In politics addition often can best be obtained by subtraction. By this yardstick the best news in the marathon race to be the next US President was the demise of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy. Of all the aspirants running on the Republican side Giuliani was by far the the most dangerous threat to our already fragile democratic institutions. He is a dictator by nature, the closest to Dick Cheney in his willingness to circumvent established procedures as a matter of principle and maximize the powers of the President.
The Bush Administration, in addition to its policy failures, has exposed the inherent weakness of the Constitution's separation of powers through its frequent use of signing statements, the aggressive advancement of the "unitary theory" of Executive power, and habitual disregard of congressional oversight of its activities.
But Bush himself is primarily authoritarian as a defensive strategy---he is a control freak because he fears exposure as an Emperor with no clothes and has a need to cover up his authorization of many illegal acts (e.g., wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, sanctioning torture). By contrast, Giuliani is more like Russia's maximum leader, Putin, someone who seeks total power out of ideology, a sense of entitlement and self-righteousness. Moreover, as the New York Times (January 22, 2008,p.1) has documented, Giuliani as Mayor took extraordinary lengths to destroy anyone who had the temerity to criticize, oppose or even annoy him. With the enhanced powers of a President his vengeful propensities could have wreaked far greater damage at home and abroad and be far more difficult to restrain.
McCain, now almost certainly the Republican nominee, unlike Giuliani, appears to have respect for democratic government in theory and practice. McCain's initial advantage as a candidate rests upon the the mainstream media's love of him and its continuing to propagate the false view that he is a maverick with a deep sense of integrity. But McCain has waffled on many issues he embraced in the past---notably campaign finance reform, opposition to the regressive Bush tax cuts, even his previously unequivocal condemnation of waterboarding--- and was obsequious in genuflecting to the social conservatives he castigated in 2000. He is nearly as much an opportunist as Mitt Romney was, but has avoided being perceived as such. (cf. Jonathan Chait, "Maverick vs. Iceman: The Cold Calculations of the Straight Talker" The New Republic (February 27, 2008).
McCain's vaunted integity has also taken a beating of late with the publication in The New York Times (February 21) of a detailed investigation into his questionable relationship with a lobbyist for telecommunicatioins companies seeking help from the Senate Commerce Committee he served on. The story outlined other ethical lapses in which McCain accepted favors from persons whose business interests might be advanced by his senate actions.
McCain's major policy weakness in November should be his unwavering commitment to achieving victory in Iraq. Despite the somewhat illusory military gains in the past months, achieved largely because both the mainstream Sunni insurgents and the Shia both detest Al Qaeda-inspired jihadists, not because they have reconciled their own conflicts, most Americans believe the war was a mistake and want our troops out within a year. If the Sunni-Shia civil war resumes---the Mahdi army and newly-armed Sunni Awakening (supported by us to destroy jihadis but as easily capable of turning their attention elsewhere) go at it---it will be hard to claim progress is being made. There is still, of course, no progress in regard to a political reconciliation and the Kurds, America's only real ally in Iraq, are increasingly at odds with both the Sunni and Shiites.
McCain also has no answers that the general public wants to hear about fighting the economic slump. He can't suddenly become an economic populist without Republicans deserting him. As it is the influential far-right and their media flacks will be hard put to endorse him as a lesser evil to the Democrats.
If the Democrats focus on McCain's flip-flopping, Iraq and the economy they should win. But which Democrat? Obama may be somewhat to the left of Clinton on foreign policy. His advisors have been against the war in Iraq from the outset, while Clinton's initially backed the invasion. In addition, given the long-standing presence of gender and racial stereotyping which Republicans will try to exploit and the mainstream media, acting as stenographers, amplify, Clinton, if elected, might well have to endure pressure to prove her "macho" credentials by unnecessarily brandishing military weapons.
Obama might avoid this as the last time a black man was denigrated for lack of courage on the national stage was just before Jack Johnson destroyed Jim Jeffries, the "Great White Hope", in the ring back in 1910. In short, the death toll in American soldiers and foreign nationals might be significantly less in an Obama Administration.
On the other hand, Obama seems slightly to Clinton's right on domestic policy, especially health care, but I feel he has a greater upside than she does if elected. His policies are probably less set in stone than hers might be and when in the Illinois State Senate he was clearly in the left- of- center wing of that chamber as well as having been a community organizer and civil rights lawyer.
