No matter what happens on November 4, there is going to be some serious soul-searching in the Republican Party. The party that just four years ago was supremely disciplined and knew exactly what it stood for has shattered.
It would have been tough for any Republican to win in this environment, but what has been most alarming are the once-loyal GOP legions who are abandoning ship in droves.
This week alone you’ve had Bill Weld, Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, Charlie Fried, Ken Adelman, Nicholas Cafardi and many other standard-bearers, along with 22% of people who identify themselves as conservative, announcing they were behind Obama. It’s that 22% number that’s most impressive – the big names might be angling for new jobs, but there’s a groundswell of grassroots support that is astonishing.
So who will be turning out the lights in GOP headquarters? It seems the only ones who are sticking by McCain and Caribou Barbie are the bloviators on talk radio and Fox News. And when you see and hear some of the comments that have been made at some of their rallies, you know that many – surely not all – of these supporters have bought the smear attacks without hesitation. Many of these continue to blame their party’s woes on the usual suspects – the liberal media, academics, abortion supporters – and will continue to do so after the election. To them, the GOP can do no wrong.
But when you look at the names and figures in my second paragraph – not to mention the conservative stalwarts like George Will, Christopher Hitchens, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan, who lost confidence in the Republicans long ago – you realize that the people who once led the party’s ideology have deserted. In its desire to appeal to what appeared to be the new base of evangelicals, Joe Six-Packs and Joe the Plumber, the GOP turned into not only a party that ran on wedge issues, but also one that disdained intellectuals and any shades of gray. Long-held tenets like fiscal responsibility were dropped in favor of love-it-or-leave-it patriotism and partisanship. Anyone who questioned or dissented was labeled a traitor and un-American.
By acting like a bunch of adolescents who think they know everything, anyone who disagreed with the my-way-or-the-highway GOP chose the highway. The immediate GOP reaction on November 5 will probably be a mixture of sour grapes and petulance, but to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, those who felt the Republican Party left them know the truth. When you run on an anti-intellectual platform that boasts of dividing America between real Americans in small towns and lesser Americans in cities and suburbs, expect those in cities and suburbs to leave you. When you urge a new round of McCarthyism to investigate the majority of Americans who may vote for Democrats, you will lose the vote of anybody that has the slightest memory of those dark days, unless they’re someone who is drinking the same Kool-Aid you are. Is it any wonder that Republicans have lost not just the brains of their own party, but also so many college graduates, recent immigrants, doctors and white collar workers that used to be solid GOP voters? For years liberals screamed about class warfare and ridiculed anyone who disagreed with them; it got them nowhere. Now the Republicans are doing the same thing, with similar results.
I was legitimately excited this time last year when Rudy Giuliani and McCain were in the primaries. I thought we would see at least the two of them take a populist, intelligent approach to campaigning. It’s disheartening to not only see McCain unwisely drop his once well-regarded viewpoints for this vapid dogma, but also to hear Giuliani’s robocalls telling people not to vote for Obama because of his lack of support for mandatory prison sentences. If the GOP thinks people are going to base their votes on that issue in this day and age, it could act as the party’s coda. Both of these smart and capable men should be ashamed of themselves for adopting and endorsing these beliefs.
So what’s left is a party that basically shoved much of its former base out the door, abandoned the core principles of Reagan and Goldwater, has no central campaign theme that addresses the current economic situation, and – on top of everything – done a miserable job the last four years. What you reap is what you sow.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Does Negative Campaigning Work?
Sometimes.
Gossip spreads faster than good news. We still remember the warnings our parents and childhood friends told us about hot stoves and creepy people in scary houses. And the ads we remember after the dust clears are the negative ones – the Swift Boat Veterans, the Willie Hortons and the legendary Daisy ad, which only ran twice. Something about human nature means we tend to remember the salacious and the dangerous, and that is why despite the public’s abhorrence of negative ads and campaigning, the tactic can work IF it is done correctly.
