn’t we know more about how a candidate thinks? There is a difference between saying what your stance on an issue is and explaining how you came to that stance. Ms. Noonan believes that both candidates should answer publicly a series of questions about their platform: “Why are you a Democrat? What is the Democratic party…?”
The article goes on to express similar questions with regards to Sarah Palin’s stances. The article alternately blames the campaign and Palin herself for why she hasn’t shown her stuff, as it were, to America the way she did to Alaska. As Ms. Noonan writes, “She rose for a reason. She has to show America what she showed Alaska.” The campaign has made her look like a timebomb by hiding her from the press, and the recent interview she did with Katie Couric did nothing to dispel that image.
My personal stance on all of this is that the question “Why are you running under X ticket?” should be the LEAD question of a Presidential debate. I was, quite frankly, angry that I heard absolutely nothing that I hadn’t already heard about the candidates’ issues. At this point both of them are sitting on cruise control, repeating the same lines over and over until they stick to the undecided voters. I think a lot of the people who haven’t decided yet really would appreciate, rather than hearing the WHAT of the situation, hearing the WHY instead. I may be a liberal on most issues, but on the economy, explain to me WHY we need $50 billion to jumpstart the economy, Obama.
Barack Obama, quite frankly, really is his own brand at this point. No one has had quite the campaign path that he has, and while that’s not exactly a bad thing, it leaves much to be desired. It feels like he (and McCain, though not quite as much) are hiding behind a shield composed of their image rather than their issues. (Above, could the seal over which there was such a hubbub be Obama's "Hope Shield"?) What the article barely touches on is the media's role in all of this.
Fact of the matter is, the 24-hour news cycle has necessitated the candidates being extra careful over what they say. It's a lot easier to make sure a statement of fact is bulletproof than an explanation, and so the whys and hows fall to the background while the what takes center stage. If the news media is willing to fill time by comparing an interview to a parody of the same interview, imagine the field day they'd have if Obama had said 6 months ago "We need to spend $50 billion because of X, Y, Z, economic factors" and someone discovered all three of those factors were false! It'd be nuts?
I'd like to close by asking a couple of questions:
1) What does it mean to YOU to be a Democrat or Republican?
2) Which candidate would you rather see in an election: Obama™, who never says anything wrong but by doing so increases his chance of making it to office, or Obama, who speaks what's on his mind, giving America a greater look into the future leader of their country, whether or not that results in his winning the election?
3) Where does the blame lie for the existence of Obama™ and McCain™? Is it the political system, the media, the American public?
2 comments:
1) I consider myself an independent for the sake of remaining unbiased when it comes to elections. I'm more interested in choosing the right president for this country at the right time, rather than stubbornly standing behind my "chosen party". It means a lot to me that I have the freedom to choose a side in the first place, or no side at all. It's one of our great American freedoms, that we aren't required to always pledge allegiance to Party A or Party B, but instead we're allowed to look at a unique situation and decide who we think would best solve the problem.
2) I'd like to see an Obama that uses both tactics effectively. He should always say the right thing in order to get elected, that's what competitive campaigning is about, but he has to be honest in what he's saying at the same time, and I think he is. Once he made it into the White House, it would be a good idea to continue being honest with Americans and show more of his genuine thought process in making decisions, to show the people what they voted for.
3) I think there's a combination of all three factors, but mostly the media and the American public are to blame for turning modern elections into trademarked names. It's not just about two people debating politics anymore, it's also about a brand name that can you put on the bumper of your car, something official that you can stand behind. If people want it that way, they will find a way to make it happen. I think it's a good thing to have so many people talking politics and getting involved and registered, as long as people don't forget that, in the end, they're voting for a leader of this country who's going to greatly impact their future.
1. I grew up a democrat because my parents are democrats and it was not until recently that I developed my own views. I consider myself an independent libertarian because I strongly believe that the government has no place controlling its citizens. I believe in this more strongly when it comes to social issues than economic, so I usually vote democrat.
2. An Obama that does not play to the rules of the political stage could never win. It is a sad reality but we vote for the candidate who has run the better campaign and then hope that that is an indicator of how well they will run the country.
3. The 24 hour news networks are to blame for the way candidates are branded and "sold" to the american public. So much open air time causes the news networks to probe deeper and deeper into the candidates, often violating their privacy in an attempt to expose the man behind the campaign. The candidates no longer are judged just by their words and ideas, they have their entire lives constantly under a microscope. The candidate must be marketable as a complete package and the best way to sell this is to use product style marketing.
Post a Comment