Finally, Clinton, as noted in a perceptive article by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic (February 15, 2008), has perhaps learned too much from the past she and Bill shared when he was Governor of Arkansas and President. Chait argues that their liberal policies put them at odds with Arkansas' conservative political culture and Clinton was voted out of office after one term. They came to believe that center-right incrementalism was the only way to survive. It worked in Arkanasas, as Bill eventually won a second term.
As President, Clinton initially veered somewhat leftward, but when militant right-wing opposition materialized, he not only retreated on gays in the military but made policy self-censorship into a strategy he believed vital for his political survival---triangulation. Despite great communicative skills he only spoke out dramatically for ----NAFTA.
Polling has long shown that a majority of Americans are willing to pay higher taxes for universal health care, want government to curb corporate power and protect the environment. But Clinton was afraid to push boldly with, for example, "fireside chats" for these priorities. President Bush, by contrast is willing to use even powers he doesn't have to achieve his goals, and these rarely have had public support.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton is tougher than her husband was and perhaps more committed to social change, but her Senate record and attempts to play it safe on many issues---especially Iraq---suggest otherwise. To be fair, once in power, she might be more inclined to flex her muscles in behalf of goals no one doubts she passionately believes in.
Obama, although often moderate in subtance, perhaps also for strategic reasons, may be more willing, if elected, to use his oratorical skills and charm to remind the citizenry of what it already believes in and bring them down a path they are already receptive to. He might be more effective by going over the heads of the pols rather than try to run through them if he can mobilize public opinion and thereby intimidate obstructionists in the Congress.
Regarding their chances to win a general election Obama is more acceptable to independents, but Clinton probably has a temperment more suited to the trench warfare needed to defeat the swift-boating to come. The Clinton operatives do know how to be aggressive in winning elections even if they forget these lessons once in office when it becomes time to govern. The important question of whether a "hidden" anti-black or anti-woman vote will offset the expected leaps in voting by these two groups is unknown, but one can expect Republicans to remind voters in subtle ways that they are the party of and for white men.
Of course, McCain might eschew this sort of campaign, but he's already compromised on so many other issues to woo the right surely he can rationalize one more departure from his "principled" self. Even if he can't, the right-wing financiers of swift-boaters, with or without his permission or support, will try to take the Democratic nominee down by any means necessary. There is a chance,however, those who bankroll these operations might be so anti-McCain that they would prefer losing this time to having the nature of the Republican Party be altered, perhaps indefinitely, in a more moderate direction.
Another factor that may operate if McCain is the Republican nominee is the mass media's clear preference for Obama's personal style over Clinton's. McCain's informality will be contrasted to Hillary's stiffness and as we know from 2000 Gore's remoteness made reporters warm to Bush and never look at their respective qualifications, views and records too carefully. This unquestionably played a role in Gore's defeat as reporters were quick to seize on any Gore misstep and ignore Bush's. Once a narrative ( e.g., opportunist, dumb, straight-talker) has been created for a candidate the media rarely re-examines it.
My suggestion is that whichever Democrat wins the nomination choose Virginia Senator Jim Webb as a running mate. Although Vice-Presidential candidates normally have a marginal impact on the race---two percent at best---Webb has several major assets:
---A distinguished military background. Webb, a platoon leader and commander in the Marines, was wounded in Vietnam. He became an Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration. His background and strong anti-Iraq war sentiments can be invaluable in neutralizing McCain.
--- Webb is sensitive to working class economic grievances.
--- He can be a pit bull as in his confrontation with Bush when the latter asked him about his son in Iraq and Webb said that was a private matter he felt no need to reduce to small talk with the person whose Iraq policy Webb detested. VP candidates are often asked to be the "tough cop" and rough up the opposition in a manner that would turn off voters if the presidential candidate followed suit. Webb will relish the role.
---Even if geographical ticket-balancing is no longer important, demography matters. Both Clinton and Obama will struggle to win enough white male voters and Webb has the macho swagger (and substance) to perhaps undercut the sexist and racist inclinations that might deter such voters from considering either candidate.
Postscript: May 9, 2008
Much has happened in the campaign warfare between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama since my original post. Obama has apparently defeated Clinton and Clinton has increasingly discredited herself among Democrats by adopting racist and jingoistic appeals along with a disresepect for Party rules she previously agreed to. Besides damaging Obama for the general election without benefiting herself Clinton's reckless ambition has probably destroyed her chances for a second run for the White House should Obama lose in November. Party activists and fundraisers will not forget her disgraceful behavior and should she seek re-election to the Senate or the position of Senate majority leader she probably will face significant opposition. She is well on her way to becoming Joe Lieberman in drag---a pariah.
Recent Comments