Two nights ago, I had addressed the potential for Barack Obama to lose this presidential contest. I had argued that, while the polls and all political indicators, so far, have been pointing to an Obama victory, the number of uncertainties that are part and parcel of this election cycle should not be entirely overlooked. Among the uncertainties that could lead to a surprise McCain victory (racism and mistrust of white Americans towards Obama, Bradley effect, voter complacency and overconfidence, effect of John McCain's negative attacks, last-minute surge towards John McCain by the undecided, erroneous poll predictions, acts of God, etc.), I zoomed at, perhaps, the only single weakness that one could attribute to the Obma campaign: naïveté, and perhaps, an implicit dose of complacency, especially as they relate to the Obama belief that being positive all the way was going to win this election for him.
In my analysis of why Obama could still lose this election, I argued that if John McCain did pull a surprise win, post-mortem analyses would undoubtedly trace Obama's defeat back to the only thing which I think would be seen as Obama's sole miscalculation, that is, his staunch and unshakeable faith in his ability to win the American presidential election without going fully negative. This, I described as a weakness stemming from a certain degree of complacency and naïveté which could come back to haunt Obama in the eventuality of a McCain upset. We have been there before and both Gore and Kerry have one or two things to say about that.
While Obama did seem to learn many lessons from the Gore and Kerry defeats in 2000 and 2004 respectively, as his incredibly well-disciplined campaign has demonstrated, I saw Obama's refusal to go fully negative as a possible weakness. In other words, I saw this refusal as a form of naïveté that could lead Obama to a similar defeat. Obama's strategic choice of refusing to go tit-for-tat with John McCain in the area of negative campaigning, I argued, could come back to haunt him, especially if McCain's negativity had managed to score a few points in the last 48-hour stretch. I saw this as a weakness not because Obama did not go negative and hit McCain hard at times. It may simply be that he did not do enough of it, did not hit him hard enough, and did not hit him directly where it really mattered, that is, in the areas of negativity that would match negative attacks with corresponding negative attacks, innuendoes with corresponding innuendoes, and so on.
Tit-for-tat, in this case, would have meant to hit McCain hard in the same areas in which McCain has launched negative attacks. For example, when John McCain plays an association game, Obama would respond in kind by bringing up John McCain and Sarah Palin's own problematic associations. When John McCain hits Obama on patriotism, Obama would respond in kind by offering a competing narrative about patriotism that would directly counter the charge levied by John McCain and propose a reading of John McCain that would also, for instance, show him as unpatriotic for questioning the patriotism of others. Obama could have even painted him as the new McCarthy of American politics. This basically meant fighting John Mccain's fire with fire so as to leave no attack unanswered, no charge unchallenged.
Clearly, John McCain's whole campaign message has been about personal attacks on Obama. Such attacks, whether one likes it or not, did work a few times in McCain's favor, and may help to explain the narrowing of the gap in some key battleground states. The fact that Obama, for instance, was not able to create enough distance in the polls between himself and John McCain in the states that matter (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc.) is a sign that there may still be resistances towards Obama, and this could be, among other things, because of John McCain's relentless personal attacks and lies that, in many instances, went unanswered for too long. Based on the latest polls that have shown a race that is still too close to call in key battleground states, such states could still go either way. A McCain surprise win, therefore, is not entirely out of the realm of possibility, especially if McCain takes Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, major states that, during the primaries, resisted the Obama appeal.
Furthermore, because polls are not scientific, the number of intangibles out there are still considerable. For instance, can John McCain's surge of negativity in the past two weeks translate into a last minute surge of the electorate towards him? Will the white voters who have told the pollsters they would be voting for Obama go through with their pledge or change their minds in the voting booth? We could go on and on with a number of possibilities that could lead to a McCain upset, however unlikely.
But what of John McCain's real chance of winning? Assuming that the polls are a clear indication of what will happen today after the votes are tabulated, it would seem that John McCain's campaign is doomed. If it should, therefore, be confirmed later tonight that John McCain is doomed, what will be the most salient post-mortem argument for explaining John McCain's loss?
My take is that while many elements may concomitantly explain John McCain's defeat (erratic campaign, lack of overall strategy, age of John McCain, negativity of his campaign, the economic downturn, choice of Sarah Palin, etc.), there are two things that will come to haunt John McCain: his erratic responses to the various economic and political crises of the past month, and his lack of transformational message for America.
