There are people--millions of them, probably--still shaking their heads over the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Sure, all of his failures weren't as painfully obvious as they are today, but still, the majority of Americans could see the guy really wasn't up to the job, right?
Right.
OK. So how, then, did he wind up loitering in the West Wing for another four years?
The answer, I think, is understanding the nature of modern elections in the Era of Rove. It isn't about issues--the Democrats actually had the advantage there according to the responses to polling in both 2000 and 2004. (Of course, Gore actually did win in 2000, both in the popular and electoral votes, but the point is it never should have been that close). It can't be about 'war heroes'--both Gore and Kerry shutout Bush on that score. Experience? No one seriously believed Bush's part-time job as Governor of planet Texas came close to the Vice Presidency of Gore or the long-time Senatorship of Kerry.
Observers who say the mad genius of Rove is simply attacking an opponent's strength are close to the truth, but it's a little more nuanced than that. You can't attack a strength that's indisputable--for example, if some woman will cast her vote just because Palin is also a woman, you can't very well argue Palin's a man. The point of attack isn't just 'strength'--it's authenticity.
That's really the watchword of our time--who, and what, is 'authentic'? Al Gore is incredibly smart, and not just on environmental issues. Smarter than almost anyone...and obviously, smarter than Bush. But if you can raise suspicions about a rival's authenticity, then strengths can be discounted and almost anything can be believed. 'Gore says he invented the Internet'--wasn't true. 'Gore claims he was the role model for Love Story'--wasn't true. Gore 'is obsessing over changing his wardrobe to earth tones'. Yeah...that was probably top of mind. The point was to paint Gore, no matter what his obvious talents and advantages, as a liar...a bragger...a dandy--someone who wasn't authentic, even to himself.
Of course, half a million more Americans still voted for him, but that didn't prevent Rove from making it close enough so it was thrown to the Supreme Court and the East German judges, or whomever it was that overturned the will of the people.
By the time Kerry stood to run, he was already road kill. Same tactic. The guy's a certified war hero? Nope--'he threw his medals overboard. He's a faux hero'. No matter that this, also, wasn't true...it gave doubters a reason to turn their backs.
But what did they turn toward? Well...in a word...authenticity. George W. Bush was the landslide winner as 'guy you'd like to have a beer with'. The screwup. The dropout. The maybe-deserter. He may have been flawed...even fatally flawed...but at least he was an authentic loser. He seemed true to himself...even if he was eventually proven not to be telling the truth.
If you doubt the power of authenticity, you need look no further than Sarah Palin. Whatever her flaws...whatever issues she embraces that you may oppose...whatever failings she may have exhibited as a wife or Mother (after all, someone wasn't around to monitor the after school entertainment of young miss Bristol)--it all could matter less. If she can only maintain the narrative that she's just got the same challenges and frustrations as any family, then she's a powerful engine for the McCain ticket, one that could power it to victory.
And there's one more important benefit to this strategy. The 'just like me' positioning of C students like Bush and Palin opens the opportunity to push the bias against 'elitists'. The 'best and the brightest' are seen as lacking--they're just too smart. (As Jon Stewart said, 'don't you want someone who's elite in that job?'). This is the argument against Obama. He may be better than you and me...but he's not like you and me. He wouldn't hang with our kind...he's not like our kind...so how could he be authentic in a way that we can relate to? Don't trust him.
All this leads to a sensible strategy for the Obama camp in the remaining weeks of the campaign, and particularly during the debates. They have choices. What they might do--mistakenly--is take the entire concept of 'attack' off the table. Or they may decide to attack the wrong things. Like positions on issues. Or qualifications: if someone contends that Governor trumps Senator, you're not going to convince them otherwise. Or arguments that simply can't be decided, like one's devotion to country, or the degree of care and devotion intended for a Down syndrome infant.
What's open for Obama...almost ridiculously so...is attacking the authenticity of both McCain and Palin.
McCain needs to answer this: "you've voted with Bush more than 90% of the time, including his measures to gift more tax breaks to the oil companies...to deny adequate benefits to war veterans like yourself...to support forms of torture you once said you opposed. Your campaign is run by the same lobbyists you promise to banish. How does this record support your contention of 'change'?"
Palin needs to answer this: "In your brief tenure in the public eye, you've already been proven a liar about things as serious as opposing the 'bridge to nowhere', and as inconsequential as firing the Alaska state chef, or selling the governor's jet on eBay. What aspects of lying do you believe will be beneficial to you and the American public as Vice President--or even President?"
What Rove intends is to shelter his clients from attacks on their authenticity, while again attacking frontally with the same weapon. It's up to the people who populate the media, and particularly the panels on the debates, to make sure these posers face the same sword they wield against their opponents.
But asking those media people to be 'authentic' journalists...speaking truth to power...is not their strong suit.
Obama must attack...but only authenticity.
No comments:
Post a Comment