Sam Smith - The fact that, based on recent polls, Hillary Clinton is in
a statistical tie with the likes of Donald Trump and Ben Carson, is not merely
a reflection of her political problems. It also stems from the collapse of
politics as a empirically based structure – candidates typically reaching the
top because of a history of service to community and/or nation – as well as to
the decades long desertion by the Democratic Party from its own policies,
principles and values.
Television played a major role in this for two reasons. First,
image became more important than a candidate’s actual record and voters’
memories of it. Second, you didn’t need voters or a record to create this
image, only money.
The two first top beneficiaries of this shift were JFK and
Ronald Reagan, but even Kennedy had been a senator for seven years and even
Reagan – among other things an image for Chesterfield cigarettes - had also been a governor.
In fact, to this date about one third
of our presidents were formerly the vice president, 19% were governors, and more
than another third had filled the role of top military figures, cabinet members
or senators.
In over two centuries there has not
been one president who was previously a real
estate tycoon who also owned gambling casinos and the Miss Universe Pageant,
nor a brain surgeon who was also a Seventh Day Adventist.
This latter aspect of Dr Ben Carson’s
resume – curiously absent from almost all his media coverage – raises valid
questions about, for example, his ability at rational decision making. For example,
an Alabama news chain reported last
year:
Any science teacher who teaches evolution without couching it in a literal seven-day creation as described in the Bible doesn't belong in a Seventh-day Adventist school, the president of the 17.9 million-member worldwide denomination told a gathering of science teachers …
In fact, President Dr. Ted Wilson told the international invitation-only gathering of about 350 Adventist high school and college science teachers, those teaching science in an Adventist school who do not believe that the Bible's account of complete creation around 6,000 years ago by God of the Earth in a literal 24/7 earthly week should not even call themselves "Adventist."
… "We believe that the Biblical creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 was a literal event that took place in six literal, consecutive days recently as opposed to deep time. It was accomplished by God's authoritative voice and happened when He spoke the world into existence.”
So clearly, this election is
different. Even on the Democratic side, image has so far triumphed over
reality. In more than 50 years of journalism, I have never seen politicians who
managed to create an image of themselves so remarkably at odds with their
actual history than the Clintons. And while this is now on shaky grounds, it
should be noted that the image version of the Clintons survived for over two
decades. The power of image may not be immortal but is certainly impressive.
The second factor affecting the
Democratic campaign is that about the same time that the Clintons first came to
the fore, the Democrats began dumping the very policies that had made them so
successful earlier. Bill Clinton was a role model of what these new advocates
of transforming the party into GOP Lite were seeking. So was Obama, although he
tried to hide his relationship to the Democratic Leadership Council that had
played such a key part in Clinton’s early success.
Although Democrats like to point to
Bill Clinton’s presidential victories as proof that the shift to the right
worked, what is missed is that he won by
less than half the vote in both his elections – 43% and 49% - and that it was
really Ross Perot who got him into office. And while Obama did better, it might
be argued that this was because he pretended to be more liberal than he was.
In any case, over the long term,
playing GOP Lite has not worked well for the Democrats. For a once widely
assumed easy winner to be in as much trouble as Hillary Clinton is a strong
sign that the strategy was not what it claimed.
There are, to be sure, a few bright
lights in the distance. For example, there is the argument that I have made
over the past several years that the Republicans – thanks in part to their average
age – may be on their way out and have seized a dramatic but not particularly
effective evangelical approach to rescue themselves, much as the ghost dance
cult spread across native American culture as actual Indian strength waned. And
then there is the remarkable explosion of support for Bernie Sanders – neatly
paralleled by developments in the British Labor Party - that may hint that these
are merely the last bad times before some good ones take over.
Still, presidential elections are too
important to just rely on theories. Here are a few practical ideas that might
work right now:
- Get some more candidates in the
Democratic race. The Democrats helped blow this one from the start by making it
a Clinton coronation, thus sending all the media over to the 17 Republicans who
were far more fun to cover on a daily basis than what HRC might be thinking
that morning.
