THE STUMP MAY 14, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Amid all the hoopla over President Obama’s gay marriage announcement last week, there were a few cautionary head shakes from the wise old men (and wise young old men) of the punditocracy: Obama may be basking in the glow of history now, they said, but his strategy of trying to elevate social issues to the Democrats’ benefit, and thus distract voters from economic issues, was a dubious one. On this site, Bill Galston declared that Obama was, with this strategy, effectively giving up on competing in Ohio and going for a “Colorado” path to 270 electoral votes instead, while in his Sunday New York Times column, Ross Douthat went even further in seeing a grand Obama plan to try and make this a cultural-issues election, between the gay marriage shift and the fight with the Catholic bishops over contraception coverage:
The question, though, is what this successful maneuvering is actually gaining the White House. The weaknesses it’s trying to exploit are real enough: the country is moving leftward on many social issues, and Romney’s mix of squareness and weirdness — the moneyed background, the Mormonism, the 1950s persona — makes it relatively easy to portray him as culturally out of touch.
But this would be a bigger problem for Republicans if the 2012 campaign were taking place amid prosperity and plenty. At times, the Obama White House seems to be attempting to run a liberal version of George H. W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, which used cultural arguments to delegitimize Michael Dukakis. But today’s economic landscape looks more like 1992, when Bush the elder discovered that the same arguments availed him little with a recession-weary electorate — even in a race against a slick, womanizing draft-dodger.
Making Americans feel uncomfortable with Romney, in other words, won’t be enough if the economy keeps sputtering along. What Obama needs, instead, is to make voters fear a Romney presidency, even more than they fear four more years of high deficits and slow growth. And a re-election campaign that focuses on gay marriage, or the Dream Act, or birth control, or how Romney treated his dog and high school classmates is unlikely to stoke that kind of fear.
What might? Well, in a pocketbook election it helps to focus on pocketbook anxieties. It’s true that every day the White House spends talking about social issues is a day it isn’t stuck talking about the economy. But it’s also a day when it hasn’t talked about how Mitt Romney wants to take away your retirement security to pay for tax cuts for the rich. This is a predictable Democratic argument, and a demagogic one. But it’s an argument that might actually make economically stressed Americans afraid of what a Romney presidency would bring.
Instead, Obama is currently running for re-election as an opponent of sexism, homophobia and social reaction in all its forms. This is a decent strategy for winning news cycles, which the administration clearly did last week — playing the media brilliantly and watching as Romney was thrown on the defensive yet again. But Obama has won news cycle after news cycle this spring, and yet the president and his unloved, out-of-step-with-the-times challenger are almost dead even in the polls. That’s a sign that something isn’t working — and that this White House, not for the first time, has mistaken a clever strategy for a winning one.
Douthat would have a very good point to make here about short and long term gains if what he was saying was, well, true. But it’s quite obviously not. The Obama campaign’s underlying message and strategy so far have been all about contrasting his vision for the economy with Mitt Romney. That’s what the campaign’s official kickoff speeches in Ohio and Virginia were all about. (And yes, he gave his first speech in Ohio. Which would seem to call slightly into question Galston’s claim that the campaign is effectively giving up on the state.) The campaign’s first ads last week were all about the economy—a “Morning in America”-style economic comeback ad, ads about the auto-industry rescue. And today, lo and behold, comes a very hard-edged two-minute ad attacking Romney and Bain Capital over their ill treatment of a Missouri steel mill that was reaped for big profits before they shut it down.
No, Douthat could not have known that this ad was coming. But still, it should have been plain from the campaign’s other recent signals that they had no intention of trying to pull a Bush (père or fils) and make the campaign a cultural fight. Obama made the announcement on gay marriage last week because he had to—because Joe Biden forced his hand. But it’s pretty plain that Chicago would rather fight this campaign on the terrain of a recovering auto industry and Bain’s billions, rather than over gay rights. In this case, it was the pundits who were letting themselves be distracted by the 24-hour news cycle and missing the big picture.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
16 comments
In other words, Douthat wants his readers (i.e., voters) to believe that Obama really wants to force schools to teach kids to defy their priest and adopt the homosexual lifestyle, a re-election strategy that would put fear of Obama, not Romney, in the hearts of middle America. Typical Douthat saying the opposite of what he really means. Anybody besides me noticed how much Douthat's physical appearance has changed. What's that all about.
