While this has already been discussed around here, I wanted to say a few more things about what was perhaps the most interesting and revealing moment of the Democratic Primary debate held in South Carolina recently. That of course would be when Williams asked everyone who believed there is a "war on terror" to raise their hand.
In case anyone needs a refresher, here's what happened:
At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"
Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not
First of all, and I say this as an undecided who is currently leaning toward Obama, is this not the perfect metaphor for the campaign so far?
What follows is my take on what that debate "moment" reflected:
I imagine that Clinton, known for exhaustively prepararing for every challenge, had already decided her stance on the phrase "global war on terror" well before this debate. Indeed she and her staff probably brainstormed nearly every question she might encounter over the course of the campaign, so that she won't get caught off-gaurd. (This is an admirable quality about her: she's not afraid of working hard to get it right.)
She probably decided that in order to win the general she would need to overcome the perception that she’s an extreme liberal (residue from the Clinton-sliming of the 1990s), so she might as well go all out and try to establish herself as the most hawkish Dem candidate. Such a strategy has the advantages of a) carving out a distinct ideological niche for the primary, and b) setting herself up to deflect accusations of being "weak" on national security come the general.
::::
Now Obama gave the same answer as Clinton, but while HRC's hand "shot up", Obama hesitated. This hesitation is interesting to consider. For one thing it seems to indicate he had not previously made a decision on this issue, and was forced to make one quickly. Perhaps Obama, someone who is extraordinarily gifted at thinking on his feet, did not feel as much need to prepare? (Or perhaps he didn't expect to be forced to simply answer yes or no.) Regardless, in that moment if not before he must have at least considered the idea that the phrase "war on terror" isn’t very relevant to our country’s current predicament.
Yet he did ultimately raise his hand, and until he speaks more about the issue we can only speculate as to his rationale. My guess is that he judged it to be unproductive to rock the boat on a non-essential issue (i.e. the "framing" as opposed to the actual execution of our battle with Islamic extremism). Afterall, the "WoT" is a phrase that has been completely etched into our country's consciousnous.
Consider this quote of Obama’s hero, Abraham Lincoln, which a New Yorker profile uses to illustrate Obama’s thinking:
"Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded."
Lincoln was discussing slavery. His point, of course, was that when the public has a cemented impression on a certain topic, that creates a political reality unto itself that one can't simply ignore. To deny such a widespread belief has the potential to (further) divide the country, making progress on all other issues even more difficult. As we know Obama promotes his ability to create consensus as his greatest asset. His ability to do this is based on his respect for the beliefs of others, even if he doesn't agree with them. Consider this on the issue of gay marriage:
"If there's a deep moral conviction that gay marriage is wrong, if a majority of Americans believe on principle that marriage is an institution for men and women, I'm not at all sure he shares that view, but he's not an in-your-face type," Cass Sunstein, a colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago, says. "To go in the face of people with religious convictions—that's something he'd be very reluctant to do." This is not, Sunstein believes, due only to pragmatism; it also stems from a sense that there is something worthy of respect in a strong and widespread moral feeling, even if it's wrong.
So, like Clinton, it seems that Obama has the Red half of the country in mind. I believe there is a distinction, however, between the two candidates' approaches. I don’t think Obama is trying to play down weaknesses or be all things to all people. Rather, he knows that if he wins he’s going to inherent a country that is sharply divided, so both sides will have to be able to come to consensus on some issues if we are going to be able to move forward. In other words it is less an electoral strategy than a governing strategy.
::::
And finally of course we have Mr. Edwards. I remember seeing Edwards on television over a year ago, when his campaign was just gearing up, telling an interviewer that he was planning on running a different kind of campaign from 2004, and that this time he would let it all hang out and swing from the hip. Well he certainly followed up on that promise at South Carolina's Democratic debate. His rejection of the "war on terror" phrasing took many by surprise and was noted to be a shift in his position. Time magazine reported that Edwards himself has often used the phrase, and that at the time of the debate it was even used on his own web page. So, it doesn't appear that this is something that Edwards had already decided or was planning to make an issue of.
