America in Transition

It was a generational battle, said the New York Times.  It was a contest in trying to look “presidential.”  But above all, it was a fight over two visions of the United States and its role in the world.

To judge from some of the instant polls and focus groups, Barack Obama seems to have come off slightly better than John McCain in the first televised debate between the two presidential candidates.  Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who conducts focus groups for Fox News, had an interesting take on Fox TV of how the two candidates impacted undecided voters.  Obama, according to Luntz’ focus group, came out ahead.

Political observers and professional commentators, reflecting their partisan personas, could not help but find that their favorite candidate thoroughly bested the opposition.  Malkin cheered McCain’s repeated attacks on Obama’s experience, Huffington found Obama effective in going after McCain’s support for Bush’s invasion of Iraq five and a half years ago.

But neither Obama nor McCain scored a knockout blow.  The two campaigns go on to fight another day and engage in two more televised debates in the weeks ahead.

It bears repeating that the Democratic candidate should be far ahead at this point in the campaign, given the crisis in American finance and economy, the feeling of unease in the country and America’s misfortunes abroad.  The divisions among Republicans over what to do about their own President’s financial rescue plan illustrate a deep rift within the Party.  But McCain has brilliantly positioned himself as an opponent of the current Administration rather than its prospective descendant.  In the fundamentally disloyal (and, yes, cynical) ways of “Washington,” the same elected representatives who cheered George W. Bush for the better part of the last decade now constitute a bipartisan crowd denying any connection to him.

Thus, the White House goes to the candidate who makes Americans feel he is least connected to the White House’s current occupant.

There was one image from last night’s debate that sticks in the mind; you can see it in the photos on today’s front pages.  John McCain looks past Barack Obama, as though he refuses to acknowledge Obama’s presence.  Obama turns to address McCain during the debate; McCain never reciprocates.  Does the American public notice this, in the same way they noticed George H.W. Bush looking at his watch during his debate with Bill Clinton, or Al Gore rolling his eyes as Bush junior spoke earnestly of what he would do as President?  Does the McCain smirk make him seem uncivil and cost him points with the voting public?

The American public may not be long of memory or wise in the ways of foreign affairs, but they are experts in watching television.  The way you look, and the way you behave, are at least as important as what you say.

I thought you might be interested in the post I’ve put up at the FPA Climate Change blog on Gov. Palin and the Republicans and some of the media coverage.

Tight races lead candidates to take desperate measures.  So, fasten your seat belts, and prepare for some sharp turns from logic.  We have a tight race now and only 54 days left.  Any statement that can be attacked – fairly or not – will be.  Any miscue will be magnified and ridiculed.  “Surrogates” will be given a free rein to say or do anything that can damage the opposing camp, so long as the surrogates do not harm their own candidate.

You might call this “the fierce urgency of now.”  Or the politics of “personal destruction.”  That would be wrong.  It’s more like taking a mud bath in a hurricane. Before we jump – or are blown – into this mess, it may be at least somewhat reassuring to recall that the campaigns in both parties have been relatively clean and democratic so far.  Despite occasional lapses, the two major candidates have spoken fairly clearly about what their own views and priorities are.  So if you pay attention to their own policy statements and actions and ignore what they say about each other, you may come away with a fairly good idea about what McCain and Obama would try to do as President.

In foreign policy, these views and statements have been encapsulated at FPA’s new election ballot site.  A similar effort was undertaken by the German Marshall Fund.  You can see how McCain envisions a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq as a security requirement, and how Obama sees calibrated troop reductions as a way to exert pressure on Iraq’s fractured political leadership to reach political settlements.  You can also see how Obama would explore cautiously certain direct negotiations with Iran, and how McCain would exclude such talks without preconditions.  Both favor sending more troops to Afghanistan, but Obama blames the U.S.’ failure to do this earlier on an “unnecessary” war in
Iraq.  

McCain promises a public demotion of Russia’s international status by removing it from the G-8 group of industrialized democracies.  Obama would try to discourage unwelcome Russian behavior in other ways.The list goes on, but what is striking about it is how much these views echo standard Republican and Democratic viewpoints on America’s role in the world.  For all the rhetoric about McCain being a “maverick” Republican or Obama being a “left” Democrat, their foreign policy views are fairly typical of their respective Parties.  McCain’s views, after all, don’t vary that much from George W. Bush’s, he simply feels that the current President and Harvard MBA “mismanaged” the Iraq War.  Obama’s views on topics such as peacekeeping and the United Nations are not that different from Bill Clinton’s.This is not to say that these “typical” views on foreign policy will determine which candidate Americans will favor with an Electoral College majority.  Many other factors – the economy, most importantly – will be taken into consideration.  And some of these factors, it seems clear, will be more about identity than policy.  Such factors appear to be behind the Palin “bump” registered in the polls.  After the mud-slinging is over, religion, abortion, gun control and other “values” issues may trump actual policy debates, such as the economy and health care.  And it is because the values issues yield satisfyingly clear conclusions to so many voters that the voters – pardon the word – “cling” to them.    

