Looking Across the Aisle
February 15, 2008
The Democratic Field
On Super Tuesday, Democrats across the country went to the polls to help choose the party’s nominee. While the vote was extraordinarily close, the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is tighter than ever before. Given Mrs. Clinton’s once tremendous lead in national polls, Mr. Obama’s ascendancy in this campaign is quite remarkable. Less than four years ago, Mr. Obama was an obscure Senate candidate from Illinois. Over the past few years, Mr. Obama has catapulted onto the national stage with all the subtlety of a Soviet tank division and stands poised to overthrow the once unassailable Clinton Dynasty within the Democratic Party.
Despite the best efforts of the well-organized Clintonites, Mr. Obama has gained remarkable traction, particularly among young voters and wealthier Democrats. In just under a year, the Obama campaign has leveled the playing field by relentlessly hammering home its ubiquitous theme of change. More than any other candidate, Mr. Obama’s appeal is based on his extraordinary charisma and his ability to connect with individuals who feel disillusioned with the partisan political landscape. The central message of the Obama campaign is that Mr. Obama represents a fundamental departure from the partisan bickering that dominates Washington. Obama’s campaign managers have brilliantly harnessed their candidate’s rhetorical abilities and billed his candidacy as something bigger than a routine election; Mr. Obama, in essence, represents a sort of transcendence of the status quo — a transcendence of partisanship, a transcendence of race, a transcendence of everything that is wrong with the United States.
All of this is of course very inspiring. However, beneath Mr. Obama’s lofty rhetoric critics argue that there is little to back up his poetic arguments. For someone who presents himself as the man to unite a divided country, Mr. Obama has exhibited very little bipartisanship during his time in the national spotlight. Despite all the rhetoric about change, Mr. Obama’s campaign platform is hardly revolutionary, they attest. Down the line, Mr. Obama supports traditional left-leaning causes: repealing tax cuts and increasing government spending. In fact, the National Journal scored Mr. Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007. Mr. Obama has garnered endorsements from some of the most partisan actors within the Democratic Party, including Moveon.org (whose endorsement Mr. Obama eagerly accepted without a word about the organization’s “General Betrayus” ad campaign), John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy.
Mr. Obama has every right to vote according to his conscience, even if that conscience leads him to positions which place him to the left of the average voter. However, Mr. Obama’s voting record does not speak volumes to his ability to unite the country and transcend partisanship. It is extremely unclear how a quintessentially left-wing agenda would unite the country and launch the United States into a new Camelot. Ultimately, while Mr. Obama is indeed a fresh face, the policies that an Obama administration would implement are hardly extraordinary. Mr. Obama’s platform is predicated upon highly divisive issues over which reasonable people may differ, but it certainly does not match up to his magnanimous public persona.
If Mr. Obama’s rhetoric promises a transcendence of partisanship, Mrs. Clinton’s rhetoric certainly promises no such thing. The Clintons have repeatedly come under fire during the campaign for their strident language and rough-and-tumble style of politics. However, while Hillary Clinton does not promise utopia, she is the eminently more reasonable candidate. On the surface, there do not seem to be very many policy differences between the Clinton and Obama camps. Mrs. Clinton, like Mr. Obama, supports mainline Democratic policies. The difference, however — and the great secret of the 2008 campaign — is that while Mr. Obama is much more partisan than his rhetoric would indicate, Mrs. Clinton is actually more moderate than the image she has presented on the campaign trail. Mrs. Clinton has the enormous advantage of being surrounded by many of her husband’s former advisors, especially in the arena of foreign policy. On the quintessential issue of our time, our war with international terrorism, Mrs. Clinton would be pragmatically responsible and would have some of the most qualified experts in the country giving her advice. Any candidate’s foreign policy is ultimately a reflection of the given candidate’s advisors — and no one on the Democratic side has better advisors than Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton’s circle of current and former advisors includes figures such as retired General Jack Keane (an architect of the Iraq surge), Michael O’Hanlon, and Ken Pollack. All three of these individuals would likely play important roles in a Clinton administration and are intelligent analysts who could genuinely unite the country under a pragmatic foreign policy.
The Clinton campaign, while not flashy, represents a responsible, Democratic alternative to Republican policies. Democrats who are serious about national security — after all, Democratic presidents have tended to be the architects of American grand strategy — should enthusiastically support Senator Clinton. Despite her occasional partisan pandering, Hillary Clinton — and her most important advisors — understand the nature of our twilight struggle with international terrorism and would prosecute it to the fullest extent of their ability. Senator Obama, on the other hand, promises a new era but ultimately shows no signs of delivering upon his grandiose language.
