In my previous diary which received over 900 comments, I asked the question what could Obama and his advisors be thinking lately with their seemingly nonsensical strategy of alienating the base with premature capitulation to destructive Republican talking points and policy.
The most compelling explanation that was offered, in my opinion, is that the administration has convinced themselves that the proper way forward after the midterm election is to attempt to duplicate the Clinton-era strategy of "triangulation" in order to outflank the Republicans in a bid to capture the supposed "center" of the electorate. This rings true because the Obama administration contains many of the same people, and I'm sure they view the mid 90s and their comeback as the old glory days.
In this diary I will show why this a doomed strategy for reelection. Obama and company need to realize, for their own survival and that of the country, that we live in an entirely different environment now, entirely different politically, economically, electorally, and media-wise. 2012 will not be like 1996, and Obama will be on the losing end of that difference unless they change course.
In reality, take heed - conditions for the 2012 election could not be more different than those for 1996:
- The economy then was anomalous
Perhaps the biggest reason why Clinton won reelection in 1996 was that the American economy was undergoing an unprecedented boom. In fact, the late 90s economic boom was actually one that probably won't be duplicated ever again, for it managed to combine the tail end of the postwar era before outsourcing fully ramped up with the beginning of the hyper-globalized era and all its attendant upper income wealth. It is not going to happen again, and certainly won't be in place in 2012.
While the business cycle may indeed turn around by 2012, I don't think anyone believes that we will be undergoing a late 90s style boom. We are in a new economic reality where many of the jobs that left in the course of the last decade aren't coming back. It is a new, more cutthroat economy, with probably permanent high unemployment. Plus we are probably out of bubbles, having exhausted the stock bubble and the housing bubble. To reiterate, while we may be in a recovery by 2012, we won't be in a late 90s type boom. 2012's economy will not save an incumbent president like 1996's.
- There is much less of a political "center" now
In the political evolution of this country, the past 15 years have been a lifetime. 1996 was before the Clinton presidential knee pads impeachment, before the disputed 2000 election, before the Iraq war and the torture and the financial crisis. Back then there was a much more solid "center" of American politics. You could be both politically engaged, and in the middle. For example, there were prominent Republicans like Jack Kemp, Jim Jeffords, and Lincoln Chaffe, people who were actually in the middle of ideological discourse.
In today's more polarized climate, many more people have chosen sides, and those that haven't chosen sides are just irrational, swinging back and forth with no rhyme or reason. There are simply fewer people in the middle, the kind who understand the issues, follow them closely, and yet are still persuadable. The size of this demographic matters a lot if you are basing your political future on them.
- There will be no Perot to split the Republican and anti-incumbent vote
No, Ross Perot's presence alone did not single-handedly give Clinton either election as Republicans like to claim, but in 1996 he did cost Bob Dole net votes. Anti-incumbent and anti-Clinton sentiment was split in a way that won't likely happen in 2012. If you want to compare yourself to Clinton, automatically add a few percentage points to Bob Dole's total before you do anything else.
- The Republican base will be fired up
In 1996, the Republicans ran Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, two people who were certainly from the non-firebrand side of that party. They harbored no obvious racial animosity, possibly didn't even hate gay people, and were not committed culture warriors. They were the kind of people you could compete for the center with. More importantly, they were not the kind of people that get the Republican base to the polls or opening their wallets.
In contrast the Republican nominee in 2012 will be a firebrand and culture warrior, most likely Huckabee, Gingrich, or Palin. They will be exactly the kind of person that makes tiny little Republican brains and coal-black hearts swoon with ecstasy, to the point where they will go without heat in order to donate the max, and would fight a Tyrannosaurus Rex if it was keeping them from the polls.
- The media landscape is very different
This one is of the utmost importance if you are thinking of basing your future on the dwindling number of persuadable voters in the supposed middle, so listen carefully: 1996 was before the current media reality of endless vapid 24-hour cable news and partisan internet sites really took hold.
People back then read newspapers and watched the network nightly news. They were exposed to facts and ideas that had a chance of challenging their notions. Thus, a Democratic president doing fiscally conservative things had decent chance of convincing a fiscally conservative voter that he was actually fiscally conservative.
Today, not so much. That voter is likely getting her news, to the extent that she gets any news, from cable talking heads who scream while graphics fly in the background and an endless ticker flashes below. I can guarantee that these talking heads will not be presenting your attempted fiscally conservative bona-fides in any accurate or positive way.
So what is the answer?
The answer is that you win elections now in a different way than you could win them in 1996. First of all, you have to get your base out as much as possible, and depress the other guy's base as much as possible. Second of all, you have to be a winner, because a huge chunk of the remaining persuadable voters want a winner more than anything else. And thirdly, you can't be an incumbent presiding over high unemployment.
Fortunately for the Obama administration, you can act in a way that simultaneously does all three of these things! And that is to stand up to the Republicans in a real and forceful way. Use the bully pulpit of the presidency to constantly bash them and their terrible policies, while refusing to give an inch. Don't let them accomplish any of their satanic agenda, and constantly tout your victories against this. Your base will be charged, theirs will be demoralized, the bulk of independents will see you as a winner and them as losers, and you will win.