On a personal level, it has been very disheartening for Harrogate, this election season. To have diverged so broadly, and at times so angrily, from people one holds dear is not the end of the world, of course, as nobody wants to dwell in a social echo chamber. But when people on all sides share an awareness of high stakes, the divergences can be particularly painful and wearisome.
Harrogate realizes that his posts hitherto have been much less consistent than others on this Board, and to the Innocent Reader, much more difficult to translate into an actual position. After this hopefully once and for all clarifying post, and any discussion that it may yeild in thread, Harrogate will resume his long break from the anger and sadness that comes with contemplating this debacle.
All along it has felt to Harrogate, as it surely must have to numerous others, like it must feel to watch a sequence of seemingly unrelated events that you know are leading to a fatal automobile accident, but are powerless to alter in any way.
The Democrats stood the ruthlessly best chance of winning this time around by running a "mirror campaign." This would have first meant doing the easy work of showing that Bush is nothing unique, but merely reflective of the GOP write large. Again, very easy to do.
The mirror campaign of course needed to be supplemented by speaking the modest truth that the Democratic candidate offered something better on the economic, social, and foreign fronts. Period. There was no need to shoot for the rhetorical stars, as it were, to be a superstar, to stage faintings, to elicit poetry along the order of "rise, Hillary!" Indeed such flair, being the opposite of mirroring, is counterproductive as it draws attention away from what the GOP will continue to do should it retain power.
So with these premises, Harrogate was disgusted by Hillary and Barack's economic cornering of the Primary from its earliest stages. Two highly gravitational personalities. Very polarizing. Each poised to enter the General encumbered with vast unshakable baggage. But what was more frustrating to Harrogate was the extent to which individuals throughout the country bought into it all.
Early on it was not about endgame. It was about Identity politics plain and simple. Inane questions like what is more prevalent, racism or sexism, became foundational to the Primary. The Clintons, if you take the punditocracy at their word, are responsible for the racism and Islamophobia Barack struggles against. And Barack's supporters, by the same token, appear to have invented sexism and single-handedly caused half of the electorate to remember that they hated Hillary Clinton all along.
How sad it has come to pass. Since it is Obama who gets the nod, we replace the focus on endgame with academic and journalistic pontifications about race and Islamophobia.
Let it be received however it is going to be received. Harrogate has been convinced from the beginning, and is still convinced, that if what the Democrats were really interested in was actually winning the election, they would have nominated a candidate high-profile enough that people would take seriously, but low-profile enough that the mirror effect could have established.
For many, to be sure, "endgame" was never the issue. Many who have submerged themselves whole-hog into this primary apparently do not believe that a GOP win would, after all, be so bad. What apparently was wanted, if you combine both sides of this polarized contingent, was an "historic" race with new faces and (SEEMINGLY) new ideas. Yea, as though either Soaring Rhetoric or Efficient Pragmatism were new to the American enterprise.
Well, what was wanted, was gotten. Now, nobody has any right to complain or act surprised at the vitriol that Obama will face at every turn, from now through November.
In the face of this, if McCain loses it will be a testament to the public's surprising awareness of the sheer horribleness of the National Republican Party. Which Harrogate does not discount. But 'tis a sad depository for our hopes.
6 comments:
Here are a few comments for you to think about to lighten your mood. If your thesis is that the Democrats erred in these primaries because they have not focused on the "endgame," then I would ask you to consider the following:
First, the purpose of the primary is not the end game of winning in November. The messages, audiences, and type of campaign is entirely different. Further, the primaries tend to bring out the party activists. This year seems different because of the increased number of voters, which provides a good sign for November. Look at Indiana, more people voted for Obama and Clinton in the primary than voted for Kerry in the general. This is significant because usually the primary only attracts 25% of the normal voters.
Second, because the Democratic candidates have similar policies, there is no way to distinguish between the two except to discuss "personality issues." Some of these personality issues are important, such as competence, judgment, and trustworthiness. Others, such as prior associations not as much, though though could fall under judgment. But to open this door will not help.
The media does not help this as the 24 hour news cycle needs to be fed. Blogs, which never were to be impartial, do not help.
Third, the development of identity politics results from a lack of differences over policy and because of the culture of “identity politics.” The acceptance and focus of identity politics at the university level would mean the eventual acceptance of it into society. There may not be an escape to this though if a Democrat wins we may be able to move beyond it. And I will not address your comments on race and islamiphobia.
Fourth, to understand this primary, it would be best to ignore 2004 and look to at least 2000 or maybe 1992 when there were major differences and a visible fight between candidates. In 2004, Dean flamed, Edwards couldn’t win, and Kerry sucked. However, in 2000, there was a major fight between Gore and Bradley. These fights can be common but it does not mean they are deadly. If they go to the convention, they can kill a party though.
