February 06, 2004
Electability
Al Maline has a Watchblog post on President Bush’s “electability” asking why it should be an issue for his party, when, as Michael Kinsley points out, it’s the Democrats’ own weak knees that have made it so.
The process the Democrats are putting themselves through resembles John Maynard Keynes’ famous description of the stock market. The game isn’t to figure out which stocks are most likely to do well, but to figure out which stocks other investors think are most likely to do well. And these other investors are thinking of other investors and so on.
The Democrats are no longer looking for their strongest candidate—just who they think swing voters will think is the strongest candidate. While in some respects the swing voter theory is a myth (it’s more a matter of voter turn-out than voter conversion), there is no getting around the circumlocution of “electability.”
What constitutes this phantasm? And why has it become so popular?
Kinsley has chased the White Whale and near killed him: Electability is a myth the Democrats have used both as a extrinsic propaganda and as an intrinsic crutch.
The propagandist element has been to assure general election voters the party has a chance at even beating Bush. (True, Gallup has a poll, thinking Kerry can make it so.)
The vastly different side of “electability” is the internalization of it: Democrats rationalizing a candidate they don’t really want. If they could, the Democratic base would have 40 years of Clinton, but it just isn’t going to happen. In the meantime, there is no Democratic message. Even Party chairman Terry McAuliffe has said there isn’t one, “Whoever the nominee of the party is will be the messenger…and that will become the message as we heard forth.”
Sure, sure, liberalism falls short of being quite so easily package as conservatisms three-D’s (Don’t over-tax. Don’t over-legislate. Defend). Some people say the Democratic Party is ‘complex’ and has ‘so many shades’ that it can’t be simplified. There is another obstacle they face: Finding a way to cut down polynomial ideas into a here-to-there line (It's darn hard to explain 'yea we want to lower the deficit but we have to increase government spending first'; or 'we want to protect the country, but cut defense spending').
So the Democrats find a proxy for their own dissatisfaction: Finding the man that other people might suppose, come election time, is the best man for the job. And it just won’t work. With the Democratic field out there now (and shrinking) it’s Bush’s election to lose (and by all means, media be willing, the Democrats think its possible)—not the Democrats’ to win.
It seems entirely possible that the Democrats are in a two-way stand off in their Quixotic 2004 General Election Adventure: Bashing Bush without a man to beat him; and searching for a just-like-Bush to slam dunk over the real McCoy.
Posted by Ry Rivard at February 6, 2004 02:29 PMI can’t really speak for the Democratic Party, but I would shoot myself before I went through 40 years of Clinton. He left himself open to attack, and therefore could not govern as well as he should have been able to. I would much rather have 40 years of Carter or Dean.
Posted by: Robert Grebel at February 6, 2004 04:42 PM>The propagandist element has been to assure >general election voters the party has a chance >at even beating Bush.
It may be propaganda, but it’s probably true. Look how your boy has been doing:
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 6, 2004 10:21 PMI think politicians are suckers for formalities. They’ll pick up on any erstwhile guaranteed-to-win plan the consultants come up with. And why not? They’re trying to navigate the confusing waters of the political high seas. They want answers, even if they’re just provisional.
But the reality is, there is nothing deterministic about engaging with the masses. What has brought John Kerry to this point, I feel, is not something that can be entirely reduced to a theory that can predict the best moves of a candidate.
Ultimately I think John Nash describes politics better than Adam Smith or John Neumann. Multiple points of equilibrium between different system bargaining with one another, and the best compromises aren’t necessarily those that either side would consider ideal or the most beneficial.
Pro-business does not mean good for the economy. Pro-Defense does not mean better homeland security or better foreign policy. YOu can be for law and order, but that will not mean that your administration will do the best job of crime prevention. We can be tough on defendants, without doing justice. In short, being for something doesn’t mean your choices will make you the most competent of people to lead.
Bush has definitely proved that. Recent spending and budget cuts have left me uncertain of ever truly getting a good policy picture out of what programs Bush spends money on or cuts funds for. I mean, the coincidence of Bush’s cutting of funds for EPA cleanup of bio and chem contaminated buildings on the day of the Ricin attack is the kind of coincidence I wouldn’t buy occuring in a film, but it seems Bush has that kind of foresight.
And you know something? Republicans have gotten what they deserved. The electable guy. The name recognition. The proper party pedigree. The big funders, the candidate who could beat Gore. But even then, look what happened- Dead Heat, less than few thousand votes apart, and not even that result is trusted today.
The thing is, though, I think it’s done the Democrat party good, to have the candidates it has had in the race. A primary with a heir apparent is a fairly uninvolving affair. But have all kinds of candidates, and all kinds of outcomes, and all kinds of things are possible, an people are tuning in to find out what happens next.
Besides, isn’t it the point of the primaries that people figure out what they want out of a candidate? If they want electability, who are the candidates to argue? We’ll give you electability. Would you like a side order of Charisma with that?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2004 12:23 AMWoody, good reference link. But, Dec. 13 tells me that Bush recognizes he must pull Osama bin Laden out of the hat at some point. I noticed Pakistan’s Musharref denied the U.S. access to Pakistan territory for its Spring offensive to find bin Laden, and in the same week pardoned the scientist who released nuclear weapon plans on to the black market.
Something quite incomprehensible is taking place here. Not sure what to make of it at the moment. But, bin Laden is the reelection insurance Bush needs. Dunno. Should we invade Pakistan to insure our President’s reelection? Or is there a charade taking place here with a stage being set for the actors Bush-Musharref to act their scene where Bush gets tough, Pakistan relents, and Bush gets bin Laden. (Almost forgot to mention the backstage reunion after the show, that’s where Bush pays Musharref for a wonderful performance).
Have to wait and see what becomes of this to do anything other than imagine possible scenarios.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 7, 2004 04:13 AMDavid - The scheme you describe is too clever by half. If Bush really knew where Osama was, he would be better off “getting him out of the bag” than engaging in a complicated subterfuge that could be exposed and make him look like an ass.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 7, 2004 06:54 AMYet engaging in a complicated subterfuge that could be exposed and make him look like a donkey is exactly what he did in invading Iraq. And now it threatens his reelection.
There is an old saying, “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. It remains to be seen if Bush is an old dog, but, he has already established his ability to engage in subterfuge that could come back and bite him.
Interesting train of thought. If I were Musharref, now that I know I’ve got Bush over a barrel, I would press for a multi billion dollar aid package before letting any troops hunt for Osama. I still think we haven’t heard the whole story on what Libya may have received in return for giving up their weapons program.
Posted by: Al Maline at February 7, 2004 05:28 PMAl, it is entirely possible that scenario is unfolding as we speak. The power of the Presidency to engage in this kind secret diplomacy using American tax dollars without American consent for such use, is an awesome power. If abused, it would unlikely be uncovered for years after.
The Executive Branch of American government would cause our founding father’s to ask, is this the same country we founded?
