TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 6:53 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:49 PM
January 07, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
08.10.2008
For All You Dukakis Fans Out There . . .

The Duke holds forth on the current campaign in an interview with the New York Observer! It's actually a fairly interesting read--including his kind words for Dan Quayle (at least as compared to Sarah Palin) and his argument that his campaign's dirty trick against Joe Biden in 1988 actually wound up saving Biden's life.

On a related note, Ezra Klein the other day made an interesting argument about McCain's struggles:

One striking lesson of the campaign has been the reduced salience of the culture war stuff. Rove and Bush could gesture towards identity politics. They could hide behind issues like abortion and guns and the role of the church. McCain has had to state it all explicitly. He's had to talk to the media about media bias and have Palin inform small town voters that they should feel insulted and run ads about drawing a cross in the dirt. I don't know if McCain is jut bad at this stuff or the electorate has undergone some sort of sea change, but a style of politics that was one symbolic and subtle has become explicit and blunt. And its not proving very effective.

Similarly, attacks that should have shuttered Obama's campaign did not. In 1988, the Willie Horton ads managed to make Michael Dukakis seem too black. In 2008, Reverend Wright couldn't derail Obama. Indeed, to assert Obama's otherness, they've need to stack racial attacks atop insinuations of Muslim heritage atop cries of political radicalism. In 1984, Ayers would have been enough. In 1988, Wright would have been enough. In 2004, his Arab name would have been enough. In 2008, it seems likely that all three combined won't keep Obama from the White House. Which suggests that the traditional sore spots of American politics are becoming quite a bit duller.

I think Ezra has a point. But I think these analogies tend to ignore one important factor: Obama is a much, much better candidate than Mondale or Dukakis or Kerry, and his campaign is much, much better as well. If a candidate of Mondale or Dukakis or Kerry's caliber was running this year--and if that candidate had Obama's name and associations--then I'm not so sure McCain's attacks wouldn't be working. As Dukakis himself says in the Observer interview:

“This is a much better campaign than I ran in 1988, and I’m impressed."

In other words, the fact that the culture war stuff isn't working has a lot to do with Obama's own ability to defuse it.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:50 PM with 7 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

FWright said:

"In other words, the fact that the culture war stuff isn't working has a lot to do with Obama's own ability to defuse it."

Maybe, but I think it has a lot more to do with the abysmal presidency of George W. Bush.  A steep recession tends to clear the minds of all but the most devoted culture warriors.

October 8, 2008 4:12 PM

mkricaurte said:

Can we stop with the '88/Dukakis analogies? I'll admit that Obama is a much better candidate and running a much better campaign than Dukakis, Kerry, etc. However, Dukakis was running against Reagan's VP at a time when the 80s economy was humming along nicely and Reagan was still immensely popular. Bush 41 was essentially running for Reagan's 3rd term and it was the first time Atwater/Rove campaign tactics were used. Of course Dukakis lost. With Obama's election in 27 days (hopefully), hopefully this will signal an end to Dukakis analogies and Rove-style politics/attacks.

October 8, 2008 4:15 PM

rozenson said:

What FWright said.

October 8, 2008 4:42 PM

MichLib said:

I'm just worried about all this Obama cheerleading and calling the game for him 4 weeks away from the actual election. Sure, the financial crisis plays to his favor. But, like I mentioned on another post a few days ago, I believe Israel will attack Iran before the election, giving McCain a perceived upper hand in foreign policy.

October 8, 2008 4:49 PM

GSpinks said:

If McCain gets the upper hand in foreign policy, replay that garbage about Pakistan from the debate; it should mollify everyone but the shills.

I think it is absolutely correct that Obama's ability to defuse the attacks is what carries him. He addresses the issues in a way that engages the viewer to the point where the rebuttals and the counter arguments actually register in their minds. A perfect example is his riff on McCain's /inexperienced/ meme.

I guess having skills as an orator, rather than a space heater, is an erstwhile commodity in politics afterall. Who would have thought someone could be intelligent, substative and engaging and make a career in politics for themselves?

I agree, though. This thing is not over until the votes are tallied. No popping the champagne until January 21st.

October 8, 2008 5:41 PM

sabatia said:

The Few the Brave: I am one of the actual Dukakis fans! As a Mass lifer(I used to joke that I had never been beyond Route 128), forgive me, but I have to say that the Duke was probably the best Governor we ever had, possibly excepting Yankee Republican Bill Sargent. Dukakis was thoughtful and he appointed some of the most capable, civic-minded, innovative department heads, whose postive legacies still linger.

I worked on the Dukakis Campaign. It was one of the more frustrating experiences of my life. My area of expertise is environmental protection. Dukakis was a national innovator in land, water, and air conservation. But he wasn't an "outdoorsman" and the great policies and programs his environmental team developed weren't "his". Instead of fighting for the environmental vote that he really deserved, he got skunked by GHW Bush, the snot riding around a boat in Boston Harbor pointing out the pollution. Dukakis didn't fight back with his record or promote his team's best programs as national models. And when he talked about Belgian endives,he was laughed at, even as his administration had numerous creative and effective programs promoted farming and farmland protection--this is one among several excellent program areas that continue to result in blooms in Mass.

I still think Dukakis is a very smart, capable and shrewd man.

I think Obama is smarter and an extraordinary politician.

October 8, 2008 6:09 PM

pcurtis said:

"If a candidate of Mondale or Dukakis or Kerry's caliber was running this year--and if that candidate had Obama's name and associations--then I'm not so sure McCain's attacks wouldn't be working."

A good point, but then maybe that's exactly the thing - a candidate with Obama's name and skin color (I'll leave aside the question of "associations") could only have come as far as he did, frankly, by being a much better politician than a Mondale or a Dukakis.  The American political deck is stacked against non-white candidates with foreign-sounding names, so Obama had to be significatly tougher and more skillful than the average white politician, just to get the nomination.

In other words, the first non-white-male candidate for the Presidency from an American political party was, by the nature of American politics, almost certain to be a very, very good candidate.

October 8, 2008 6:54 PM