With fewer people than ever watching the news or reading papers, negative ads are how most Americans learn about the candidates. I never knew about the tax consequences of McCain’s health care plan until I saw the Obama ad discussing it. And many probably knew nothing about Obama’s distant relationship with terrorist David Ayers until the McCain ad ran. With the media focusing on the horse race and little else, this is one of the few places Americans can get relevant information, albeit strictly filtered by each candidate.
But there’s a difference between a negative ad that does its job and one that voters perceive as mean-spirited and mudslinging. It often boils down to attacking the candidate vs. attacking the candidate’s policy. Most Americans dislike personal attacks on any candidate, and those tend to backfire because they’re not seen as relevant to the issues at hand. But attacking a candidate’s policies will always be fair game. And occasionally these two intertwine – what if Candidate A says taxes are too high, but then Candidate B learns that A has not paid taxes in five years? Here’s a 2004 negative Bush ad that was able to thread the needle between personal and policies.
However, if you are running a long-shot campaign against an opponent that you have almost no chance of beating then it is almost mandatory to go negative. That could be the only way you can draw enough attention to yourself to win. But you still need to walk that fine line between raising legitimate points to issues that resonate with voters, and crossing the line into personal attacks that will turn them off.
With McCain down in the polls, it’s unsurprising that he appears to have gone all negative all the time. It shows that he knows that he’s behind, but it’s how he goes negative that needs to be watched. Will he attack the policies or the candidate? If it’s the latter, it may be the final nail in what has become an increasingly erratic and undisciplined campaign.
More Info: A rare positive ad that worked, and was memorable
Gossip spreads faster than good news. We still remember the warnings our parents and childhood friends told us about hot stoves and creepy people in scary houses. And the ads we remember after the dust clears are the negative ones – the Swift Boat Veterans, the Willie Hortons and the legendary Daisy ad, which only ran twice. Something about human nature means we tend to remember the salacious and the dangerous, and that is why despite the public’s abhorrence of negative ads and campaigning, the tactic can work IF it is done correctly.
With fewer people than ever watching the news or reading papers, negative ads are how most Americans learn about the candidates. I never knew about the tax consequences of McCain’s health care plan until I saw the Obama ad discussing it. And many probably knew nothing about Obama’s distant relationship with terrorist David Ayers until the McCain ad ran. With the media focusing on the horse race and little else, this is one of the few places Americans can get relevant information, albeit strictly filtered by each candidate.
But there’s a difference between a negative ad that does its job and one that voters perceive as mean-spirited and mudslinging. It often boils down to attacking the candidate vs. attacking the candidate’s policy. Most Americans dislike personal attacks on any candidate, and those tend to backfire because they’re not seen as relevant to the issues at hand. But attacking a candidate’s policies will always be fair game. And occasionally these two intertwine – what if Candidate A says taxes are too high, but then Candidate B learns that A has not paid taxes in five years? Here’s a 2004 negative Bush ad that was able to thread the needle between personal and policies.
However, if you are running a long-shot campaign against an opponent that you have almost no chance of beating then it is almost mandatory to go negative. That could be the only way you can draw enough attention to yourself to win. But you still need to walk that fine line between raising legitimate points to issues that resonate with voters, and crossing the line into personal attacks that will turn them off.
With McCain down in the polls, it’s unsurprising that he appears to have gone all negative all the time. It shows that he knows that he’s behind, but it’s how he goes negative that needs to be watched. Will he attack the policies or the candidate? If it’s the latter, it may be the final nail in what has become an increasingly erratic and undisciplined campaign.
More Info: A rare positive ad that worked, and was memorable
Monday, October 06, 2008
Ladies Choice
Today I’m going to venture into dangerous territory…assessing women in politics. It is no secret that women in politics are judged far differently and more harshly than men on their appearance and mannerisms, and much of the harshest criticism often comes from other women. I remember Katharine Harris, Florida’s secretary of state in the 2000 recount, being vilified by women for the color of her lipstick and Hillary Clinton being goofed on by women of both parties for her pantsuit schedule. If a man made any of these comments, he would be correctly vilified as sexist. Women made the bulk of these remarks and guess what? They’re still sexist.
