Armstrong: The election is over
Paul Armstrong
Thursday, October 2nd, 2008
It’s the economy, stupid. Again.
It’s not 1992, but James Carville’s famous slogan for former president Bill Clinton’s campaign so prophetically captured the electoral insignificance of George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy proficiency in the face of Clinton’s economic appeal. This was especially relevant in light of the economic turmoil of the past few weeks.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama is winning. And Republican nominee John McCain is losing. This probably is not going to change before election day, simply because foreign policy issues are no longer front and center. The national security anxiety of 2004 that delivered the White House back to President Bush has given way to this year’s economic anxiety, an ominous development for a candidacy founded on national security appeal.
Consider moderator Jim Lehrer’s introductory remarks in last Friday’s debate on foreign policy: “Tonight's [debate] will primarily be about foreign policy and national security, which, by definition, includes the global financial crisis.” In college and in less polite corners of the world, this is called bullshit.
Thanks to Lehrer’s verbal creativity, the candidates spent at least half of the only debate on international affairs discussing tax policy, earmarks, health care, regulatory frameworks, tuition expenses, electrical grids, ethanol subsidies and the DNA of bears in Montana.
Check the transcript. This was not just a rhetorical stunt by a veteran news anchor. The change in debate content accurately reflected the anxieties of an electorate that has drastically shifted its priorities away from foreign policy.
In this altered electoral landscape, the strategic blunders of the McCain campaign have become apparent. Its efforts in the preceding months to broaden the GOP’s economic appeal were half-hearted at best, and instead, significant resources and policy positions were sacrificed to reassure the tax-cutting, libertarian wing of the Bush coalition, a school of ideologues who see the shadow of creeping socialism and governmental excess behind all economic evils.
The hazards of runaway capitalism dominate the headlines, and this was not an optimal approach to have taken. In addition, McCain lacks the requisite fluency and background on economic issues that would make his candidacy more appealing to anxious middle-class voters. His embarrassingly under-performing running mate does nothing to help this shortcoming.
McCain easily got the better of Obama when the subject turned to foreign policy, but at a time when national security messages have ceased to resonate, it changed nothing.
Over the course of his campaign, Obama has carefully cultivated his appeal among economically apprehensive voters, and now his efforts are rewarded. In November, national security and foreign policy will be afterthoughts, and financial turmoil and middle-class anxiety will control. Other things staying equal, this election is probably over.
Armstrong is a Dallas senior in business.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
When Barack Obama takes office in January (he will, if Sarah Palin's performance last night is any indication), I would humbly ask that he not loosen up lending guidelines like the democrats who came before him, that he not require banks to give out loans to people who cannot pay the bills like the democrats before him. Please, Barack Obama, do not be like the well loved Democrats who came before you; feel free question the power and decisions of Wall Street, but please remember that more government isn't always the best answer and that the Fed can't fix all of our problems.
Sometimes we need to tough it out.
Signed,
A Taxpayer.
Heres an "assumption check" for you...the election isn't over until the votes are counted. I get the feeling that it will surprise you.
When Jim Lehrer asked both candidates how a $700b bailout would effect the plans they have for their administration, neither could give a specific example. In other words, both seemed to think spending $700b would do nothing to their budget plans. Now, if you're a voter basing your vote entirely on the economy like you suggest most people will, are you going to vote for the guy proposing massive new programs and increased government spending with no regard to $700b cut in your available funds?
Despite the low approval ratings of the current president and Senator Obama continuously reminding the country how they differ, he has yet to take a significant margin in any poll. This should be an indication that voters don't have a great deal of confidence in Obama.
This election is far from over.
Regarding spending and 700b dollars.
I kind of remember a certain Keynes who would probably say that spending and investment is the way to go...
You seem to be so sure Obama has the solutions to the economic problems but fail to mention any of them. It was Democratic policies and persistence that pressured institutions like Fredie Mac to lend money to people who did not deserve loans. Obama and his economics advisor both pushed for low income families to get loans for houses. Those low income families are responsible for more than $200 billion of the short fall the failed lending companies have experienced. It's not just Wall street’s fault. It's also the fault of individuals who defaulted on their loans. But, Obama wants to keep sending money into their pockets. He wants to pull money out of our economy by raising taxes on the very people who were holding up the mortgage firms with investment for so long. You are absolutely wrong that this election is over. You are wrong that foreign policy will not be an issue. Worst of all, you didn't just analyze data incorrectly. You had no data. You just spit stuff out that you think instead of presenting a researched argument. Opinions pieces are supposed to be made credible by using sourcing.
Abita,
My article offered no comment on who has the better answers to today's economic problems or who carries the bulk of responsibility for the financial crisis. Most of your comments, therefore, were not directly relevant to my argument. To me, those questions are only relevant in how voters perceive them.
As for your charge that my argument used no data, you are correct. I felt it needed no data. You see, I cannot explain everything in a very short space to my readers, and must assume that they have a minimal baseline of knowledge. In this case, I assumed that they already knew that Democrats have an inherent electoral advantage when economic and related issues are foremost in the minds of voters. I cited no stats for this, just as I cited none to support my assumption that Republicans are more trusted on national security issues.
If you require hard data to see what most others already know, please direct your attention to the following link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
And then ask yourself why Obama's meteoric rise in the polls in virtually every swing state -- and some previously solid red states -- has coincided so directly with the recent wave of financial turmoil. Put the pieces together.
As a McCain supporter, I certainly hope you are correct that foreign policy will become a major issue. However, barring major world upheaval -- bombs exploding in Manhattan or an Israeli attack on Iran -- I doubt very much that this will occur, and I think my citation of Jim Lehrer's redirection of the first "foreign policy debate" was sufficient to illustrate the point that foreign policy has become a secondary issue.
Thanks to you and others for all the comments.
Paul Armstrong
There may be a correlation between Obama's rise in the polls lately and media coverage of the economic problems, but it's not the only cause of them. It's also a ridiculous assumption that people actually are moving in his direction because of one issue that, lets face it, most people have probably only been aware of in the past two weeks and really more than 50 percent of voting America know nothing about still.
I'm standing my ground though. Give us some data. I'm not trying to attack you. I just think even in a 250-500 word piece, you can give us a nugget. All you had to say was, "Obama has gained X points in swing states since AIG announced its troubles." Then you have a credible argument. Thanks for responding to my comment. I appreciate that and I appreciate you trying to make these issues relevant to readers.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.