“There’s No Going Back”

So I wanted to clarify a post I made last week at 3am on Thursday night. My basic argument was, “If Obama wins, it will be hard to imagine the old politics – by which I mean non-democratic, non-participatory, elite-driven, traditional media dominated, presidential elections occurring again. This will change the game. And if he loses… I fear that we will lose a generation.

Now, Spencer rightly called me out on being “Barack Star-Struck” and challenged the premise of the post, so I thought it appropriate to clarify.

While McCain has done a great job of getting the Democratic convention off of the nightly news by selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his choice for Veep (with potentially disastrous consequences) it’s worth revisiting why this convention was so different in my opinion (and I’ve watched more or less gavel-to-gavel since 1988).

Whether we want to call it the Barack-Star phenomenon or movement politics, the reality is that the staid old conventions are done. The viewership resembled the Superbowl and *FINALLY* surpassed the American Idol final. Now, it could be argued that this is just celebrity politics (attribution to John McCain) but I think it is something different.

First, the decision to hold the final night in the stadium while audacious and an enormous logistical challenge did in fact open up the convention. Let’s be frank, with the exception of some public radio types and a handful of academics able to score media badges (including my esteemed colleague San Jose State Professor of Politics Terry Christiansen), conventions are a closed affair. The ONLY people there are delegates, donors, lobbyists, and friends of the aforementioned groups.

This changed that somewhat. Sure the HUGE sponsors dominated the day. I made that point about the California delegation. Large corporations sponsor everything from the parties to the names of the arenas. Still, while it might not be logical to hold future conventions in stadia, my guess is that voters will demand access from now on. Conventions will become more small-D democratic, more participatory, more transparent.

Similarly, say what you want about the mainstream media (and I’ve said a lot in classes), they no longer dominate the news coverage. Between thousands (literally) of bloggers to alternative media (I got some fantastic DVDs by aspiring filmmakers) to YouTube, the relevance of the Brokaws and Courics is diminishing. And the house of horrors echo chamber that is cable media (from Wolf to Olberman to Hannity and O’Reilly) simply don’t have the significance they used to in past conventions.

Now, if Obama loses, and that’s still a possibility, what happens to the core group of young people who have crashed the party? Either they regroup, reorganize, and really do something next time… or we lose them. I fear it’s the latter.

The Ground Campaign

One thing that I’ll be looking for in Minneapolis…

During the Democratic Convention, Obama volunteers were identifying and calling potential voters. During the convention. In the arena. I’ve never seen anything like it.

These folks are going to win (if they do) by identifying more voters, organizing at the precinct level, and turning out voters.

McCain had to target the hard right with his Veep pick because he has NO ground operation. None. He has some money and the RNC has a LOT of money. But no ground team. So they either need to buy one (tough with 2 months left) or win with an ad blitz. Obama has more money and WAY more organization.

Let’s see if the Republicans use their convention as an organization building effort or a campaign finance vehicle. I’m interested to see.

Scripting a Convention

I realize that all conventions are scripted. And the best ones are the ones that start on time, and end on time, and deliver punchy and pithy one-liners (in other words, those that are the most scripted.

Except, the best moments of the convention were unscripted.

I finally had a chance to read the transcripts of the prepared addresses and my two favorite moments – Governor Brian Schweitzer’s pep rally and Michelle Obama’s recasting of patriotism as support for the returning service men and women and not mere support of the policies that sent them abroad. Neither appear in the prepared remarks.

Hopefully the Republicans will wing it a bit more.

Only in America? Really?

One of the more inane refrains from the convention is the line that these “American stories” are unique in some way. An AWFUL example from Governor Mark Warner’s keynote: “there’s only one country in the world where I could have received that education. Where I could have been given not just one chance, or two, but three, and where I could have succeeded – and that’s this country: the United States of America.”

Now, I applaud the last part – I was wondering which country it was, and “this country” didn’t narrow it down enough for me. So adding that this country is “the United States of America” was very helpful. I thought he might mean “county” and just misspoke.

OK, so snarky criticism aside, that statement is demonstrably false. There are plenty of countries that have access to higher education and opportunities for entrepreneurship. Is it at all possible to be “patriotic” without being mindlessly so? Is it not enough to love the country without feeding it false compliments like a child with low self esteem? After four days of that rhetoric, I was getting brain freeze like I’d been eating frozen yogurt for 72 straight hours. Enough. Really.

