Another comment "gone wild"

by Don Wheeler

Our friendly fake consultant left a couple comments on an earlier post "Clinging to a stereotype". I originally intended to add a comment, but I had a lot to say and thought others might as well. If we want a Democrat to be President, it's my view we should think about this more than some would have us do.


fake consultant said...

this is not a question of whether people "cling to guns and god" in times of trouble.the point here is that when the voting population feels they are disassociated from their government, and they see no solutions to the economic problems they face, then politics that revolve around guns and god are what those voters cling to...because when you see youself as "out of the economic loop", what else is there to vote about?and the atwater/rove strategy was/is designed to revolve around exactly that thinking--which is why "swiftboats" and gay marriage were such a piviotal issue in '04...and why irrational fear of terrorism has carried the day in so many arguments over how we spend america's lives and treasure since.
April 19, 2008 6:39 PM


fake consultant said...

to reinforce the point: wait until the rs begin to attack either d candidate...and see if "they're gonna take our guns away" isn't one of the main arguments directed against that candidate in rural areas, whomever it is.not "john mccain will help make your eceonomic problems better" or "education matters to mccain...and we'll fix your schools", but instead: "them elitist liberals want to take your guns...and let fags marry."if this turns out to be true...then obama was exectlky and precisely correct in his statement.
April 19, 2008 6:48 PM


DonVila's reply:

These arguments you make reinforce or maybe even up the ante on the "elitism" perception - which in my view is not the most serious general election challenge posed to the Obama campaign because of this incident. I also think that whether Mr Obama was accurate in his depiction is not particularly significant.

You imply people are dumb enough to fall for the tactics you outline. That may be true of some people, but pointing itout isn't likely to win even one vote.

And who's job is it to correct these types of attitudes and impressions? A successful candidate is the answer to that. An unsuccessful one won't bother. Presidents Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all used that (I shouldn't have to bother) strategy.

I know people like David Brooks and William Kristol are sneered at by most activist Democrats, but they have some skill at analysis and we would do well to consider what they are saying about this. They are doing us a favor currently. I'll return to that thought in a bit.

A good friend of mine used to say "salesmen tend to 'bubble' themselves." He and I both had been in sales previously and I instantly recognized the truth of that. A lot of people's "analysis" - many Lefties included - consists of finding "evidence" that serves to reinforce that which they already believe, rather than challenging their ways of thinking occasionally to see if it stands up.

One of our Great Myths is that Liberals are inherently smarter than Conservatives. That in itself is problematic, but many of the believers extend that notion to thinking they are smarter than anyone who does not believe as they believe. Oddly, the targets of their disdain show a pronounced lack of regard for those folks.

As a corollary, some of us have been suckered into the myth that great masses of people vote for the "person they'd like to have a beer with". This depiction vastly overstates a truism that I think both Brooks and Kristol have been pointing out recently.

What they say - and what I believe - is that people want to vote for candidates that they feel some connection with. Young, energetic people connect with a campaign that is (supposedly) about hope and change, vets may connect with a man who served heroically and endured an enemy's prison. Those of us with more tenuous connections may well be brought up cold by a candidate we feel alienates us or for whom we feel no connection.

John Edwards' campaign foresaw this potential pitfall, and much of their strategy was based on avoiding it. Clinton was "inevitable" and Obama's focus was elsewhere. As a result, though Edwards would not prevail in the primary, his head-to-head numbers vs. McCain were far better than either Hillary's or Barack's for over a year. I think this incident gives us a glimpse of why that was the case.

Politics is like any other business in this way - blaming the customer will not build sales.

I have been highly impressed with David Axelrod's strategy up to this point. Like Joe Trippi did for Edwards, he has baited the Clinton folks and frequently allowed them to make themselves look foolish. Howard Wolfson has swallowed the bait so many times in the last year and a half, he should be on someone's trophy wall.

Axelrod and Obama need to put this matter to bed, and I believe they still can. Here's how:

People have affinity for people who admit their mistakes, then move on. Senator Obama started well by saying he had not put things as well as he should have. Unfortunately, he later turned defensive and allowed himself (for a change) to be baited into counterattacking the Clinton campaign. This approach does not look much like a "new kind of politics" nor does it show the confidence a presumed nominee should have at this point.

He could still rewind the clock. His original instinct was right - which bodes well for his leadership.

The way to cement the primary is to return to his normal demeanor and act like the nominee. And I think it would worth spending a lot of money to get the following message out.

After repeating his regrets about the original comments, frame them into something more sympathetic and say that he sees that he has a job to do. That job is to prove to people like those he characterized that he not only understands them - but that what he wants to do will actually address those problems that have made these folks feel so frustrated. Having proposals which will back that up would be nice, so offering something new, or making an earlier proposal a bit more aggressive or packaging earlier proposals into something that looks like an overall strategy might be useful.

In other words, turn a problem into an opportunity.

Surrogates can point out that going for months on little sleep is a perfectly reasonable explanation for being imprecise on a comment. I can certainly vouch for the effects of sleep deprivation. I ran a bakery route for a few months (years ago) with long and weird hours. A person's brain can't function optimally without adequate sleep. Clinton and Obama have both done amazingly well in this regard.

If he is attacked, Mr. Obama can say (a bit sadly), "Look, I've proved I'm not perfect - but I've said what I have to say about this. If others choose to twist it into something ugly, well... Maybe I think voters are a bit smarter than the folks who are attacking me do."

The opportunity should be taken. Failing to do so could drive enough people McCain's way to be a serious problem. And that problem means problems for all of us.