call me irresponsible

A message of intolerance goes over much more easily when it comes with a smile and a wink. The "he's not one of us" theme seems ready-made to appeal to the baseness of the Republican base. Hence, the shouts of "kill him" (i.e., Obama) and other slurs heard at McCain-Palin campaign stops are not surprising. The crowds seem less interested in hearing about what McCain will do in office and more interested in "chowing down" on the red meat thrown from the stage. What's interesting is the contrast that is created between Palin as a devout Christian and Palin as an innuendo-mongering candidate. Hence, the question the McCain campaign -- in the absence of any coherent political program -- raises vis-a-vis Obama rebounds on the vice-presidential nominee: do we really know the real Sarah Palin?

*

Obama has said he won't play the politics of personal destruction, and he hasn't. Even when he criticizes Bush, he does it in a more temperate way than the people at MoveOn.org would like, focusing on flaws in Bush's policies and not Bush's motives. I think the situation for the Republican candidates is similar. There are elements in the Republican party who want, who desire, to be inspired by hatred and fear. McCain and Palin have a choice to make: either to give in to this element or not. It seems they have decided to give in, to campaign in a full rich negative position, and are not concerned about the byproduct of this: "kill him." McCain has charged that Obama would do anything to get elected. McCain is now risking a heightening of political and social divisions during a moment of economic crisis and seems to find this to be an acceptable price for getting elected. Pot, Kettle.

**

What we're witnessing is the fact that Governor Palin owns the Republican party. She is the most popular figure in the party now. She will be the party's standard bearer even if McCain is elected. Her tone and her brand of the politics of division (she's a Buchananite) are now at the center of the Republican presidential campaign.

_________________________________________________

Photo credit: Rex Features/The Guardian

palinoconservative

Governor Palin seems to be a novice in a lot of things, a necessity which she has turned into virtue. Ou la chevre est lie e faut qu'elle broute. It makes her a maverick by default. In other words, factual ignorance is political bliss; grammatical errors and tortured syntax are actually representations of the righteous rage of the Sixpack demographic, which will not be fooled again by predatory lenders or the intellectual elite. Not knowing something makes her an outsider to people who do know something. And this is a good thing.

*

Peggy Noonan issued a warning about the response to criticism of Palin in today's Wall Street Journal:

We saw last week, too, a turn in the McCain campaign's response to criticisms of Mrs. Palin. I find obnoxious the political game in which if you expressed doubts about the vice presidential nominee, or criticized her, you were treated as if you were knocking the real America -- small towns, sound values. 'It's time that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency,' Mrs. Palin told talk-show host Hugh Hewitt. This left me trying to imagine Abe Lincoln saying he represents 'backwoods types,' or FDR announcing that the fading New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. I'm not sure the McCain campaign is aware of it -- it's possible they are -- but this is subtly divisive. As for the dismissal of conservative critics of Mrs. Palin as 'Georgetown cocktail party types' (that was Mr. McCain), well, my goodness. That is the authentic sound of the aggression, and phony populism, of the Bush White House. Good move. That ended well.

This leads me to wonder whether Peggy Noonan has missed the point, that a new formation of conservatism has coalesced around Sarah Palin. Who are the Palinoconservatives moved by the Governor's candidacy? No doubt they aren't part of Noonan's social circle. Palinoconservatives are beer drinkers (e.g., Coors) and Alaskan mothers who schlepp hockey equipment and children (e.g., decent, law-abiding people). Palinoconservatives are self-styled mavericks. They don't put much stock in book learning or polished speech. Above all, Palinoconservatives oppose the three Gs of evil: government, gay marriage, and gun control. While other conservatives identify with Teddy Roosevelt (e.g., John McCain), Palinoconservatives would rather field dress a bull moose than vote for one. Palinoconservatives aren't Neo- or Paleo-; they have little use for think-tanks or position papers. They would rather look at Salma Hayek than read Friedrich Hayek. They are the new face of the Republican party, post-Reagan, post-Gingrich, post-Bush.

grading the vice-presidential debate

Senator Biden: you were disciplined and didn't come off as condescending. Your task was pretty easy, but you didn't raise the bar. You can't coast at this level. Final Grade: B

*

Governor Palin: This debate was all about you. Unfortunately, even in the "unfiltered" format in which you could smile into the camera and address Joe Sixpack and Hockey Mom directly, you still appeared to be in test-prep mode. When your cue cards didn't address a question, you rambled on about something else you knew by heart, even when the answer had nothing to do with the question. Is that what it means to be a maverick? Where I come from, the refusal to answer a question that is asked politely is considered to be rude and evasive. Too often after giving an answer, it appeared you were waiting for a pat on the head. I'm afraid you're not in Alaska any more Governor Palin. Final Grade: C

