Outsider vs. Washington
I'm watching bloggingheads.tv and am being sort of driven nuts by Jonathan Chait's apparent belief that the McCain of 2000-2004 is the 'real' McCain while this McCain is the fake one.
The thing is, I don't. You don't. No one except McCain knows. Hell, he might not even know.
One of the major problems with politics, and I admit that I am cribbing a little bit from Crashing the Gate, is that there is this professional class of political handlers that act as the airbrush and silicone tits of politics. Sure, establishment politicians might look like they're bearing it all, but everyone looking has this sinking suspicion that it's all just one impressive layer of bullshit.
Taken to an extreme and you'll get Mitt Romney - someone who seems to have only the core principles that happen to be useful to win the next election. When he thought he might be able to nab a Senate seat, he ran to the left of TED KENNEDY on gay rights. When he thinks he can be President, now it's no more abortions and dude-on-dude action.
Hillary Clinton has a little of that too. At first she was a hawk, and then she tried to be a dove. She's tried to be nice and above the fray, and tried to play up her ability to street fight. She's focused on experience, and then on change. Now she's no actual Romney - her positions are rarely mutually exclusive. She, at least now (when desperation is setting in) has been putting in the effort to tie all of the assertions to her world view. She's an exceptionally skilled politician who doesn't skimp on the hard work needed to make those sorts of transitions.
Even Edwards has a little bit of it. When he ran for the Senate, he initially campaigned as a moderate, DLC style Democrat. He voted for the Iraq war. While he always seemed sympathetic to poverty related issues, his current populist message is relatively new.
I don't say this as an insult to either Edwards or Clinton. I think it is almost inevitable ... and that is pretty damn sad.
This is what people mean, I think, when they complain about Washington insiders. The term is vague and hard to pin down sometimes, but I think, more then anything it means someone who seems inauthentic because their public persona changes too quickly over time. When politicians say that their opinions are not poll-driven or focus-tested, it is a rebuke, as much as anything, to the professional class of political handlers and fixers.
(It is worth noting, as an aside, that the fixers have an incentive to have candidates make radical changes. If you're an adviser and you say to Hillary Clinton "Iowa was a fluke, just continue doing what you're doing" how much credit do you get if she turns it around? None. But if you say "my polling data says you'd do best if you go to rallies in clown suits and speak only in gibberish" and she wins, everyone will have little choice but to credit the clown suits and the gibberish and declare you a genius. And, of course, the next time she is in trouble, the next adviser will have her answer all questions in biblical verses. Eventually voters will remember her as that crazy woman who was in a clown suit one moment and answering only in biblical verses the next).
Now I'm for Obama. But this post isn't all that much about that. It's about the phenomenon that he and Huckabee are riding. Because while I hope Obama is authentic, and what we are seeing is the 'real' him, I'm also glad that he hasn't been in Washington for twenty years and we aren't on Obama version forty-seven.
The thing is, I don't. You don't. No one except McCain knows. Hell, he might not even know.
One of the major problems with politics, and I admit that I am cribbing a little bit from Crashing the Gate, is that there is this professional class of political handlers that act as the airbrush and silicone tits of politics. Sure, establishment politicians might look like they're bearing it all, but everyone looking has this sinking suspicion that it's all just one impressive layer of bullshit.
Taken to an extreme and you'll get Mitt Romney - someone who seems to have only the core principles that happen to be useful to win the next election. When he thought he might be able to nab a Senate seat, he ran to the left of TED KENNEDY on gay rights. When he thinks he can be President, now it's no more abortions and dude-on-dude action.
Hillary Clinton has a little of that too. At first she was a hawk, and then she tried to be a dove. She's tried to be nice and above the fray, and tried to play up her ability to street fight. She's focused on experience, and then on change. Now she's no actual Romney - her positions are rarely mutually exclusive. She, at least now (when desperation is setting in) has been putting in the effort to tie all of the assertions to her world view. She's an exceptionally skilled politician who doesn't skimp on the hard work needed to make those sorts of transitions.
Even Edwards has a little bit of it. When he ran for the Senate, he initially campaigned as a moderate, DLC style Democrat. He voted for the Iraq war. While he always seemed sympathetic to poverty related issues, his current populist message is relatively new.
I don't say this as an insult to either Edwards or Clinton. I think it is almost inevitable ... and that is pretty damn sad.
