Uhh… so now McCain was a maverick before he picked Palin, but beforehand he was “John McSame” (see: https://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/08/28/mccain-off-balance-and-dangerous/ ) before you knew he was going to pick Palin a few days ago.

What on earth do you/did you actually believe about McCain? Do you have any independent stable opinions of your own or do you just recycle what the left seem to think are convenient attack points from one moment to the next?

He was a ‘maverick’ before he started electioneering. His last year voting record was identical to Bush and had been steadily aligning itself with the party. I believe he is a doshonest politician who himself will change any of his stances to win the election. I’ve been consistent in that all along.

So when you said “An election that was going to be conducted by two mavericks willing to cross the party divide”, the tone was: “An election that was going to be conducted by two ‘mavericks’ willing to cross the party divide”.

Doesn’t that make a bit of a difference? 🙂

sorry Nick, do you have anything substantial to discuss? You can infer whatever tone you want. My point was, they were both lauded for being willing to cross the party line to pass necessary legislation. That bipartisanship has clearly fallen apart. I thought that point would be obvious by now. Clearly not.

“If the US Democrats or lefties in Britain could master the art of fighting on social issues, and making their language appeal to a mass audience, then they could win elections much more easily.”

Social issues is quite broad. What kinds of issues do you mean, specifically? Why do you assume failure to make political capital on them is down to a failure of language, tactics and courage from the left on both countries – or rather, why are you so sure public opinion is on your side?

There was some news that Obama’s team was quietly running ads hitting Palin on her abortion stance, but I can’t find it any more. I think that is effective politics. Let’s stop running away from the culture wars – let’s instead ways to fight them better.

I think this is the story Sunny’s referring to.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13103.html

Lauded for sure – but not by you. In which case, it seems you don’t actually believe your own written words. Not necessarily a substantive point but interesting nonetheless.

‘Culture War’ makes for a more dramatic picture of what is going on than the reality, but because it dramatises the politics so well it distracts from the very real debates that are going on.

Obama would be a fool to engage in such forms of polarising hyperbole and it would show him to be half the politician he has so far demonstrated himself to be.

If he thinks he can win on the issues then he should stick to the issues. He recognises that the hot topics such as gun-ownership play differently in the wilderness of the big country and in the ghettos, and that protecting gun-ownership rights does not mean giving an AK47 to every crack dealer.

The real choice in this election has become clear during the conventions. On the one hand failed/coopted Clintonesque bi-partisan moderatism is the continuity option promoted by McCain/Palin, whereas on the other side Obama is presenting an evolved form of Clintonesque liberal decentrism.

It will be interesting to see how the two Clinton’s are able to resolve the intellectual tensions between them and bring voters together to support the Democratic ticket or whether they finally split and alienate both sides of their coalition now that only their reputations and futures are at stake and not their careers and livelihoods, but they still look strong and together they are far more appealing and coherent that any amount of Lieberman swill.

This election is about clean liberal truth versus dirty bi-partisanship and corrupt deal-making.

Now, who wins the battles and who wins the war?

Of course the Republicans want to start up the culture wars. It stops them from having to talk about issues like the economy, health care, and many other pocket book issues. The Right has used the social agenda to great effect over the last 30 years. There is a great book, ‘what’s the matter with Kansas’ that outlines the way the Right gets people to vote against their own economic interests, by voting on so called value issues.

Abortion, gay marriage, morality, Character are all used as hot button issues to create an image of the Republicans as decent, family, hard working little guys… against the nasty elites of the Liberals. They play this game better than anybody else. Hence in 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry, were portrayed as part of the wealthy liberal elite, who were not patriotic. The reality of course, was that Bush was born into one of the most influential, and richest families in America, and who had spent most of his life as a bum, screwing up everything he touched. Almost every deal he ever did had to be baled out by his fathers business friends. He, like Cheney got out of fighting in the Vietnam war, like many other leading Republicans. But that cut no ice in the red states where he was seen as the guy Americans wanted to have a beer with. And Kerry the war hero was seen as unpatriotic liberal.

what the Republicans are going to do for the next 2 months is run two different campaigns. Palin will be sent out to rally the base with a message of ‘no change,’ lots more religious fundi nonsense. While McCain will be out in the swing states running on the message of ‘lots of change.’

In a normal well educated country this plan will fall flat on it’s feet. But will the media point out this hypocrisy? If the last 2 election are anything to go bye, no.

How can Obama fight the culture war when his whole brand is built on moving beyond old politics like that?

And in that sense, Leon, does he even have to fight it. Being the person that stands above it all as understanding of both sides and trying to offer reconciliation would surely be the best straetgy if he could pull it off (even if he doesn’t intend to reconcile anything).

“Palin will be sent out to rally the base with a message of ‘no change,’ lots more religious fundi nonsense.”

This is interesting, because in reality she will be going out with a change message…all of them are after all. The reason why it is effective is the same reason people over here believe that knife crime is a bigger problem than it is…people can sit there with their own perspectives and allow themselves to get easily convinced the world isn’t sitting in accordance with their world views. Even if the US is largely fundamentalist (I’m not saying it is), the fundamentalists will still find ways to believe the country is “going to the dogs” and be looking for that change message. In a way, Palin could have the easiest job in the world with this campaign.

@Sally,

I haven’t read the Thomas Frank book, but I’ve read a lot of the discussion surrounding it and agree with the general premise. I think the crucial distinction to make, though, is that it’s not necessarily the case that these voters have been fooled, false consciousness style, into voting for ‘values’ Republicans against Democrats who campaign on their (arguably more pressing) economic concerns, but that they’ve lost their faith in government to actually address those concerns.

Such is the state of partisan gridlock, neither this nor the last ‘do nothing Congress’ has been able to get much passed of any substance, and Congress’ approval rating is even lower than that of George W. Bush. I think there’s a general resignation that Washington can’t or won’t deliver solutions, and so they vote for someone who stands for faith, traditional values & the 2nd amendment, because that way they’ll at least elect someone who seems a bit like them.

Well, that’s one theory, anyway. Personally, I think the mid-terms in 06 saw this trend beginning to change and, ever the optimist, I think it’ll be rejected in November….

…though now I’ve probably just gone & jinxed it.

How can Obama fight the culture war when his whole brand is built on moving beyond old politics like that?

By trying to do exactly what he promised. A win in the ‘culture war’ doesn’t mean that Obama’s campaign has to be the liberal/progressive alter-ego of Bush/Rove; it’s about reducing the importance of those cultural issues as a reason to vote for someone to be President.

Neil “Such is the state of partisan gridlock, neither this nor the last ‘do nothing Congress’ has been able to get much passed of any substance, and Congress’ approval rating is even lower than that of George W. Bush”

I think you have to be careful with this. The Congress, does as you say have worse opinion ratings than Bush, but that is because many people thought that Congress was going to stand up to Bush after 20006. Instead, the Dems have shied away from taking on Bush. The war in Iraq has continued, Pelosi took Impeachment off the table, and the Dems have also capitulated on the immunity given to telecoms after they illegally spied on the American public. Time and time again the Dems have backed down. This is partly why many people think they don’t stand for anything.

The truth is that the Dems of the last 30 years have become complaisant and have sat back . Thinking that FDR’s new deal, and the civil rights movement of the 60’s had given them endless power. Remember, that 2002 was the first time the Republicans had controlled The White House, Congress, and The Senate at the same time for decades. In fact, I think about 60 years. Joe Lieberman is a very good example of what the Dems have become. FDR, or Harry Truman would have no problems fighting the current Republicans because they would understand what the modern Republicans stand for. Too many Dems have forgotten, or never experienced the 1920 Republicans. They still think they are dealing with Eisenhower Republicans of the 1950’s, where bi partisan politics was something to be encouraged. Eisenhower would have been seen as way to liberal to be a Republican today.

Others say Obama should ignore her and focus on McCain.

Of course he should. What is the point of attacking the presidentil candidates choice for VP? You might as well attack his choice of hair stylist.

If i was Obama I’d run an ad about science policy in schools. It’d start off with some shots of Chinese schools and universities, and have some statistics about the number of chinese scientists and how China’s economy is growing.

Then I’d say something about how science and the high-tech sector contribute to the US economy. With appropraite pictures of e.g. vaccines (some something biology-related), 747s, computers., etc.

Then I’d say “Obama wants Americans kids to be taught science in science lessons, while Palin thinks they should waste their time being taught creationism instead. They don’t teach creationism in Chinese schools”

I’d finish with something like “America needs a strong science base to remain number one in the 21st century”. Or maybe “do you want your grandchildren speaking English or Chinese”.

Racism is definitely the best policy for winning votes, Cabalamat, that’s for sure.

@18

Please explain to me how it is racist for someone to want their country to do well in comparison with other countries.

No I think Cabalmat is right. THAT is an example of fighting a culture war, saying you want to do well for your country while simultaneously trashing your opponent’s views. And that too creationism.