Fifth, having a Super Star candidate is important. Democrats, if they are to survive, need to develop a new generation of supporters. Kerry could not do this and failed. Gore could not do this. Neither possessed the political skills but both fulfill your criteria of needing no one to shoot for the rhetorical stars but display the differences between the candidates.
Fifth, exacerbating this problem is the Clinton legacy, which serves as the ghost in the machine. Up until Senator Obama, there was not a democratic politician that could challenge that legacy. And, by judging the actions of the Super Delegates, there was a need to challenge that legacy. For example, Rep. Pelosi is not a big fan of the Clintons because of their scandals in the 1990s and because of the Clintons' policies toward China. Her unofficial support of Obama underscores Obama's strengths and the need to move beyond the Clintons. Hopefully, there will be more on this soon as the soul of the Democratic Party is at stake.
Finally, once you have a nominee, you can begin the endgame. You cannot do this before hand. This is a long process and we have not hit halftime.
Good, lots to chew on. Taste-em-good-em.
Your poit about the primary being a different Rhetorical Situation than the General is well-taken. At times Harrogate has comforted himself with this thought. Perhaps it soothes him a bit, this evening.
The claim that the Dems need a superstar, though, Harrogate vigorously rejects for reasons stated in the post.
The mirror effect was not something Gore could try, since the public had been lulled into thinking the worst that could happen was a President getting a blowjob.
Kerry, tried to use mirror effect, and failed.
Which brings up something Harrogate forgot to mention. In addition to being not too high profile, and not too low profile. In addition to holding up the mirror. We would be best served by someone who could also run a competent campaign. Which doesn;t seem like it would be too much to ask.
Kerry's campaign was pretty bad, man.
Harrogate will still be wrestling with the other things you have written, long after this post gets buried by newer, fresher posts.
And now, back to the purgatory otherwise known as the NBA playoffs.....
Morning in the east...and I cannot stress enough how a primary is different than the general.
I would add to your comments, that Senator Obama ran more than a competent campaign in the primary. The efforts by his team is nothing short of brilliant for a few reasons.
First, in November, we was down by twenty to thirty posts nationally. His campaign looked like a mistake. However, he as able to turn his efforts around in Iowa, especially with a few mistakes there by both Bill and Hillary. His speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner propelled his campaign and presented a surprising blow to the Clintons.
Second, Obama's campaign knows kairos. He knows the mood of his audience and how to reach them at the precise time it is necessary. Mpst campaign suffer through this as it took the CLinton campaign until the March states to find a message and audience where it would resonate (her populism would not have worked before this, just ask Edwards.)
Third, Obama's campaign knew how to target delegates. It put its resources into districts where he would have an advantage and where he could run up the score because of the proportional representation. The Clinton campaign sought to win on February 5th and did not compete through February. This would be a fatal blow.
Fourth, the Clinton campaign relied on its institutional strength and name recognition in the big states, much to its detriment. This advantage saved her in the close states and helped her in others, maybe by adding 5% of the popular vote to her totals, especially in the early states. An ex-president is campaigning for her in a partisan manner, which is unprecedented. And for someone to beat them is nothing short of remarkable, even if they have a tarnished legacy.
While Obama campaign's has made some serious mistakes (which campaign has not?) Wright was bad, as was bitter and bowling; West Virginia reflects an Obama choice to not campaign and an audience Obama may not be able to reach. He will get these types of audiences in other "blue collar" states but maybe not this one. But he can compete elsewhere. Fine, he can't win the five electoral votes in West Virginia but he can win the seven in Iowa.
He will need to do better in the general election but he can put more states in play and reorganize the map. If democrats can win three special elections in solid red districts, there is a good chance people will listen to a New, New Democrat.
To add to Solon's comments, I would say that at some point you have to move on, Harrogate. Forgive me for quoting you to you, but the primaries are what they are. We can't change what has happened. While your points are valid and I agree that this election should be about the past 8 years and not a personality contest, that is not what has happened. But that is not to say that some good can't come out of this. But there is little purpose in lamenting what never was--I mean other than reminding us all that you predicted this from the beginning. Get over it and get geared up for the general election.
I would argue that the Democratic Primary is not about the last eight years. Most of the Democrats already agree that those eight years were bad. If there were people who disagreed, they are not democrats...
The General Election is where the Democratic Nominee and the Democratic Party need to make the case that the last eight years were bad. And this is what is occurring now that Obama has turned his attention to the Fall with stops in Missouri on Tuesday and Michigan on Wednesday.
But you cannot make that case until the primary is over. Hence....
I would add one more point about the mirror campaign. Remember, this campaign began with 10+ candidates back in December of 2006. Edwards announced in December of 06; Obama in January of 07; Clinton in February of 07. I don't care when the rest announced. But the mirror arguments started earlier, leaving the major candidates time to make arguments on their behalf against their Democratic rivals. The people listened to those arguments and narrowed the field. From there the candidates needed to differentiate themselves but could not do so on the mirror argument because they all (candidates, audiences) agreed the Republicans were bad.
Post a Comment