*

Is this the best the Republican Party has to offer?

straight outta Wasilla

What happened to the special needs baby? Sarah Palin's experience as a working mother (hockey mom) seemed to be one of the qualifications she claimed for herself as McCain's vice-presidential nominee, thus offering herself as a 21st century Frances Willard. Since most of her other qualifications have either turned out not to be true or to be less than compelling, I thought the hockey mom angle would be prominent (and the baby would be a ubiquitous presence).

*

I saw David Brooks on one of the Sunday morning shows. His prediction about her upcoming debate performance was not encouraging; he said she was "not stupid" and that she would rise to the level of "mediocre" in the debate. Laura Bush noted that Palin lacked a sufficient foreign policy background. And Tina Fey continues to provide the most incisive presentation of the strengths of the Governor.

*

Governor Palin appears to be a continuance of the trend in the Republican party to present under-whelming candidates for the highest offices: Quayle and Bush blazed a trail for Palin. Quayle never got a sniff of actual power. Bush did: and the consequences are well known. Like Quayle, Palin is a boutique choice, who appeals to a select demographic group among Republican voters. For other voters, who don't hunt moose, who don't view polar bears as predators of humans, who don't believe abortion should be banned even in cases of rape, and who know what the Bush doctrine is without prompting, Palin is only a curiosity and occasion for mirth.

*

The McCain-Palin sit-down with Katie Couric (who, inadvertently, is becoming the Edward Morrow of this campaign) reminded me of a high school parent-teacher meeting, of a father explaining why his child shouldn't have received a C grade in a social studies course.

*

I noticed Palin made a remark about having heard about Joe Biden while she was still in grade school: "'I'm looking forward to meeting him,'" she continued. "'I've never met him. I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, the second grade.'"

I suppose she first heard about John McCain while she was, like, still in utero.

*

On the other hand, the fact that she's "average," that she doesn't know things she should know if she's planning to be vice-president, are assets for a sizable segment of the electorate. This segment resents "smart people" and, like Palin, probably doesn't read a newspaper on a regular basis. Palin's social trajectory mirrors their own and they are proud to find that "one of us" has made it: Governor today, vice-president tomorrow. She talks like them, her family reminds them of their own family. Nothing about Palin makes them feel inadequate. It may turn out that Palin's "inadequacies" are keeping McCain close in the race with Obama.

body language

Much is being made of the fact that John McCain rarely (if ever) made eye contact with Barack Obama during their first presidential debate. While it's possible that McCain was showing disdain for Obama by not looking at him, I also think the moderator's effort to stage-manage the debate was a little silly. The candidates are trying to persuade us (the television audience, whose perspective is entirely controlled by the camera) not each other, so whether they looked at each other or addressed each other directly is irrelevant.

*

Having said that: McCain, like Hillary Clinton before him, is incredulous as he faces the prospect that people might prefer Obama over him. The entitlement attitude that excreted from the Clinton campaign (and continues to tinge Bill Clinton's remarks) is present in the McCain-Palin campaign. However, whereas Hillary Clinton did articulate a general vision of what her presidency would be like and the policies she felt were significant, McCain-Palin articulate only this: "we aren't Obama." McCain's responses during the debate were mostly attacks on Obama. When he ventured into a description of his own plans, he stumbled to find the right words.

*

Perhaps this is a reflection of McCain's political psychology: the self-proclaimed maverick is most comfortable when he stands against something rather than standing for something. When McCain-Palin venture into stating what they stand for, a string of attractive cliches come forth -- Country First!, patriotism, etc. -- over which they claim exclusive ownership. The performative contradiction in this claim is apparent: they prefer to divide the country (i.e., to stand against other citizens) in order to win the election and are willing to do so by defining their opponents as unpatriotic. In other words, they don't place country first and their effort to demonize other citizens makes their notion of patriotism less than credible.

political hysteria: McCain and the crisis

Deal or no deal? A lot is riding on this for McCain. House Republicans clearly don't want to sign off on the bail out. I assume the plan could pass despite House Republican opposition. But that would seem to doom McCain with important conservative constituents. If McCain can get the recalcitrant House Republicans to sign off (apparently a visit from Dick Cheney didn't move them at all and I doubt Bush's speech will persuade skeptics on the right), then he can take some credit, but only for reeling in the conservative rump. If he can't pull this off, the Republican party would be split (and not without good reasons) and Obama can point to the "ideology-driven partisanship" of House Republicans as another sign that "Washington is broken."

