Middle march 

In modern American politics, optimism, stability, and moderation usually win. Their opposing counterparts - negativity, recklessness, and extremism - almost always constitute a recipe for defeat. This explains the almost unanimously favorable reactions to last week's Democratic convention. Even if the entire affair was a self-conscious attempt to project those winning qualities, it made the Kerry-Edwards ticket more appealing to the average American voter. Incredibly, the Bush-Cheney campaign is ignoring not only this general rule, but also the specific evidence of its truth. That is, in spite of the success that the Democrats found with a positive message, the Republicans have decided to go negative. According to one press report, the Republican convention in New York will "feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision." Besides being a questionable tactic in principle, and below the dignity of an incumbent wartime president, this approach will probably backfire. There is less tolerance for such attacks as the campaigns enter a phase when more Americans begin paying attention. Also, George W. Bush is more succeptible to being painted as an unhinged extremist on a host of issues, and he would be better served to present himself as a magnanimous, stable leader above the fray. Meanwhile, the Democrats are benefiting from a course of events that come straight from a political science textbook. Primary candidates like Howard Dean and Wesley Clark rallied the party faithful by opening lines of attack against Bush and reclaiming issues like national security. The eventual nominee, Kerry, is more moderate and experienced, and he is channeling the energized Democratic base into a general election campaign that presents a broader agenda. On the other hand, the Republicans are obsessed with their base to the point of distraction. Instead of giving middle-of-the-road Americans a reason to trust their leadership for another four years, the Bush-Cheney campaign merely serves red meat to its fervent followers with arguments couched in purely negative terms. For instance, Bush responded to a line in Kerry's convention speech about "seeing complexities" by saying, "There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat," as if Kerry doesn't. This extreme rhetoric is complemented by extreme policies, especially on economic and social issues. It's a strategy that just does not make sense for an election that will be decided in so-called swing states, like Arkansas. Why are we a swing state? Because we like our politics in the middle. We elect politicians who don't rock the boat, and when they do (like Clinton in 1979-81), we cast them out. Our most liberal congressman is a Marine veteran who served in Vietnam, and our most conservative congressman is a soft-spoken optometrist. As the presidential campaign develops, Kerry and Edwards likely will introduce themselves to Arkansans and others using the themes they outlined at the convention. A war veteran who as a senator dealt with national security and diplomatic affairs, Kerry will paint himself as a reliable and steady commander-in-chief. Edwards will help in articulating a domestic policy that addresses job creation and health care. It's a positive, compelling case made even more so when contrasted with an arrogant, condescending, admit-no-failures approach that only can be enjoyed by a loyal cadre of supporters. Of course, Bush and Cheney will never figure that out if they concentrate their visits on places like Fort Smith and Bentonville, where their base voters reside. And they are probably following the same playbook in other swing states, where the populations are as moderate as Arkansas's: preaching to the choir, and forcing spectators to sign loyalty oaths. This is a strategy that practically admits defeat. It is an acknowledgement that the Republicans do not feel confident they can persuade undecided voters to join their camp, so they must hold their own numbers and demonize the opposition. Unable to practice addition, they have to depend on subtraction. By ceding the high ground, they will lose the middle ground, where American presidential elections are won.


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Warwick Sabin

  • Helena's disappearing buildings

    Preservationists hope to slow demolitions.
    • Mar 22, 2007
  • Trailers headed to Dumas

    Gov. Mike Beebe issued the following statement earlier today: Although this decision by FEMA to deny emergency funds to Desha County defies common sense, Arkansas will take care of its own people.
    • Mar 9, 2007
  • Youth Ranch robbed, vandalized

    According to a press release we just received: The Donald W. Reynolds Campus of the Arkansas Sheriff’s Youth Ranches (The Ranch) located near Fort Smith was vandalized overnight Thursday.  Items stolen during the break-in included all of the children’s saddles, food, tools and supplies from The Ranch’s carpentry shop and all equipment from its auto shop.  An investigation is underway with the Crawford County Sheriff’s Office.
    • Mar 9, 2007
  • More »

Latest in Warwick Sabin

  • Trickle-up theory

    Through thick and thin, there has always been one group of dedicated Americans whose support for President George W. Bush has been unwavering: The wealthy.
    • Mar 8, 2007
  • Time to go

    Tough questions face us in Iraq and it's time to confront them directly.
    • Mar 1, 2007
  • Plugged in

    One reason why the South remained solidly Democratic during the mid-20th century was the enduring gratitude to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who brought electricity to the poor, rural parts of the region. According to one historical account, ÔÇťAlthou
    • Feb 22, 2007
  • More »

© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation