Thoughts

[JohnFKennedy]

So a few weeks ago I got a message from Keystone Phil saying I should start posting on the 2008 election and I had to reply with the only valid response I have: honestly, I don't feel qualified to comment on the issues because I don't think I know enough. Having now paid some more attention to the 2008 boards, I am beginning to wonder whether that might be an advantage in discussing this election because most of what I have read has been massively coloured by partisanship.

Just to make clear my position: I am not an American citizen - as many of you may know - and I support Barack Obama - something which I don’t think I have openly stated before, but could probably be guessed from my ideological inclination. Apologies if this post comes out a bit disparate and/or scatter-brained.

What has struck me most about 2008 is that it is the new 2004 – which was the new 2000 – in that it seems one of the most bitterly divisive Presidential elections of recent times. I find it especially ironic given that we have two candidates who claim to be maverick bipartisan agents of change. For me, the heart of the problem lies with this dichotomous distinction between ‘left’ and ‘right’, ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’. Amartya Sen argued that a root cause of violence has been the tendency of people to view others as inhabiting a singular affiliation, rather than a multifaceted identity. While it hasn’t quite resulted in violence in the USA, I think the principle stands; politically there are Democrats and Republicans; left-wing ideologues and right-wing ideologues. I think Obama and McCain’s attempts to appeal as bipartisan figures has exacerbated it in many ways because suddenly it has become not just an ideological contest, but also a contest over which party is seeking to reach out to the other more – or at least appear to do so. I think this has been most polarising outside of this ‘political elite’ though and I think the 2008 election boards here only prove that point. Not only is there this conflict over bipartisanship, but there’s also the reaction to it which only furthers the divide.

So where does this take us? Well, first of all I think there are two core components to this election outside of the issues – and arguably more important than the issues – and they are personality and the message. On personality, this is about the creation of a ‘brand’, and at the heart of this brand is the notion of ‘Americanness’. I think that is where the message comes in; for me this election has become about conflicting answers to the question of ‘what is America?’ and ‘where is America going?’ and I think it will be the candidate who can not only answer these questions, but inextricably link themselves to the answer that will win the election.

I think the Vice-Presidential selections have both been about discovering this ‘America’. In Joe Biden, Obama has a working-class Irish Catholic from Scranton, Pennsylvania, a man whose upbringing seems to me to be very much that of the ‘average Joe’ – if you’ll pardon the pun. In Sarah Palin, I think McCain is really trying to return to that old American ideal of the frontier; this is a deeply religious woman who is perfectly at ease with a hunting rifle. I think both Obama and Palin’s involvement in this election have really brought cultural divisions to the fore in this election. Personally, I don’t agree with J.J.’s assessment of a ‘sweet Sarah Palin’ defence when it comes to attacks. I would say that for a few reasons: firstly, her speech at the RNC last night hardly gave off that impression and I can’t see her really trying to play on it at the moment. I’m also not entirely sure who that would appeal to; I think the ‘sweet Sarah Palin’ routine would probably play best in areas that the Democrats wouldn’t expect to do well in anyway. I also don’t think this was a pick that will pull former Hillary supporters to McCain because I think those that are rabidly pro-Hillary and hold the primaries against Obama are often those who would feel uncomfortable with supporting someone who is staunchly conservative. I think it has the potential to turn a few of them off McCain, but I couldn’t say that for sure. Instead, this is most definitely a pick to fire up the base. From that perspective, I think it is a good one, but it is also one that has really highlighted a great degree of sexism within American society. Not just from those attacking her with derogatory terms like ‘bitch’, or those who patronise her by saying she should be looking after her family, but also from many who defend her because I think the way she is being defended is different from the way they would defend a male candidate. I’ve seen sexism from both sides here.

I think here is probably the most appropriate place to include discussion of these ‘family issues’ that seem to have dominated the personality politics of the last few days. On principle, I think that family issues should be left out of politics. However, I don’t think it is entirely the media’s – or the opposing side’s – fault that they have become issues in the election, because almost every single American politician has made an election out of ‘family values’ in their career. If families aren’t to be a part of this election, why were Obama, Biden, Palin, and McCain’s children all appearing on stage either at conventions or on campaign stops? I think that if family are brought into it in that way, then candidates have to realise that they are going to suffer the consequences. In that respect  I feel sorry for their families in many ways and particularly Bristol Palin and her boyfriend, because I have to wonder whether they would be about to marry if Sarah Palin was not on the Republican ticket.

Moving on from all that, I thought I would offer my own consideration of the issues.

I’ll start with foreign policy. For me, I don’t think this will be the most important of the issues when it comes to voting. A lot was made of the crisis over Georgia on these forums, but I just cannot see that the average American will care that much when it comes to Georgia. The only way I see foreign policy becoming a major issue in this election, is if 2004 repeats itself and Osama Bin Laden releases a new video in the days leading up to the election. I was at a talk around the beginning of the year being given by a leading security expert who has advised the CIA and the NSA and he felt very strongly that this was an effective endorsement for Bush, because it really brought the so-called ‘War on Terror’ to the fore and served to emphasise Kerry’s foreign policy failings. I think traditionally this would favour the Republicans, but I wonder how the selection of Joe Biden as Obama’s running-mate could influence this. Right now I don’t think Biden is a particularly inspired pick, but should a similar video precede the 2008 election as preceded the 2004 one, I can see it potentially proving to be helpful to Obama.