*

McCain's suspension of his campaign and request to postpone the debate scheduled for Friday seems a little hysterical. He has successfully directed attention to himself and the punditocracy is slavishly fixated on his "decision." Will he? Won't he? The media is unable to recognize when it's being jerked around.  The short term strategic impact is that McCain has taken media attention away from Obama. The more general impression is that McCain's histrionics about the debate is another egocentric (generously termed "maverick") move on his part. Refusal to attend the debate would, however, be a disaster for McCain. It would leave a lasting image of the war hero hiding in his bunker, not leading but being led by the crisis. In other words, McCain First!

stealth campaign

Republicans have preferred well choreographed photo-op situations and tightly scripted speeches before handpicked, friendly audiences since the Reagan years. So the sudden press phobia of the McCain/Palin campaign is not unexpected. After Palin's performance during her interview with Charles Gibson (which was hardly a tough interview), one can see why the Republicans don't want her out there giving spontaneous answers to questions about the proposed bail out of finance capitalism, credit-default swaps, or the weakening of the Anbar "Awakening." The format for the vice-presidential debate will suit her strength entirely: the ability to give scripted non-responsive responses.

as the polls turn, or: what would a McCain presidency entail

According to the polls, Obama is losing support from "white" women to McCain. I wonder if those Democrats who have switched to McCain have pondered a McCain Presidency. What exactly would a McCain presidency entail anyway?

*

The only original "idea" (i.e., something that diverges from the Bush presidency) I've heard from him is the "League of Democracies", which I suspect would turn out to be very much like the "Coalition of the Willing" (which turned out to be not much of a coalition and mostly unwilling). It seems very unlikely that European powers (the UK included) who are committed to existing international institutions, namely, the UN, the International Court, the Geneva Conventions, etc., would sign on to such a thinly veiled end run around such institutions. Hence, this "League" would likely be staffed by nations like Poland and Georgia (which, according to McCain's Vice President, should gain NATO membership) who will claim a larger share of American foreign aid largesse (such as the 1 billion dollars that suddenly materialized for Georgia recently). The threat to boot Russia from the G8 is a non-starter as well. McCain says he'll "win" the war in Iraq, but doesn't know when that will happen. How long will a Congress controlled by Democrats continue to allow American taxpayers to foot the bill? I suspect McCain will be on a short leash in Mesopotamia. Eventually, McCain would have to make good on his threat to bomb Iran ("Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain sang to the tune of "Barbara Ann") if the nuclear program isn't suspended, otherwise the USA will look weak. Who knows how much collateral damage will be inflicted if this comes to pass.

*

In terms of domestic politics, as a lame duck in his only term, McCain could feel liberated and engage with his alleged maverick side. That would mean true bipartisanship with congressional houses controlled by Democrats. This would bode well for immigration reform (McCain could tell nativist Tancredoites and the vigilantes patrolling the Mexican border to stuff it). It could mean he proposes non-activist (i.e., non-Scalian, non-Federalist Society) jurists for appointment to the Supreme Court. It could mean he reverses his support for the Bush tax cuts.

*

What is more likely is that McCain's non-maverick side will win out. As his selection of Palin indicates, he feels obligated to the theocratic fringe of the Republican base, as well as the Reaganite dead-enders. This means he'd propose jurists for the Supreme Court who pass the Perkins-Dobson-Norquist-LaHaye-Weyrich litmus test. He'll waste time trying to jam through more tax cuts to the highest income bracket and offer school vouchers as his major social policy initiative. He'd speak tendentiously about the evils of "gay marriage" and the Darwinian threat to God without doing anything about it (or perhaps the culture warrior dossiers would be assigned to the Vice President's office). Energy policy will continue to be directed by the same people Dick Cheney relied upon during the Bush years.

*

On the positive side (yes there is one!), Democrats will likely gain more seats in the House and Senate during the 2010 midterm elections as a consequence of a McCain presidency.

 

campaign detritus

_______________________________________

Photo credit: Craig Lassig/EPA (The Guardian)

what's good for the goose is good for the ... goose!

God bless Jon Stewart.

And Viacom:

The video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International Inc.

