Many here on DKos describe President Obama as a superbly skilled 3D-Chess player, someone who's not only often a few moves ahead of his opponents, but also uses the complexities of the playing field to trip them up in ways they didn't see coming. I'm not completely on-board with that accolade for the President, though I do think he's quite good at the political footwork, and has if nothing else a great straight left (when he uses it).
I'm a little worried about the maneuverings of the GOP in this election cycle though, and I think there may be a dimension here that people aren't talking about. You may not agree, and believe me I'd like to be wrong, but I do want to put the possibility on the table for consideration. Hit the jump if you wish, and please show me how I'm wrong. (I'm serious - I don't want to be right about this.)
Let me begin with one assumption which some may think silly, but for which I find measurable evidence. That assumption is simply that the GOP is not planning to win the Presidency in November. They're just not. Let me explain that.
First and foremost, incumbents are historically strong in re-election. The preponderance of Presidential incumbents have won second terms. While we can lay out considerations which may hurt President Obama's chances for re-election (and the conservatives certainly have, or have tried), he also has substantial momentum on his side. One clear measure of this is President Obama's popularity rating, which (I believe) is the highest ever historically held by a sitting President during a recession. (I am not the history buff that some readers may be, and invite correction on this and any other factual points.) The public's general perception of many of President Obama's initiatives (the auto industry bailout f.e.) trends positive. The healthcare reform issue is, sadly, a little murkier, but nationally tracked perceptions of the ACA are, again if I am correct, plurality positive (if by a heartbreakingly small margin). Really I think the popularity rating says the most about voter perception of President Obama, though. We humans, for all we try to argue differently, are extremely emotional creatures for the most part. If our limbic system is telling us someone is a good guy/girl, that's really more than half the battle won.
Second, the field of Republican candidates for President was spectacularly risible. We all know the examples well enough that lengthy recapitulation would be a waste of time. Suffice it be said the average Keystone Cops skit provides a more coherent and socially relevant narrative than the likes of Bachmann, Cain or Santorum. It's as though not even the second-stringers, but the thirds and fourths came forth for this go-round. The only two who looked even remotely serious were Romney and Perry. (Side note: I still think that had Perry not displayed nationally that he wasn't hard enough on brown people, he'd either be the GOP's crown prince or in neck-and-neck running with Romney. Some might think my listing Perry as a "serious" candidate calls my credibility into question; you might be right.) Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson, with their messages of tolerance and moderation (at least relative to their opponents) were laughed out of the room early on. This was never about being relevant, or working towards the national good.
To make counterargument to my own point, we can note the titanic amount of campaign spending currently ongoing on the Republican side. To that evidence I would simply offer the thoughts that for some, any race is THE race and must be supported to the hilt; and that (as will be referenced again later) a longer game than is evident may be in play here.
So. While I'm not sure if I've made convincing argument, that's my assumption: there was never any real initiative on the GOP's part to take Pennsylvania Avenue in November. This Presidential election is, to all purposes, quite literally political theater.
So why am I worried?
The historic course of democratic, small "d," argument is that one makes one's points by bringing them into the national public dialogue, and there is little better way to do that than by running them as an election platform. Look at Ross Perot's effect on the '92 election. Debt and deficit became major topics due largely to his presence (my opinion). It could be argued that Ron Paul's persistent campaigning for the Presidency has in mind a similar goal. Again, to make my own counterargument on Perot, he hired very shrewd campaigners and spent advo money very smartly - but in its own way, that innovative use of ad buying was also a precursor of things to come, if less so in terms of public debate and more so in terms of how said debate may be manipulated.
Returning to the Romney/Ryan ticket of 2012; I hope I've framed my second assumption. Romney and Ryan aren't looking to win, appearances to the contrary. What they (and more poignantly their funders and string-pullers) are looking to do is, simply, to de-electrify the topics of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare as subjects of public discussion. Ryan's boyish looks and earnest, (typically) polite demeanor are a launchpad for putting these issues on the plate as something America "needs" to evaluate for pruning "for the greater good." I'm not sure I'm hitting quite the right phraseology here, but hope I am making my point.
In short, I suspect a longer game is being played. We consider it common knowledge (backed by strong and plentiful evidence) that the Republican party holds among its highest goals the utter elimination of the New Deal and all subsequent social safety networks. Thus, Romney and Ryan aren't intended to take the stage and make these cuts themselves; they're intended instead to introduce such changes in a non-threatening manner, or even as a better alternative to President Obama's healthcare program. Witness Romney's recent senior-targeted scare ad on Medicare. Never mind that its content spectacularly misconstrues the nature of the $716 billion in savings, nor its spectacular hypocrisy (Ryan initially targeted the same savings); it attempts to portray the Romney/Ryan alternative as the only safe way forward.
I hope I'm bringing this across. What I'm trying to say, in too many words (as usual), is that the 2012 GOP Presidential ticket is a cat's paw. Romney and Ryan will lose - I'm near betting certain of it, as I think most of us are. But their agenda is deeper. They're paving the way for a reframed debate on social safety networks in 2016, when I'm fairly certain we'll see much bigger-ticket names on the GOP ticket. That's when I think we need to be genuinely worried about this, and when the Democratic campaign leaders and strategists need to be most influential and skilled in choosing their language on social safety nets.
My intent is not to stir controversy with this lengthy meander, merely discussion; I apologize if my address of these issues seems inflammatory. That is surely not my desire. And again, people, tell me why I'm wrong - or if I'm right, why we'll still be able to win debates on these issues in '16 and beyond.
Thank you for reading.