I’d enjoy an advert like that, as would most contributors to this site. Unfortunately, with around 50% of Americans believing in creatoin, it would be suicide for Obama.

Perhaps the message in the Democat camp should just be “Don’t Panic.” Latest electoral college projections, post Palin making The Greatest Speech In History Ever, show Obama actually stretching his lead. He’s even gone ahead in North Dakota (traditionally Republican, sparsely populated, very cold…) His best move might be to fly to Alaska and have a quick pop at her on her home turf. That line of hers to a Republican Convention about people “who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars” was quite revealing. I’d also start asking which side she was on when McCain took on the religious right in 2000.

Drat. I’ll bet most of them can spell creation too.

“I’d finish with something like “America needs a strong science base to remain number one in the 21st century”. Or maybe “do you want your grandchildren speaking English or Chinese”.”

Sorry, I thought you were joking when you said that you’d think that a message of “do you want your grandchildren speaking English or Chinese” would be a good image to present. Perhaps there would also be images of small, sharp toothed, Chinese academic ninjas killing pregnant american mothers too? 😛

I totally get and agree with your argument in how effective it can be, I just thought it was funny that you’d consider the last line at all. It’s got too many conotations for me with those people that say “if it wasn’t for us (the US) you’d all be speaking german by now”, it kind of paints China not as a growing economy but as some kind of fascist superpower that wants to subversively destroy society as we know it.

Sunny – I think you have got this one wrong, and I agree with several of the points made by Sally, Neil and others.

The Democrats want this election to be about the Bush record, the state of the economy, and the lack of substantive change from McCain on the economy or from Bush. The Palin selection was an attempt to change the subject, back to the culture wars, reconnect McCain to the Republican base, and try to create a problem for Obama with some groups of blue collar and women voters.

The Democrats should stick with the election they want to fight.

The first reason is tactical: they might squeeze a victory by re-running the 2004 and 2000 election and hoping for a different result at the margin. But the party keenest to re-run the 2004 election remains the Republicans: denying that McCain is Bush, yet using Palin to repolarise anyway. (And Palin is not – after another week or so – and a flurry around the Veep debate, going to dominate this election. This strikes me as a good example of the goldfish bowl 24/7 media and blog culture. Yes, its a deliberately interesting V-P pick. But does it really change all of the rules about how much who the V-P will be will affect voters on November 2nd??)

The much bigger reason for Obama is that he must run on his own argument. The 2004 Convention speech set out his argument about the red/blue state 50-50 nation politics. He has to run on that. (The charge against McCain is that he couldn’t change

The most interesting thing about Obama is that he believes he can transcend this without conceding his own principled position. He manages to combine being clearly rooted in his own progressive (whisper it, liberal) argument about the positive and proective role of government, with a tone and style of campaigning which is respectful towards those who disagree with him.

One concern which I felt early on about Obama (the 2004 speech, the early ‘change’ campaign) was whether this was excessively anti-politics, or triangulation. The best piece I read about that was Mark Schmitt’s American Prospect analysis, just before the primaries began about the Obama Theory of Change (compared to that of Edwards and Clinton), particularly in the context of the US political system.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary

Reading Obama’s own memoir seemed to confirm that analysis for me. To react to the Republicans going back to the culture wars by shouting “bring it on” would be to retreat from what he stands for, and has told people he stands for.

I left a half-sentence hanging …

(The argument against McCain is that he couldn’t change his party so he changed himself)

Since been pointed out to me that North Dakota poll was actually taken before the Republican convention, for which I apologise. I still say don’t panic. If the Republicans are behind in a hardcore moose-hunting state, where even the hapless Bob Dole managed a win, it suggests Palin was drafted in to stave off humiliation in the heartland rather than push for overall victory. If McCain’s ahead in Pennsylvania by the end of next week, then I’ll panic.

This all depends on what one means by culture wars. If you mean standing up for the rights of women and gays and opposing the teaching of fundementalism in public schools then it is a just cause and will therefore succeed ultimately. However if it means supporting unelected judges as they try to ban guns and the death penalty without the support of the electorate, then that will lose and deserves to.

@23 Lee Griffin

It’s got too many conotations for me with those people that say “if it wasn’t for us (the US) you’d all be speaking german by now”

It would be more accurate to say if it wasn’t for Russia we (and the USA) would be speaking German now.

it kind of paints China not as a growing economy but as some kind of fascist superpower that wants to subversively destroy society as we know it.