I'm John McCain and I'm running against the Republican Party

What a remarkable speech by John McCain to wrap up the monocultural Republican National Convention. Claiming service over selfishness, and arguing that Washington hasn't served the people, he intends to fight against 30 years of Republican leadership. This speech was filled with contradictions. First and foremost: he's a maverick, a fighter, who will nonetheless work with others (who agree with him).  If this was an honest expression of his vision of his campaign, then why has he paired himself with someone who represents the epitome of selfishness, who insists on a moral and cultural politics that is shared by a minority of Americans?

*

The difficulty McCain faces is that he's been in Washington for a very long time. While he's taken some positions that didn't please the increasingly nativist and narrowly fundamentalist base of the Republican party, he has also been very much a supporter of the Republican policies that have done little for the little people for whom he claims he will now fight. If he takes on his own party -- as he must -- in order to do what he claims he'll do, then the likely outcome is a doubling of partisan posturing, first from the hardcore resisters in his own party (its corporate and theological flanks) and then from Democrats. In the end, a McCain presidency would likely produce more of the same rather than 'change.'

getting to know Sarah Palin

Last night was Sarah Palin's second minute of fame at the Republican National Elder Hostel. I was shocked and relieved to find out that Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton (I imagine the remaining, disappointed Clintonistas are not so relieved). What's curious is her apparent selling point for McCainites: she's an average person with an average family. Sure, she reminds me of my (hypothetical) next door neighbor hockey mom; I'm sure my neighbor also hunts bear, can field dress a dead moose, and has found time to threaten to ban books in the local library and join a secessionist political party. Talk about Country First!

*

Anyway, I'm relieved to have learned that a person I suspected to be average is, in fact, average (leaving aside the book banning part). What our intrepid media corps will reveal soon is whether this conservative Christian with an unwed, pregnant daughter (I'm suddenly longing for Dan Quayle's jeremiad against the unwed and pregnant fictional character Murphy Brown) is an average Amy Grant or an average Gretchen Wilson.

democratic convention - night 1

________________________________

Photo credit: Kennedy & Obama (Stephen Crowley - New York Times).

it's a beautiful day

The waiting is over: number two on the Democratic ticket is Joe Biden. Obama played this safe. According to pundits, Biden will move Hillary's 'white working class' supporters into the Obama camp. Joe from Scranton, the Scranton scrapper, the poorest Senator, Catholic Joe: this will be the political detritus of the coming week. The code words don't really code anything: Biden is supposed to counteract the effects of race; i.e., Obama's melanin (dis)advantage.

*

Of course, that's not all Biden will do. He is allegedly a foreign policy heavyweight. To his credit, after supporting the decision to invade Iraq, Biden has been a persistent critic of the conduct of the war. I remain convinced his suggestion that Iraq could be broken into three states (a suggestion that recognizes the thoroughly constructed nature of post-colonial states) is an idea worth pursuing. The pundits immediately jumped on this perceived strength, arguing that it shows Obama's weakness (in foreign policy). This sort of argumentative gibberish, which turns into a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" sackgasse, will also contribute to the political detritus of the coming week. 

*

I haven't taken to Biden in the past. He comes across as bombastic and shows too much attraction to his own rhetoric. However, the choice of Biden is probably the best possible among a weak pool of Democratic politicians. Of course, there was Hillary Clinton...

___________________________________________

Photo credit: A. Spencer Green (AP)

ready to tan

Paris for Prez.

war cathexis

Obama is willing to lose the war in order to win the election in the fall: this is the message of John McCain, who believes he 'wins' on war. Hence, he cannot afford to suggest anything that would wind down the war in Iraq or ratchet down tensions with Iran. 

The 'Surge' is McCain's political Viagra.

McLame

John McCain, taking a page from the Clinton campaign handbook, is accusing the 'media' of having a love affair with Barack Obama in a TV ad titled 'Love'. However, the 'media bias' claim is wearing thin. After months of being called "Hussein" and "Osama bin Laden", and wading through the muck of Rev. Wright et al., Obama finished ahead of Clinton and is leading nationally versus McCain. Of course, it is still early in the campaign and things could change. But it is interesting that all the arguments against Obama (not experience, not ready, is a closet Islamist, hasn't done anything in his life, etc.) have not enabled McClinton to gain a decisive and expected advantage. I doubt that 'media bias' alone explains this. It is an unusual year and all of Sean Hannity's horses and men have not yet been able to put the Republican Party back together again.

centering

Having vanguished the suddenly populist Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is now tacking back to the center of the political spectrum and, in the process, has unnerved legions of the American Left (namely, the MoveOn.org crowd). Suprisingly (mock shock) he is not so absolutely against 'free trade' (and what President has been?). He thinks the government spying act (i.e., FISA) is acceptable in its current version. He wants good old boys in downstate Illinois who elected him to the Senate to be able to keep their shotguns. And he wants to expand the role of churches in social welfare provisions. Has Obama suddenly become G. W. Bush as suddenly as Hillary Clinton became William Jennings Bryan?

