Socialism Smear: Long-term Failure

In the last post, I argued that the Republicans' smearing of Obama as a socialist (see below for links) will fail in the short-term by failing to grab current Obama leaners, mystifying undecideds, and energizing the Obamaniacs. This will not help McCain win the election... indeed, it may hurt him.

Now for the long-term, which is perhaps more grim for McCain and his partisan buddies. There is a misconception in political campaigns that when you throw a negative at an opponent, it will either stick and bring him or her down, or bounce off and leave him unscathed. The fact is that nothing ever really bounces off. It may not hurt a candidate, but its always there. The question is not whether something will stick and stay, but whether it will stick and stop a candidate in his tracks. The socialism smear will not stop Obama in his tracks; it is something he will carry with him into the White House. And this is very, very bad for Republicans.

A little history is in order: In January 1992, 4 weeks before the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, Gennifer Flowers (Wiki) claimed that she had carried on a 12-year relationship with then Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Bill Clinton. She produced incriminating tapes of phone calls between the two. The Clintons denied Flowers' story and the authenticity of the tapes before 50 million people on 60 Minutes following the Super Bowl that year. However, Clinton did apologize to a politician he dissed on the tapes. Nevertheless, he survived the scandal, won the NH primary, the nomination, and general election. Later, during the Paula Jones deposition, he admitted to having slept with Flowers once in 1977.

During his two terms in the White House, he weathered at least three more sex scandals (Paula Jones, Katherine Willey, and... fuck, what was her name...) and left office with an approval rating of 65%, higher than any post-war president. Clinton was impeached (not removed) for the Lewinsky affair, but this was a product of partisan retribution. Polling showed that the sexual indiscretion did not much affect his popularity. In fact, a week after the scandal broke, he achieved what would become the highest approval rating of his entire administration (69%, appropriately).

I believe that the womanizing president was made possible by the womanizing candidate. People who voted for Clinton in both the primaries and the general were forced to accept the fact that he may have cheated on his wife. And they were reminded of his womanizing, old and new, during his time in office, they accepted it, because it was part of the candidate. His supporters didn't like the negative itself, but all the publicity had forced them to make the compromise, and that--the compromise--stuck.

Remember when Bushes were so fiscally responsible that they violated campaign promises in order to set the stage for an economic recovery? When they nominated Thomases and Souters? When they were all about hittin it n' quittin it in the Middle East? When they claimed victory in the Cold War? Crazy, but there was a time.

Let's go back to the first memory. Poppy Bush created a welcome expectation when he promised in the '88 campaign not to raise taxes. When he did it at president, he took a particularly big hit. Had he not made the promise, or if he had said he might raise taxes in order to survive a recession, then he might have won reelection even with the tax hike.

Of course, Bush didn't have this luxury in 1988. But Obama does have the luxury of becoming president despite the label of socialism, IMO. Therefore, I believe that McCain is preparing the electorate to compromise on Obama's leftiness. McCain is creating an expectation of an Obama presidency that his supporters will have to accept to some degree. Therefore, when policies that McCain calls socialist are on the table, the Republicans will find it much more difficult to work the electorate up against these policies. The McCain campaign's new strategy may mean the difference between a one-term Obama presidency and a war-time/Depression-era/court-packing (see 60 seats) Democratic executive so powerful it'll make George Bush look like Edmund Burke.