Certainly it must have beem something he'd mulled over, but it must be more than coincidence that he changed his stance at the debate. My take is that when the question about the phrase "the war on terror" was asked he quickly decided this was exactly the kind of issue he could set himself apart with. After all, although his numbers are respectible, he's trailing behind two candidates who both seem to be courting the "centrist" vote, so to get traction he's going to need to find votes elsewhere.
I'm sure that Edwards remembers the primary in 2004, when Howard Dean was catapulted to the top of the race by bluntly opposing Bush on every front. As Edwards watched Dean, a supposedly marginal candidate, shoot past himself and the other candidates in the polls he must have wondered "how did he do it?" I'm sure that was a phenomenon he followed very closely (after all, he had a front-row seat!) and that he drew some conclusions as to what it said about the current political landscape.
Of course, the "Netroots" played a big role in the Dean campaign's success, as an emerging force which instinctively warmed to Dean's adversarial style. That campaign ultimately went down in flames. But since then the Netroots has only grown in size. Edwards seems to be betting that if he can similarly align himself with the Netroots, while simultaneously forming a strong bond with organized labor, he could ride a similar wave. And if he can indeed rally these constituencies, while maintaining his image as a moderate, certainly anything could happen.
All of this is to say that Edwards must surely know that there are big gains to be made if he can diferentiate himself from his rivals by establishing himself as a forceful, adversarial candidate in a way that Obama and HRC are not. The way to do that is to avoid "playing it safe" and just go for it.
Take a look at what he recently said in Portland about the "GWOT" issue:
And I don't know how many of you even noticed this or how many of you watched the Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina, but I suspect some of you did. But a question was asked whether you agree with the language - the Bush language, which is what it is - "Global War on Terror." And I did not. And I said, I took that position at the debate...
[Applause]
This is a political frame and political rhetoric. They use it to justify everything they do. They use that language to justify the war in Iraq. They use it to justify Guantanamo. They use it to justify torture. They use it to justify illegal spying on the American people.
[Applause]
It is time for us to quit kowtowing to these people. We have to say what we really believe. Now, are there really dangerous people in the world? Of course there are. We need to be smart and aggressive and intelligent, use intelligence - did I say dangerous people? - we have to use intelligence to fight them and stop them. Everybody recognizes that. But the one thing that's been proven beyond any doubt as a result of what's happened in the last six years is raw power alone will never make you a leader. You actually have to have the moral authority.
It’s interesting to note Edwards’s choice of language and his use of the idea of "political framing." His point is absolutely correct, of course, but it’s also worth noting that the concept of "framing" is something that is constantly being discussed here at DKos and similar sites, but seldom heard in the mainstream media. I wouldn’t be surprised if many people in the audience in Portland were confused as to what exactly the phrase meant (before he explained himself, anyway). But perhaps discussing the issue in this way could even qualify as the kind of "dog whistle" phrasing that we have talked about Bush using to communicate allegiance to the far right without turning off others. (For instance referencing Dred Scott when discussing Roe: a common evangelical talking point that goes right over the rest of our heads.)
Even if that is indeed the case, however, I should point out that it's not just a (new) campaign talking point to score political points. The Time article asserts that Edwards sees such "frames" as having very real world consequences in terms of policy:
Edwards, previewing the foreign policy he will unveil in coming weeks, made it clear that his objections to Bush's world view are not merely semantic. Indeed, the Edwards foreign policy will be built around a rejection of the Bush doctrine, which puts a primary emphasis on the projection of American military power. "Americans are completely prepared for, and receptive to, an alternative approach," Edwards said. "I don't think they would accept an approach that did not include a component of strength. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it."
Finally, Time asked Edwards outright why his Democratic opponents chose to endorse the GWOT phrase:
"My conjecture is that they've used the term so many times themselves that they would be concerned about saying that they reject it now. And they're also concerned about the political implications. I'm going to say the truth, and that's it."
::::
So, yeah, Edwards rocks. But I still like Obama. Perhaps I'll write about more about that another time. But mostly I just wanted to share a few things I put together reading different stuff on the web, etc. Hope you enjoyed my take.
And of course we still have plenty of time to hash this out further. (Whether we want to or not!)
The campaign continues...