*

The short answer is "no." One weakness of the Obama campaign has been its failure to pick battles to fight more judiciously. Hence, it floundered in responding to every provocation emanating from the Clinton camp. Perhaps he has learned a lesson. It is not a winning or worthwhile proposition to reject free trade as the potential president of a capitalist economy. As Claus Offe pointed out long ago, government policies that give an incentive to corporations to disinvest are self-defeating when one wants to simultaneously impact areas such as poverty or health care reform. On the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment decision, why stir the hornet's nest of the NRA needlessly. Let the sleeping lunatics lie. FISA is a bit tougher sell for me. However, as President, Obama can seek to use the powers it authorizes more judiciously; in other words, he can submit his own use of FISA to more oversight than Dick Cheney could stomach. Finally, on 'faith based initiatives,' this is very understandable: Obama's community organizing background undoubtedly brought him into contact with 'progressive' churches (such as the one he recently abandoned) which don't seek government funds only for the purpose of imposing evangelical morality on the people whom they help.

*

All of these moves are reasonable from a person who seeks to run a truly national campaign (not the typical presidential campaign that focuses on a few swing states to the neglect of all others). Obama is hunting on McCain's expected safe territory; finally, a Democrat is not simply conceding Red States and religious fundamentalists. If Obama can actually co-opt the Fundies (especially those under 30), he will have broken the stranglehold of the legacy of the Moral Majority, which would be an accomplishment equal to getting the USA out of Iraq in a timely manner.

finally the campaign begins

After months, the Democrats have their candidate. One question remains: will feminists abandon the Democrats in November?  The fall election offers a test of the state of the Second Wave, whose disappointment over the decline of the inevitable Hillary Clinton presidency threatens to put McCain in her place. On substance, there is a wafer thin difference between Obama and Clinton (leaving aside her war vote). Their contest boiled down to differences in political style, melanin, and chromosomes. It is unnecessary to worry about those who oppose Obama based on his melanin advantage. It is more necessary to worry about those who may reject him based on gender.

*

Why Clinton? Why have older women and feminist organizations hitched their wagon of dreams to such a controversial figure? Clinton promised much, in particular a return to the good old 1990s when the economy boomed and the Yankees were world champions. However, she became a shape-shifter in the face of Obama's utopian wave. First, she was the most experienced candidate ('Ready on day one'). Later, she became the populist candidate of the single parent waitresses. In the end, she came out as a feminist candidate. Which Clinton is the real one? I would suspect the latter self-presentation is the truest. But it is fair to ask whether the difficulty she faced was not only sexism in the media but also her own personal history. Hillary Clinton is not just a woman candidate, she is a brand name. And her brand is not untarnished. Her front-runner status in January 2008 was based on name recognition. Once this shown to no longer suffice to move voters to her cause, the game was over. Her 'experience' advantage was not so overwhelming; hence, it didn't turn the tide against Obama. And her 'experience' in the area of policy in which she is most passionate, universal health care, was an abject failure. (Perhaps she thought this failure was erased from the memories of the Democratic electorate). Moreover, something else went without saying: Republicans would fight to the death to defeat such a policy proposed by a second President Clinton. Hillary Clinton's legacy in this area is much like her legacy as the first woman to crack the political glass ceiling: her defeat opened the door to more pragmatic choices. 

*

Political feminism should not be depressed over the dramatic fall of the inevitable one. Other less problematic women candidates exist and will emerge in time. Hillary Clinton was probably not the 'best chance' for putting a woman in the White House, although this particular nadir in Republican party prospects is a good chance for any breathing Democrat.

hurting each other

There will be no dream ticket for the Democrats.

As time goes by, Clinton and Obama seem more and more incommensurate in terms of political style. At one point, Obama-Clinton made sense but no longer. Clinton-Obama would be a nightmare for Obama, since Bill Clinton would be de facto Vice-President. If Obama is somehow not the nominee, he should return to the Senate. If he really wants to be President, he can run in 2012 against either Clinton or McCain.

Clinton needs Obama more than Obama needs Clinton, since she'll have to win over the Obama supports who are turned off by her negativity. Clinton's recent comment that semi-endorses McCain over Obama is an indication of how much Clinton wants the nomination and how far she'll go to get it.