Regarding his erratic responses to events, it is clear that John McCain always seemed to make the wrong strategic choices when confronted with an unexpected crisis. His decision, for instance, to "suspend" his campaign and even seek to cancel the scheduled presidential debate to go and save America in Washington at the height of the Wall Street meltdown, was an incredibly damaging move for a campaign as incredibly disorganized in both style and message as the campaign of John McCain. His reaction to the invasion of Georgia by Russia was another painful erratic response, which left some doubt as to McCain's ability to deal with international issues in a way that would lead to better international relations between America and its allies around the world. One could go on and on with McCain's strategic blunders.
I am not of those who believe that there is nothing John McCain could have done to beat both his association with George Bush's legacy and the economic downturn. Both John McCain and Obama could have made choices that could have affirmed them in the minds of Americans either as great statesmen fully prepared for the job, or as inept candidates. The true measure of a man (or woman) running for president of the United States should be made through the prism of how they react to unexpected domestic and international events. On that front, Obama made the right choices, and McCain the wrong ones.
Further, it has become a tautology that John McCain's best chances of winning would have been for him to run as a true Maverick, that is, seek to distance himself from both George Bush and the far-right fringe of his party. He did none of these things. Instead, he cowardly caved in to the pressures of his right-most constituency, spoiled his mavericky brand, and became a non-entity: his attempts to be everything for all people in his party led to a disastrous campaign. Worse, he chose a vice presidential running mate that a number of Conservatives in his own party have described as incompetent, unprepared and a cancer to the McCain campaign.
But the most damning aspect of John McCain's campaign has been in the absence of a truly transformational message for America. While John McCain's motto was "Country First", he never articulated any clear explanation of what "Country First" meant. In fact, his "Country First" mantra was never really about America. Rather, it was a subliminal message to the electorate that was meant to show him as the patriotic one, and Obama as the unpatriotic one. John McCain's "Country First" message, thus, was more about painting Obama as utterly un-American, and, to prove this, John McCain and his far-right allies launched a string of attacks aimed at highlighting Obama's associations with "unpatriotic" people (Reverend Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Khalidi). And with such lines of attack came innuendoes about Barack Obama's blackness, which was "naturally" linked to his socialistic tendencies and the implicit theme of black Americans not being as patriotic about America as Whites are. The "Country First" mantra, thus, became, for the McCain camp, synonymous with promoting a divide between "patriotic America", that is, the "real" America of the suburbs, the America of white conservatives and hockey moms who will never vote for a black man, and the "unpatriotic America," the America of "fake Americans," the "fake America" of unpatriotic blacks and irresponsible white liberals who did not understand that, by voting Obama into office, they were selling America off to the Blacks and the Muslims. This, to McCain and consorts, amounted to an act of treason.
Thus, because of this implicit message of hate and division, John McCain's campaign became highly caricatural. John McCain's fight was no longer about restoring America's sense of greatness inside and outside American borders with sound reform, sound economic policy and sound international reassertion of U.S. leadership, it became about defending America against its domestic ennemies, that is, defending it against the black radicals as well as the white liberals who had dared to push a black man so close to becoming the first black president of the United States. In other words, John McCain's campaign simply became a campaign about Barack Obama as opposed to a campaign about America's promise. It is this caricature of America that the American electorate seems to be rejecting (I hope).
A caricatural description of John McCain's campaign's message would be best conveyed in the following fictional interview with a fictional journalist:
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: How are you John McCain?
MCCAIN: I am good, thank you. But before I answer your questions, tell me, are you also, like so many of your kind, in the tank for Barack Obama, the black guy?
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: No, I am not. But, can you tell me, Senator McCain, why we should vote for you and not for Barack Obama?
MCCAIN: I was a POW, Barack Obama was not. I have scars to prove it, Barack does not.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: True, but beyond that, Senator McCain, can you tell us why we should vote for you?
MCCAIN: I love my country. Barack does not. I have the scars to prove it. He does not.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: We understand your heroic past, Senator, and we thank you for your sacrifice, but you cannot run a whole candidacy only on your exemplary past as a POW. Is there anything else we should know about your policies and your proposals for America?
MCCAIN: People will vote for me because I am the only one who can stop Barack Obama, his radical friends, and his white liberal supporters from taking over the country.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Senator, Is Barack Obama an American?
MCCAIN: You know what, I am not too sure he is.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Really?
MCCAIN: Well, maybe he is. He does look like a respectable family man, not really like an Arab or a Muslim. But we cannot be complacent about it. What if he weren't an American? Maybe he is a citizen. But being American means loving one's country in bad times as well as in good times. It also means never questioning its greatness. So, all I can say is that appearances can be deceiving. Joe the Plumber said it well the other day in an interview with Fox news, and when Joe the Plumber, my hero, speaks, he must be believed because he speaks from the heart, just as do the so many other real Americans in this country who refuse to be ruled by socialist radicals, terrorists and irresponsible white liberals.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: So, what is your economic policy, and what do you propose that could help the American people with their health care, their mortgages, the high gas prices ?