But judging people by appearance is something we all do in our material- and youth-obsessed society, so if you’re running for public office (which has been called “show business for ugly people”) appearance and mannerisms are fair game. The college-educated women I work with remain incredulous at how Sarah Palin, after another vapid debate performance last week, remains popular and draws big crowds. There are numerous reasons for this, but the unfortunate but most realistic answer is that she is attractive – with good hair and a fine sense of style (again, according to the women I work with). There has been far more interoffice discussion on why she doesn’t wear her hair down than on her policies or verbal faux pas.
This morning I read on Andrew Sullivan how part of her appeal may be the “cocktail waitress” aspect. At the debate she winked at me a few times and used the aw-shucks, you’re-darn-tootin’ speak straight out of Fargo. Sullivan wondered if she was trying to flirt with Biden or the audience. I doubt Palin was flirting with anyone, although many women certainly flirt everywhere from work to bars to get what they may want or need. But I do not doubt that the GOP is using her to rally both the base and some wayward and not-too-bright men that see an attractive woman and lose much of their good sense and judgment. I also believe that she is somewhat symbolic of our culture – where looking good and repeating carefully screened, canned answers is more important than answering tough questions.
Maybe many educated and smart women are threatened and fascinated by Palin at the same time. Perhaps she’s as deep as a puddle, but at least she looks good doing what she does. While she comes across as more feminine than, say, Hillary Clinton, does that mean that Hillary Clinton lost because she wasn’t feminine enough? Would Hillary have done better if she ditched the pantsuit for the dresses Palin wears? I don’t know, but remember how appearance is far more important than substance today, and how fast people form opinions on all of us based on how we look.
Hillary tried playing the gender card a little bit and it backfired. The reason it did was because she always came across as an equal to the men she ran against, and that is the right way to do it. Think of all the amazing female politicians we have– from Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condoleeza Rice and Barbara Boxer to pioneers like Margaret Thatcher and Ann Richards. They never cried sexism when they didn’t get their way. They never let their appearance get in the way of their accomplishments or let people judge them by their looks. And I’m sure they never winked during a debate.
But judging people by appearance is something we all do in our material- and youth-obsessed society, so if you’re running for public office (which has been called “show business for ugly people”) appearance and mannerisms are fair game. The college-educated women I work with remain incredulous at how Sarah Palin, after another vapid debate performance last week, remains popular and draws big crowds. There are numerous reasons for this, but the unfortunate but most realistic answer is that she is attractive – with good hair and a fine sense of style (again, according to the women I work with). There has been far more interoffice discussion on why she doesn’t wear her hair down than on her policies or verbal faux pas.
This morning I read on Andrew Sullivan how part of her appeal may be the “cocktail waitress” aspect. At the debate she winked at me a few times and used the aw-shucks, you’re-darn-tootin’ speak straight out of Fargo. Sullivan wondered if she was trying to flirt with Biden or the audience. I doubt Palin was flirting with anyone, although many women certainly flirt everywhere from work to bars to get what they may want or need. But I do not doubt that the GOP is using her to rally both the base and some wayward and not-too-bright men that see an attractive woman and lose much of their good sense and judgment. I also believe that she is somewhat symbolic of our culture – where looking good and repeating carefully screened, canned answers is more important than answering tough questions.
Maybe many educated and smart women are threatened and fascinated by Palin at the same time. Perhaps she’s as deep as a puddle, but at least she looks good doing what she does. While she comes across as more feminine than, say, Hillary Clinton, does that mean that Hillary Clinton lost because she wasn’t feminine enough? Would Hillary have done better if she ditched the pantsuit for the dresses Palin wears? I don’t know, but remember how appearance is far more important than substance today, and how fast people form opinions on all of us based on how we look.
Hillary tried playing the gender card a little bit and it backfired. The reason it did was because she always came across as an equal to the men she ran against, and that is the right way to do it. Think of all the amazing female politicians we have– from Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condoleeza Rice and Barbara Boxer to pioneers like Margaret Thatcher and Ann Richards. They never cried sexism when they didn’t get their way. They never let their appearance get in the way of their accomplishments or let people judge them by their looks. And I’m sure they never winked during a debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)