For example, there is Rocky Anderson,
former mayor of Salt Lake City and decent minded fellow, who might be enticed
back into the party he left because it bugged him so much. Or Brian Schweitzer,
the former governor of Montana whom David Weigel wrote about last year in Slate:
Democrats inside and outside of Montana loved Schweitzer. The liberal “netroots” held him up as a model for other candidates, a bolo-tied Neo who’d cracked the culture-war code. Schweitzer gave a rolling, mocking speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention that won more praise than the official keynote address. He won re-election with a vote margin that he can recite from memory.“Sixty-five-point-six percent,” says Schweitzer, talking on the phone this weekend before heading to Washington to appear on ABC’s This Week.
- The Democrats might let people know
what they believe. They haven’t had a clear policy on anything of major
importance in several decades. Whatever one thinks of Obamacare, for example,
it was politically a disaster fueled in no small part by excessive complexity.
- It’s fine to support gay marriage
and abortion but those should not be at the top of the list. It is economic
issues that cut across religious, geographical and cultural lines.
- Shut up about gun control at least
until after the election.
- An excessive federal bias in its
legislative approach has hurt the Democrats. A practical way to change that is
to share decisions in major legislation with governments at the state and local
level. Increasing the more local role doesn’t have to weaken legislation and it
certainly can make it more popular.
- Give voters some candidates you can
actually like. That is part of Bernie Sanders’ secret – not just his platform
but the fact that you feel you can trust him. And part of Joe Biden’s secret –
one of the few national politicians worth having a beer with.
- Make fun of Donald Trump rather
than treating him as a dangerous god. Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker tells how
Barack Obama did this at a White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011:
[He] acutely mocked Trump’s presidential ambitions: “I know that he’s taken some flack lately—no one is prouder to put this birth-certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that’s because he can finally get back to the issues that matter, like: did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And—where are Biggie and Tupac?” The President went on, “We all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. For example—no, seriously—just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice”—there was laughter at the mention of the program’s name.
Obama explained that, when a team did not impress, Trump “didn’t blame Lil Jon or Meatloaf—you fired Gary Busey. And these are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night.”What was really memorable about the event, though, was Trump’s response. Seated a few tables away from us magazine scribes, Trump’s humiliation was as absolute, and as visible, as any I have ever seen: his head set in place, like a man in a pillory, he barely moved or altered his expression as wave after wave of laughter struck him. There was not a trace of feigning good humor about him, not an ounce of the normal politician’s, or American regular guy’s “Hey, good one on me!” attitude—that thick-skinned cheerfulness that almost all American public people learn, however painfully, to cultivate. No head bobbing or hand-clapping or chin-shaking or sheepish grinning—he sat perfectly still, chin tight, in locked, unmovable rage.
In short, the Democrats have to
rediscover themselves and their humanity. They’ve let themselves be taken over by
media mavens, policy perverts, technocratic turds and image incubators and all
it’s really done is provided some more jokes for Saturday Night Live.
Even these days, reality eventually
intrudes. This is what has happened to the Clinton campaign and it’s a good
warning. Get real, give good deals and have some real appeal.
It’s what politicians used to strive
for and it still works.
3 comments:
Great analysis as always but this election is a one off with the population being disaffected with politics as usual or at least the last 6 years for the GOP or 15 years for for the DNC. Immigration and terrorism will decide this election.
There's a problem with the Dems 'telling people what they believe'. That problem is that the Dems believe in a government of the bankers, by the bankers, and for the bankers. That they believe in bombing so many countries that they make one wish for the more peaceful Dubya/Cheney days. And they believe in the most pervasive surveillance and police state in history to back it all up. Hardly a winning platform with the electorate, and certainly not with those who vote in Dem party primaries. Which is why they've been seen as a bunch of unconvincing liars and only a bold liar like Bill Clinton could even start to pull it off.
The Dems have held the Presidency for 16 of the last 24 years, and majorities in either part of the Congress for large parts of those 24 years. We know exactly what they believe in by the track record they've left behind of what they really do when they get power.
One problem is that Moe Howard and Chaplin played the role of the Fuhrer, not Gable or Redford. So we never got interested in what he was up to that was so inspiring for the Dulleses and their class. But these framers of the ersatz republic have turned presidential elections into a question of who will best guide the 1000 year reich to ultimate victory. Clinton and Sanders offer loyal criticism
of the inequality, genocide and austerity which guide the mission of world conquest. As if JFK's death was senseless, in Chomsky's version, no coup there. But this could only be viewed from the skew of an anarchist, certainly not the view of Dulles' team.
Post a Comment