So, for me it has to be the economy that will be the issue to affect how many people vote. I don’t think that a President necessarily has that much control over the way the economic cycle runs, but I do think it is important to be seen to be in-touch with the people and also pursuing policies that can potentially help them. I think that Obama could potentially score major points here by tying this into his message of change. For me, Obama should be emphasising urban and economic renewal (although that may be due to my interests and ideology). I think he needs to focus a lot on developing infrastructure – providing jobs and plenty of opportunities – and also housing policy. I think the attack against McCain and the number of houses he owned was weak. Instead, if the Democrats want to emphasise his role as a ‘community organiser’ as being helpful for this campaign, I think they need to get down to it and talk about what that really means. I’m still not entirely sure what it means myself, but if he can really emphasise his involvement in housing policy and urban redevelopment, I think that it can play much better with voters than senseless attacks on McCain. Developing on that, I think he could take a leaf out of John Edwards’ book and talk about poverty, but I don’t think this should be the ‘two Americas’ poverty line. Instead, I think he should focus more on relative poverty, because it is not just the poorest who are suffering. I’m not sure to what extent he has been hitting that message – most of my news comes from a few British publications and this forum – but I think that it can really prove effective and I think ideologically he can appeal more on that matter, provided he doesn’t mention people clinging to guns and religion.

When it comes to the economy, I view the role of the President as being a reassuring force. I don’t think that they can control it, but given that so much of the economy is dependant upon confidence, I think an image of economic confidence, can help the US economy. Of course, energy policy definitely ties into this and I would say that at the moment McCain is looking more appealing to the American public on that question and Obama really needs to get a grip on his energy policy. If he can do that, project an image of confidence, and push a forceful message of hope and redevelopment, then I think he can win the election.

[JohnFKennedy]

Ultimately, both candidates should take a line out of urban renewal guru Edward Logue’s book: ‘planning with people’. It’s that common touch and strength of will that could guarantee one of them the election. Right now, I don’t see either of them as being fully in-touch and that’s the problem. I’d like to see each of them not just giving stump speeches throughout this campaign, but going with discussions. In that respect, they could learn a lot from Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, but I think they can also take this to the next level with the internet as it provides a far greater opportunity to reach the population. I’d be impressed to see either campaign organising some sort of online discussion forum for their candidate to get their message across.

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts I had on the election. On reflection, it seems fairly focused on Obama but I guess I did say I supported him more than McCain. Any comments or questions are welcome, particularly if I have made any factual mistakes or neglected something that people see as vital.

[Keystone Phil]

Well, I have my disagreements especially with regards to the idea of Hillary voters avoiding McCain but it is well thought out. I'd expect nothing less from you. 

[Sam Spade]

Demographically, Palin's appeal was always going to be with married women and independent males (generally).  As to how many of these voters are the Hillary voters who are unsure about voting for Obama, we really don't know.

Otherwise, good piece.  I don't necessarily agree with everything, but still good.

[opebo]

Demographically, Palin's appeal was always going to be with married women and independent males (generally).  As to how many of these voters are the Hillary voters who are unsure about voting for Obama, we really don't know.

No, this pick was firstly made to energize the GOP base - the religious extremists.  Haven't you noticed jmfcst jumping up and down on the board for the last week?  While it is true she might appeal to a few of those in the groups you mentioned, by far the greater elecoral benefit will be in GOTV of these extremists.

[J. J.]

Well, I obviously don't agree with the the assessment of the "Sweet Sarah Palin" defense. 

It has rallied the base.  I think it might end up swinging some undecided voters.

The ultimate problem is how Obama has defined himself: 

Community organizer, state senator, US senator.

Palin has defined herself as:

Wife and mother of five, mayor, governor.

Wife and mother of five trumps community organizer.  The other two are administrative/executive experience versus legislative.

As soon as there some focusing on Palin's background, this comparison gets made.  The attacks, so far, have been of this nature.

[Person Man]

I found the fact that he thought it was ironic that polarization occured despites claims of unity and bipartisanship. I don't think that people think that talking about "bi-partisanship" means a willingness to work with opponents. What I think most people think it means and what I think the politicians think when the word "bipartisanship" comes up is the idea that one party simply has more access to the common good than the other and therefore the other party is about special interests, selfish, non/un-american and illegitimate. Therefore, I think the REAL irony is not what has happened despite the campaigns' rhetorics, but rather what the real rhetoric actually means.

[JohnFKennedy]

Demographically, who do you think are the Hillary supporters who are against Obama? My assessment on that point is a bit generalised as it is based mainly on those who've been covered by the media here.

I think that if the Obama campaign could spin 'community organizer' more effectively then it could be a major help, particularly against claims that Obama is out of touch, but from what I've seen, they haven't really utilised it properly. I think he needs to balance his speeches with actually meeting people and talking to them personally and then I think it becomes easier to bring in, because he can draw on relevant experiences in discussions of issues he had to deal with.

I also wonder how the wife and mother of five self-definition will play out through the electoral cycle; in one way it opens her up to attacks on her family, because that is the image she is focusing on, but if those attacks - and I doubt they will come directly from the Obama campaign - are not well executed then they will backfire massively. It's a tightrope walking act and it is the only way I really see the 'sweet Sarah Palin' defence really becoming effective.

I agree that politicians view bipartisanship in that respect, but I think the rhetoric is meant to appeal to the public partly as an appearance of transcending traditional partisan politics. I also think this polarisation has more to it than that. For me, the greatest problem there is really the question of 'what is America?'. In some ways I think it is great that America can be all things to all people, but it definitely has problems for national unity. I think this is really true of most modern nations, but I see it as being particularly pertinent to America because patriotism/nationalism is so prominent in the USA. It seems that right now, what is needed to bring broad agreement within the country is a sort of Saidian 'Other' to define America against. It's an interesting topic, particularly when the respective past of many nations is considered; there is an old saying that nations do not name themselves, but the USA seeems an exception to the rule.