By now, everyone agrees that the selection of Sarah Palin has transformed this race.  The question is, transformed it into what?  To the list of precedents set in this extraordinary year now add First Woman on a Republican Ticket.  But more important than her gender are Palin’s values.  The Governor of Alaska is a continent away, and experientially distant, from the urban and suburban communities that once voted Rudi Giuliani mayor of New York or Mitt Romney governor of Massachusetts.  She is distant, too, from the mixed Rust Belt and rural environments of the Great Lakes that once elected moderates in Michigan (Engler) and Wisconsin (Tommy Thompson).  Palin is a values Republican typical of the American West and South.  She solidifies her party’s base, which is now located mainly here.  For these Republicans, social policy is heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalism.  Economic policy is basically laissez faire reliance on markets.  Foreign policy emphasizes a strong defense, patriotism and support for a few traditional allies (Israel).

This is a party that mistrusts government and has little contact with minorities.  In his acceptance speech last night, John McCain did not mention immigration and barely mentioned health care, but he did repeatedly attack “Washington,” where he has been a Senator or Congressman for almost three decades.  Washington is “broken,” there are too many “special interests,” we need to “fix” our government.  But what to do with Washington once you’ve fixed it and taken it back?  We all want good, clean government, but if the Grand Old Party abused power from Alaska (Stevens) to Florida (Foley), from Idaho (Craig) to Ohio (Ney), what qualifies Republicans to lead the “fight” for “reform?”  Granted, the Democrats are far from perfect, as we were reminded yesterday as the Democratic mayor of Detroit pleaded guilty to felony abuse of office.  But shouldn’t the GOP clean its own house before it targets “Washington?”

Republican rhetoric has entered a twilight zone of contradictions.  We are supposed to value McCain for his decades of work in Washington, but at the same time regard him as an outsider.  Obama is called inexperienced, but Palin, with certainly less experience, is called a tested “executive.”  The Republican Party is recast as the vanguard of change, but to make change it must kick out of the White House — the Republican Party.  Clearly nostalgic for the Reagan years, the Republican Party has become the party of one-word rhetoric:  Service. Duty.  Country.  Faith.  Noble sentiments, but where’s the beef – or is it moose?

John McCain’s choice of running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, will prove either brilliant, or desperate.  We won’t find out until at least the Vice Presidential debate on October 2.

Today Governor Palin issued a joint statement with her husband saying their 17-year old daughter Bristol, is five months pregnant.   (Bristol is the first on the left.)  Bristol is unmarried, but plans to marry the father of her child, according to Palin’s annoucement. All this mentioned in an effort to restructure the conversation after an Internet swarm among liberal bloggers that Trig, Palin’s fifth child who has downs syndrome, is actually Bristol Palin’s child.

John McCain’s choice of a female running mate sent mixed signals to the commentariat: is McCain vying for female supporters of Hillary Clinton by selecting a pro-life Governor?  Does McCain believe the fact that Palin is a working mom abet Joe Biden’s sometimes-flippant, yet often effective debate style?  Does McCain feel secure enough in his foreign policy credentials that he doesn’t need a VP nominee to bolster his international experience? And perhaps most poignantly: Is his selection of Palin a move to secure the most conservative wing of the party?

Palin’s news today may undermine impressions among the conservative base of a “perfect family,” but Bristol Palin’s decision to keep the baby remain in line with the pro-life mantra.  We’re still learning about the Sarah Palin, and bloggers continue to pry into the candidate’s background (Was Palin party to the “bridge to nowhere” PR disaster?  Was she a member of the Alaskan Independent Party and what does that mean? )

Presumably, McCain chose Palin to secure support from the conservative base, attract middle-of-the-road suburban women, and to bring a new face into the Republican mainstream.  To achieve all of these ambitions, McCain’s choices seemed slim.  As Marc Ambinder put it, McCain may reap for his high risk a [possible] high reward.