Chas Morrison is a freshman and has not yet declared a major.
The Republican Field
After Super Tuesday, it was clear that Senator John McCain would be the Republican nominee in 2008. Thursday’s graceful exit by Governor Romney nearly solidified that fact. As a staunch Democrat, the development of McCain’s prohibitive nomination has me especially concerned for November’s race. John McCain will be an extremely formidable candidate, even as the prevailing mood trends against the Republicans.
Cheap shots at Governor Romney aside, John McCain is a man of the utmost integrity. His record speaks for itself. He was a tortured prisoner of war in Vietnam. After his father was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Command, McCain was offered freedom by his captors. McCain refused the offer, upholding the “first in, first out” policy; he would only leave if the POWs captured before him were released first. As a result, he spent five extra years in Vietnam — including two years of solitary confinement. His heroism garnered a Purple Heart and a Silver Star, among other prestigious military honors.
He has often applied that integrity to his experience as a legislator. After two terms in the House of Representatives, he was elected to the United States Senate in 1986. He now serves as the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He has been a vocal advocate for ethics reform (which no one in Congress likes) and action on climate change (which his party doesn’t believe in).
His willingness to break from his party has led to his reputation for “straight talk” and garnered the ire of many in his party. In fact, in August of 2007, owing mostly to his instrumental role in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, McCain’s campaign was almost lifeless and out of money. Conservative radio pundits Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have vociferously opposed the Senator’s nomination. Ann Coulter, a highly conservative commentator, claimed that if John McCain were the Republican nominee, she would campaign for Hillary Clinton. At last year’s prominent gathering of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), McCain was booed in absentia. At Thursday’s CPAC conference, attendees had to be told not to boo again. Even in McCain’s home state of Arizona, exit polls indicate that he lost the self-described conservative vote to Governor Romney.
The question, then, is how much the Republican base’s ambivalence actually matters. When McCain is the Republican nominee, I expect that many unsatisfied Republicans will come around. His Senate leadership on the Iraq War — and willingness to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years — appeals to the Republican base’s desire to “win the war.” He has spent the primary season bolstering his conservative credentials, openly supporting the teaching of intelligent design and showcasing his support for pro-life judges. He placated supply-side conservatives by supporting the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, which he initially opposed. Additionally, he repaired some of the damage from his description of Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” by receiving endorsements from prominent evangelicals, including Senator Sam Brownback, and speaking at Falwell’s Liberty University. If there is low Republican turnout in November, his struggles with the base will matter. However, other conditions might galvanize them to come out anyway. In a Clinton-McCain race, he may not have much to worry about.
Moreover, McCain will likely be able to run in all fifty states on his maverick image. In all likelihood McCain will win the traditionally Republican states and enable the Republicans to run well in traditionally Democratic states and the very competitive in swing states. Opinion polls suggest that McCain is the Republican that most threatens any Democratic candidate in the fall — but McCain’s ascendancy to the presidency is not a done deal. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, McCain should be wary of losing coveted independent votes, a phenomenon that already occurred in New Hampshire when more independents chose to vote in the Democratic than the Republican primary. McCain has risked and probably lost some of his independent support in his open quest to mollify the conservative wing of his party.
In particular, Senator McCain should worry about being on the wrong side of history. If elected, he will be 72 at the time of inauguration. After 16 years of divisive Clinton and Bush administrations, even conservative voters seem to be clamoring for change. McCain represents the battles of the past, showcasing his Vietnam era scars for all to see. His orientation towards solutions and compromise will help but they cannot undo what is so clear: John McCain is old. If he wants to beat the fresh appeal of Senator Obama and the (admittedly lesser) novelty of Senator Clinton, he will need to restore his 2000 platform as a straight-talking outsider, an alternative to the mudslinging of traditional partisan politics. In 2008, Obama seems to have occupied this ground. If McCain cedes the straight talking middle ground, he risks looking old, tired, and establishmentarian. But if he can maintain his independent reputation and mobilize the base of his party, he will be a difficult candidate for Democrats to beat this November.
Shana Hurley is a sophomore double majoring in political science and international relations. She is the secretary of the Tufts Democrats and co-director of the nonpartisan student organization Tufts Votes.