This is what people mean, I think, when they complain about Washington insiders. The term is vague and hard to pin down sometimes, but I think, more then anything it means someone who seems inauthentic because their public persona changes too quickly over time. When politicians say that their opinions are not poll-driven or focus-tested, it is a rebuke, as much as anything, to the professional class of political handlers and fixers.
(It is worth noting, as an aside, that the fixers have an incentive to have candidates make radical changes. If you're an adviser and you say to Hillary Clinton "Iowa was a fluke, just continue doing what you're doing" how much credit do you get if she turns it around? None. But if you say "my polling data says you'd do best if you go to rallies in clown suits and speak only in gibberish" and she wins, everyone will have little choice but to credit the clown suits and the gibberish and declare you a genius. And, of course, the next time she is in trouble, the next adviser will have her answer all questions in biblical verses. Eventually voters will remember her as that crazy woman who was in a clown suit one moment and answering only in biblical verses the next).
Now I'm for Obama. But this post isn't all that much about that. It's about the phenomenon that he and Huckabee are riding. Because while I hope Obama is authentic, and what we are seeing is the 'real' him, I'm also glad that he hasn't been in Washington for twenty years and we aren't on Obama version forty-seven.
The speculation has been on how racism/sexism will effect the Dem's choice of nominee and the election in general. Hell, if I had a nickel for every idiotic OMG them white folks in Iowa voted for Obama and a whole lot of vagina-type people didn't vote for Clinton!!!! story that showed up last night/today, I'd be fucking rich.
But I think maybe that's focusing too late in the process. Looking at how the candidates, Obama and Clinton in particular, have chosen to present themselves... Well, I kinda think the spectres of racism/sexism hang over that.
I mean, face it. Neither the black man nor the woman can risk being labeled "angry." If a grunt was all it took to torpedo Howard Dean, you know that both Clinton and Obama are hyper-aware of everything they do and say. Because one whisper of "angry" and suddenly the stereotypes are rearing their ugly heads and everybody's waiting for Obama to don saggy pants and start swearing and checking if Clinton has shaved her legs lately.
And, in a way, I can see how the necessity of not being angry has lead both of them to present themselves as they do. Not necessarily speaking policy-wise, but just in the overall tone.
Obama is using the language and cadence of the preacher. And, y'know, it seems to me that that's a role that we (dominant culture/white america/whatever) are ok with black men having. If I weren't completely brain dead, I'd probably be able to pull a list out of my ass, but pop culture is fairly littered with black male preachers/inspiring folks. I'm not going to associate Obama directly with the Magical Negro phenomenon, because I don't want to agree with Rush Limbaugh on anything -- but I could see where we (dominant culture/white america/whatever) are happy to associate him with that particular stereotype. He can be for change, certainly, but he can't take Edwards' position of wanting to force it. Because I can just see lots of people having all sorts of internal squiggles about that.
On the other side, with Clinton... She can't be angry without having hairy-legged, man-hating dyke attached to the back of it. But neither can she show any sort of overwhelming dream or vision - because we all know that silly girls with their heads in the clouds need to run back to their barbies and pretend tea parties. So she's sort of forced into the box of being the level-headed, capable, competent candidate.
I don't know. It's 4am. I'm not sure much of this makes sense.
And it's really sort of interesting to me, because it seems to me that both of them have had to spend a lot of time proving themselves and demanding respect. Mom was, for my entire childhood, a teacher in a men's maximum security prison. (Which, y'know, these days is about what Congress ought to be.)
But both of them seem to have the whole "beat them at their own game" attitude. The one that says that a woman needs to be twice as good at the job as a man to get any respect whatsoever. (Whether or not that's true)
I don't know. It's just...interesting.
I can understand that. Some people will buy (and maybe it is true) that it was personal growth and genuine philosophical transformation. The problem is, even if a transformation is genuine, it tends to look like something calculated (particularly when you move away from something that is a liability in your current election and move towards something that is a benefit).
(if you can even call it that -- I think it's made out to be a lot bigger shift than it really was on both accounts).
If you do end up wanting a debate, I'll take that one. I think it is hard to underestimate how large a shift it was. You don't go from running to the left of Kennedy one election and then a few years later run to the right of Pat Buchannon and not have it be a big transformation.
When one friend asked "Why don't they just do all of the primaries on one day?" I thought, "But then how would they have a chance to reshape how they're presenting themselves?"