With the primary race finally
wrapped up, we asked a few friends of the magazine to consider the type of
campaign Barack Obama should run against John McCain. Up here is Ed Kilgore, managing
editor of The Democratic Strategist,
an online forum.
I agree with virtually all of what my Democratic Strategist colleague and mentor Bill Galston has to say in
his essay on Obama's general election campaign. But I'd come at the
challenges and opportunities Obama faces from a slightly different perspective.
First of all, in the battle for persuadable swing voters,
both candidates have a potentially attractive meta-message. Obama's is that he
offers bold and fundamental change,
not only from the failed domestic and international policies of the Bush-Cheney
administration, but also from the habits of a corrupt and gridlocked Washington. McCain's is
that he offers safe if limited change
from the political and policy vices of both parties, based on his personal
credibility and "maverick" credentials, with a heavy emphasis on the post-9/11
security environment. Both candidates understand this is a "change election,"
and both also understand the handicaps faced by McCain as a Republican whose
signature issue has been an unstinting commitment to "victory" in Iraq.
Entering the general election campaign, Obama needs to
recast and rebroadcast his meta-message, which has clearly been eroded by the
Jeremiah Wright controversy and the incessant media discussion of his primary campaign
struggles, to connect with certain demographic categories of voters (most
notably non-college-educated white voters). And at the same time, Obama (with
help from his vanquished primary foe, Hillary Clinton) needs to regularly
challenge McCain's claim to represent either "safety" or "change" on the full
array of issues where voters clearly support Democratic policies.
Team Obama should also recognize that the GOP is promoting
two very different and potentially conflicting negative stereotypes of their
candidate: He's familiar, in that his supra-partisan and inclusive rhetoric
disguises the fact that he's just another Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! Yet he's
unfamiliar, representing all sorts of strange, radical, unprecedented forces in
America
life, from his interracial background to his "radical friends," to his
identification with post-Baby Boomer culture.
While Obama should fight both stereotypes, he should recognize
that the second one is probably more politically damaging. This could be the
first presidential election since 1964 when a majority of Americans would
prefer a Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! to any sort of Republican. He shouldn't be defensive
about his progressive principles and platform, and above all, he should not
risk letting voters go into Election Day with serious doubts about who he is
and what he would do as president. That would be an open door to sentiments
ranging from racism to a simple fear of the unknown that could undermine all
his built-in advantages in this election. And in terms of making voters
comfortable with his identity and core values, he can and should make a special
effort to get beyond the Wright controversy and display his own authentic faith
and his unusually nuanced understanding of its role in public life. Don't fear
the preacher.
Second of all, if only because John McCain will try to
narrow the issues landscape to national security, Obama needs to avoid the
temptation of changing the subject (an inveterate Democratic habit) and
constantly articulate a strong, comprehensive vision of America's
security challenges, in which his highly popular views on the Iraq War are
part, not parcel. He can definitely do that, with or without help from national
security validators, on or off the ticket. But thanks to the dynamics of the
primary competition, supplemented by GOP attacks, all the majority of voters
know about Obama on national security are his commitment to a speedy withdrawal
from Iraq,
and his pledge to negotiate with unfriendly states without preconditions. A
determination to keep America
safe, and specifically to use military force if necessary, should be the first,
not the last, words he uses on national security issues.
Finally, Team Obama should fully utilize Obama's rhetorical
skills, and the freedom he will enjoy to deploy them. He will be the first
Democratic candidate in living memory with a significant financial advantage
over the opposition. He will have every opportunity to get his message out and
should ignore the boredom and cynicism of the campaign-weary chattering classes
about his inspirational rhetoric. Obama's acceptance speech in Denver (on the 45th anniversary of
Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" address), will almost certainly be the most
observed political speech in, well, history. It will be an unparalleled chance
to solidify his identity, his message, and the choices faced by the electorate.
It's the sort of opportunity that could move millions of voters. He should
seize it.
--Ed
Kilgore