Democratic Frames… Or Lack Thereof

So this is how the Democrats lose.

For whatever reason, Dems. can’t seem to agree on a unifying message. The Republican themes are well-worn. Government is big, wasteful, and violates freedom. Individual opportunity is ensured by limited government.

Democratic themes are all over the place.

I sat down to read the 22 speeches (TWENTY-TWO!!!) that occurred during the main hours of the convention and that were given by elected officials (I exempted the “regular folks” who were more captivating in most cases).

So, what did I find?

Democrats want “change”, preferably of the kind that “we need”.
Barack Obama is “an American story” who will “bring people together” and who idealistically contrasts how things are with how they ought to be.
John McCain is “more of the same” or “four more of the same”
“The American Dream” is good and ought to be protected. And the undefined “middle class” expanded.
And we need to “take back” government and (to quote Howard Dean) get “a government that is on your side”.

Sounds like a political Mad-Libs.

So, OK, Democrats don’t do themes or frames very well. What do they do well? Democrats take positions on an awful lot of issues in these speeches: Iraq, foreclosures, veterans, the economy, oil dependence, green collar jobs, health care, college affordability, education, equal pay for equal work, discrimination, taxes, the energy crisis, America’s standing in the world, Social Security, and the movement of “American jobs” overseas. And there’s more where that came from.

Here’s the problem. Issues don’t win. They haven’t more or less in my lifetime? Without a frame of reference or some idea of WHY these are good things for us to do, the issues are meaningless. If government is wasteful and taxes burdensome, why would we want universal health care? Surely there is a reason aside from that we don’t have it now (Change) or that Obama can get it (by bringing us together) or that it would protect the American Dream. There has to be some logic for the role of government.

It gets worse. Where they do use frames successfully, Democrats are using Republican frames: tax cuts are called “tax relief” in these speeches (which suggests that taxes are uniformly onerous or at least so for the “middle class”) and the campaign is for the office of “commander-in-chief” (which suggests a permanent military posture as the president is only Commander-in-Chief “when called into actual service” according to the Constitution) thus suggesting that we don’t want someone capable of avoiding wars to begin with but rather one to lead the American military to victory.

So what actually works? Three things I liked (in a total of 22 speeches) that should be used to frame EVERYTHING else:

Deval Patrick, “government, as Barney Frank likes to say, is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together”.

Hillary Clinton, “make our government an instrument of the public good, not of private plunder” and

Barack Obama, “What is that promise” It’s a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It’s a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves – protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who’s willing to work.

That’s the promise of America – the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.”

You’d think after months of planning they might be able to give some coherence to the convention by developing a substantive governing message that extends through the scripted speeches. It’s not like there aren’t things to work with. But to win in November, the Democrats need to get on the same page about WHY.

Heading to Minneapolis/St. Paul

So I leave in the morning for the Republican National Convention. Initially I was disappointed that I couldn’t get an earlier flight and would be missing the night when President Bush and Vice President Cheney addressed the convention. As it turns out, everything got scrapped for today so I’ve missed nothing, aside from the shock and awe of the Sarah Palin story. My guess… there will still be a lot of that to see tomorrow.

More on Palin….

This is why I appreciate so much when people comment on my posts (particularly my sleepy ones)… because the comments are better than the posts. So in case others aren’t checking out the comments section, let me magnify the two particular challenges with the Palin pick. The Dems have two frames with which to play this choice:

1. As Patrick Murphy notes, there is a huge danger that this pick will be viewed as simply tokenism (he puts this far more eloquently than I). Appealing to women by saying, well, like Hillary, she has two x chromosomes, might be viewed as demeaning – like the idea that Clarence Thomas was suitable replacement for Thurgood Marshall. A great line I heard on the shuttle (and I don’t know the source of this)… “John McCain chose a woman VP candidate so he can pay her less.” Good reference to his opposition to the equal pay for equal work legislation. If they can portray her as hostile towards women’s interests and merely a token (like Howard Dean’s appeal to gun-toting confederate flag waiving southern good old boys) this pick isn’t at all helpful and might turn off women. But, they don’t want to overplay this. As the talking heads are saying, the Dems are loving this pick. Careful. Overreaching here would be a HUGE mistake. While Patrick is right if the Dems. play this cool, if they start the “you are just a token” line at the debate and gang up on her and dismiss her as some of the “analysts” are doing, the response (to quote Thomas’ appalling response yet one that snapped the media into line) is that this will be a “political lynching”.