China wants to be a superpower, certainly. And they would only need 1/4 of the GDP per head of the USA to have a larger economy than that country. Are they fascist? Not in anything like a literal sense — fascism was an early 20th century European phenomenon.

China is a rising power and it will certainly want to change the way the world is run so that it’s more congenial to China (all countries do that sort of thing). So the world of the mid 21st century will be one where Western vlaues are not anywhere near as dominant as they have been.

Another effective strategy for Obama would be to point out the record of Democrat and Republican presidencies

“Want a job? Vote Democrat. Want to lose your job? Vote Republican.”

“It would be more accurate to say if it wasn’t for Russia we (and the USA) would be speaking German now.”

My point wasn’t really about the reality of the outcome of the war, I was talking very much from the perspective of examples where I have heard Americans say what I put in quotation marks. I.E that such language is confrontational towards other nations, certainly arguably racist/xenophobic, because it paints another nation as enemies that must be opposed and wary of.

Again, to reference your second paragraph..I’m not trying to have a debate with you over the merits of China here, just to say that I would be hugely surprised if any candidate (other than perhaps a republican at a push) put an ad out that said “vote for me, or you’ll be speaking chinese” as it’s a xenophobic (maybe not racist) statement.

@30 lee griffin: I would be hugely surprised if any candidate (other than perhaps a republican at a push) put an ad out that said “vote for me, or you’ll be speaking chinese” as it’s a xenophobic statement.

They might not phrase it like that, but I bet it would have resonance with many voters if they did.

Shocking! I find Sunder’s reasoning compelling!

The swing always comes among the non-partisan voters, the unaffiliated and the registered independents.

So do you corral them by appealing to their intelligence and highest aspirations or do you try to scare them off your opponent by stimulating the emotive power of fear? Well, that depends whather you seem them as an amorphous bloc of indecisive centrists or as a wide range of individuals with individual concerns and needs.

Sunder Katwala @ 24,

When I’m feeling down, I think that the opposite of what you said here is, in fact, the totality of modern politics:

And Palin is not – after another week or so – and a flurry around the Veep debate, going to dominate this election. This strikes me as a good example of the goldfish bowl 24/7 media and blog culture. Yes, its a deliberately interesting V-P pick. But does it really change all of the rules about how much who the V-P will be will affect voters on November 2nd

This election is moving into it’s last two months. It is perfectly clear that Palin consolidates the Republican base:

NRA? – check

State Rights? – check

Oil? – check

Anti-abortion? – check

you know the rest…

The point being that Republicans will consolidate around these core culture war issues. That are embedded, right now, into the Repiblican psyche. The VP choice did that for McCain. It was a clever move, was it not?

Which is to say that Obama must push for a united United States. The point you made later in your post.

Reading Obama’s own memoir seemed to confirm that analysis for me. To react to the Republicans going back to the culture wars by shouting “bring it on” would be to retreat from what he stands for, and has told people he stands for.

I certainly hope so. It has just become a lot more difficult.

Hmmmmm….

I think you make a persuasive case Sunder, though I think I was more influenced by this brilliant analogy on the excellent FiveThirtyEight.com:

In the hockey analogy, Palin wouldn’t get within a thousand miles of an NHL All-Star Game because she’s not a scoring talent. She’s a role player, an emotion-rouser. Emotion messes with the chalkboard-drawn game plan and thus achieves a specific strategic objective. She can make game-changing agitation plays that rouse her home team and provoke the other side into counterattacks that – 100% of the time – end up punishing the team who hits back. Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn’t seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she’s providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait.

But, while I agree that this election will be won if the media cycle comes back to the economy, and that is where the Democrats should focus, I do think that Democrats and progressives everywhere unnecessarily run away from the ‘culture wars’. This is a big Achilles Heel for the Democrats and one they should address.

More on this at your Fabian Fringe 😉

“Democrats and progressives everywhere unnecessarily run away from the ‘culture wars’. This is a big Achilles Heel… and one they should address.”

Nope, no way, absolutely not.

Politicians should never in any way shape or form get into ideological discussions, they should leave that to supporters. I think we know where it gets us.

Politicians should stick to the facts. So when talking about Palin talk about the contrast of her record on pork-cutting and her vote in favour of the ‘bridge to nowhere’, talk about the contrast between her preaching to invade the privacy of personal health decisions while asking the privacy of her own familial decisions to be respected, talk about the quality of her judgement in being able to defend constitutional rights while admitting she didn’t understand the reasoning behind the Iraq troop surge until she heard about it on TV. Can you really depend on a person like that?