MCCAIN: We must stop Barack Obama if we do not want this country transformed into a socialistic nation.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: How is your health, Senator?
MCCAIN: It could be better, but this whole Barack Obama thing is driving me crazy.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Do you think, Senator, that humans are responsible for global warming, and that America as the largest producer of air pollution in the world should lead the effort towards reducing carbon emissions?
MCCAIN: If Barack Obama had agreed to debate me in the ten Townhall debates I had proposed, things would be better.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Do you think your choice of Sarah Palin was a mistake?
MCCAIN: It is Barack Obama's fault. Had he chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate, I would have taken Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman. But he had to trick me into choosing a woman who was as inexperienced and dumb as Sarah Palin, just because he wanted to defeat my advantage on experience.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: If you lose this election, Senator, what would be the single most important thing you could describe as the cause of your loss?
MCCAIN: BARUK OSAMA..errr... pardon me, MARACK OMABA...errr... I mean, BARACK OBAMA and his lies about me and his hatred for America that he has managed to transmit to the good people of this great country.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Thank you, Senator.
MCCAIN: Barack Osama
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: What did you say?
MCCAIN: Barack Obama.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: What about him?
MCCAIN: Barack Hussein Obama
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: What about that?
MCCAIN: Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Get it?
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: I see. So, what about Barack HUSSEIN Obama? How do Barack HUSSEIN Obama's policies differ from yours? For instance, do you have a problem with his idea of an additional stimulus package?
MCCAIN: Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Yes, Sir, I heard you. But what is wrong with Barack Obama's economic policies, and how are yours better than his?
MCCAIN: Well, ask Joe the Plumber what he thinks of Barack HUSSEIN Obama's socialistic economic policies.
FICTIONAL JOURNALIST: Fair enough. But what of this $150,000 clothing controversy with your Vice Presidential choice Sarah Palin? Does that not destroy your ticket's credibility, especially after you guys have sold yourselves to the American people as simple Joes and Janes? Is that not hypocritical?
MCCAIN: Sarah needed clothes. Did you want Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his liberal friends laughing at us and mocking her for her moosy appearance? No, Sir, there are limits to what we will allow those socialistic liberals to do to us during this campaign.
It is well known that a lie that is often repeated can become so pervasive that it would start to be confused with the truth. The corollary to this idea is that when one makes of one's opponent the only message of one's campaign, such a tactic inevitably ends up giving one's opponent more credibility than is actually deserved. John McCain, who should have been the alpha dog of this campaign due to his decades of experience in Washington, turned himself into an underdog and unwittingly elevated Barack Obama by making Obama the focus of his campaign. It seems, in retrospect, that Barack Obama's strategy, and genius, not only during the primaries, but also during the general election cycle, was to simply maintain a steady, even if boring and uneventful, line of conduct which, in the long run, appeared to many as preferable to John McCain's erratic ups and downs. In the end, steadiness prevailed as it came out as more reassuring. McCain seems to have learned any lesson from the way Obama defeated Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain tried too hard, and they tried so hard that their campaigns became erratic, messageless and caricatural. Obama won by simply remaining calm and composed.
In the end, because John McCain made his campaign all about defeating Obama and the domestic enemies of America who had sided with him (the Blacks and the white liberal "traitors" voting for him), John McCain failed to offer a transformational vision for a new America that Americans would be confortable with. Because he used his "Country First" mantra as a tool for not only dividing Americans, but also appealing to, and awakening, the worst instincts of our American past (hence the "Barack Obama is an Arab" beliefs), John McCain painfully discovered that the America of today is not the America of 40 years ago, and that, while he remained prisoner of a view of the world that was borne out of the Karl Rove politics of the early 21st-century, those old and discredited American ideas had, with the Bush victories in 2000 and 2004, experienced their last gasps. America had, without them even noticing, begun its steady march towards new values, new aspirations, new perspectives.
John Mccain will (probably) lose tonight because he and the Republican party never moved beyond the America of the 1960s.
Brough to you by the Unofficial Barack Obama Advisory Council
Original Link: Click kere
Dr. Daniel Mengara
The author is an Associate Professor of French and Francophone Studies at Montclair State University (New Jersey). He is also the leader of Bongo Doit Partir(Bongo Must Go), a movement of expatriated Gabonese citizens opposed and seeking an end to the 41-year-old dictatorial regime of Omar Bongo in Gabon.