2. As Jude Barry notes, this might be viewed as just political pandering. I agree. I can’t see any way that this is a good governing pick like Biden is. And I LOVE mayors. But I have to admit that she wasn’t on my list of effective mayors. And I think being governor can be good preparation. But she’s been governor for 20 months in a state where the legislature rarely meets. So she won’t help there. And the line that “well she led the Alaska National Guard” (I heard this from a Repub rep. on CNN Airport) is absurd in the extreme. They need to be VERY wise about rolling her out. If the Dems get to frame this pick, Jude is absolutely right that the pandering line damages the McCain brand deeply. Again, one of the best speeches of the convention was John Kerry’s where he compared McCain the Senator to McCain the Candidate. YouTube it. Then think of this choice in that light. They can have some fun with this

I still think that McCain didn’t have much choice but to swing for the fences (“close your eyes and you might hit something…” If it was Pawlenty or Romney, I’d probably still be asleep. As would be the delegates in Minneapolis on Wednesday. At least this stemmed the bleeding from the Dem. Convention.

Who is Sarah Palin?

So last night, every media person (and my well-connected fried Jude Barry) told me that Governor Pawlenty was getting into a plane to be announced as McCain’s Veep pick this morning.

So I believed it, too. Until I was awakened (Clinton was wrong, the 3 am phone call is easy, it’s the 6:30 am call that’s tough) with the word that it’s Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. I was asked my reaction, so I said, “who is Sarah Palin”? Thank goodness for the internet.

I’d heard her name as a possible “dark horse” candidate. She’s the anti-Biden. She’s the safe pick. Because all she can do is help. This was a game-changing act of desperation who can’t hurt you. But she was one of the few names mentioned who could help. I always had difficulty with Mitt Romney or Pawlenty as the pick because they brought nothing to the table. But Palin helps. The Republicans were wise to select a Governor, they were wise to appeal to their base rather than pick a pro-choice candidate like Ridge or Lieberman and potentially destroy their party. Sure like Obama, they just undermined their message with their Veep pick. How can they assert that Obama is risky and untested? The “heartbeat away” thing is a bit of a problem… they are saying the second-best person to be president is a 44 year old first term governor from Alaska who didn’t win 50% of the vote in her only election in Alaska and whos only previous experience was as mayor of a town of 8,000 people. If they had a comprehensive strategy for ending conflict in the middle east, that’s one progressive and ambitious town. But probably on most of the key issues of the day, she’s a blank slate.

So why would she help? First, because of the pronoun. This is a realization that to win they need to appeal to Senator Clinton’s supporters. Lacking someone with the qualifications and life history of Senator Clinton, they found a charismatic, reform-minded governor. her husband is a native Eskimo, and she has the sort of down-home appeal that can help. It certainly helps with the reform/maverick message (because she defeated a sitting Republican governor on an ethics platform). Helps with those who would like to make history with this election. So this helps.

Biden was a confident, and thereby risky pick that said, “we’re going to win”. This strikes me as an electorally-savvy pick that says “we need to win”. They just changed the game and the Republicans needed to do this. Keep in mind, Veep candidates rarely “hurt”. I was disappointed that Biden was a missed opportunity to help. The Republicans are not missing that opportunity. Sure, she might be torn to shreds in the Veep debate by a guy who has been in the Senate since she was 8 years old. But beating her up could do the same kind of damage to the Dem coalition as Obama’s dismissive “you’re likable enough” hit on Hillary during the primary debates.

This election will be conducted on the Dems’ turf. Both sides now admit that. The main point of the Dem convention was to unite the party and break even with the independents. That’s it. Do that, and Obama wins this easily. From registration to organization to turnout to feelings about the parties, the Dems have every advantage in the world. Unite the party and break even with the moderates and it’s a comfortable win. John McCain just recognized that and admitted it. If he can peel away Democrats (he needs 20% of Dems or so) he’s in this. But he needs something on the order of 15-20% of Dems and to keep 90-95% of Republicans. For the first time that I can recall, this election is taking place on Democratic turf, not Republican.

So, when you’re done googling “Sarah Palin” think about how this might reshape the calculus that gets to 270. And PLEASE, comment…