- rayward
May 14, 2012 at 12:31pm
Also, the President cannot calculate every move he makes based on hairsplitting the vote in a bigoted state. At some point he has to do what's right (which he did). The fact that we have economic problems doesn't mean we aren't also suffering from cultural problems. People who are minorities, gays or women don't thing the Republican/religious attacks on us are small potatoes. Rather they go to the core of what it means to live in a civilized democracy.
- Sophia
May 14, 2012 at 1:17pm
I meant, don't "think." Sorry!
- Sophia
May 14, 2012 at 1:18pm
Douthat's argument is nonsense on other grounds as well--he argues that the Obama administration has sought out these fights. The only reason these have been issues is because of the right's (not Romney's) insistence on making hay. Obama has been reactive (as Douthat inconsistently recognizes in another part of the essay). Anyone think gay marriage would have been an issue last week without NC's Amendment One? I sure don't. I doubt Biden gets the question without it.
- byrnesms
May 14, 2012 at 2:40pm
If BHO remains lucky and the economy does not head south before November, he probably wins in November. If the economy goes south, about all BHO will have to campaign on will be social issues and Mittens weirdness. And that won't be enough to win. If the economy goes south, BHO is toast. And arguing that Mittens would make it worse, while very true, won't help much. It will be ABO time-- anybody but Obama.
- drofnats1
May 14, 2012 at 3:07pm
Why can't he make both arguments forcefully? Does the social argument really "distract voters from economic issues?" And vice versa? I think the electorate has the capacity to process two arguments without being unduly distracted. The press, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about.
- mowencarp
May 14, 2012 at 3:12pm
The economic choice seems clear. Time and time again, Romney has indicated that government will play no role in making us competitive with the rest of the world. "No" to the auto bailout in the WSJ. "No" to credits for wind energy in an interview in Colorado. "No" to education in response to a question about the cost of it. "No" to health care reform for the country. All Romney wants to do is cut his own taxes and reduce legislation, neither of which have worked.
- Nusholtz
May 14, 2012 at 3:29pm
"But it’s also a day when it hasn’t talked about how Mitt Romney wants to take away your retirement security to pay for tax cuts for the rich. This is a predictable Democratic argument, and a demagogic one." It also manages to be a true argument. Part of the reason why I'm always noting that Douthat is a massive turd is because he's smart enough to know it's the case, know his party is being seized by a pack of snivelling and selfish sociopaths, and yet is able to divorce himself from that reality at will. AS IF Obama needs to scare America into voting for him. The fact that his governance and agenda is generally about expanding the pie and expanding the pieces for those too often left out or not given their fair share is apparently not objectionable enough for him and attractive enough to the American people. I guess Douthat wants Obama to run the cheese-eating surrender monkeyified campaign of demonization of the Romney, the rich, and Republicans in general. Because we all know he'll just complain that Obama is being totally unfair, underhanded, and un-American for impugning the self-made success of Romney. He might even say Obama's jealous of the man who accuses him of forever apologizing for America. I call BS on Douthat and his schtick. I also will note that even though the polling is mixed, it's not like coming out on gay marriage is going to help Obama seal the deal in states like Ohio. And no one can make Romney run a campaign that demonizes gay members of the Republican Party, hangs otherwise devoted partisans out to dry, and refuses to advocate for civil unions for gay people. Many people are reasonable sure that denying civil unions violates the fifth amendment's due process and equal protection provisions. If there's anyone Romney should be blaming for his predicament, it's himself for not having the self-respect to advocate in public what he very well may believe in private. And it's thus rather rich for the Megan McCains and Ross Douthats of the world to chide Obama for laying his cards on the table even while Romney allows the most hostile elements of his party to dick around with him and pretend that he likes it. If he can't win with reasonable social policies saleable to the country at large, then gosh darn it, he doesn't deserve to win. He should swallow it like a man and do so. Bob Dole and John McCain had more self-respect than this. And if he really wants to govern so badly that he doesn't care that the Grover Norquists of the world are readying their legislation for him to sign, no questions asked, then he shouldn't be let anywhere near the White House. Talk about lack of character and the continual accusation that Obama is selling America out on the world stage. Romney would be perhaps the weakest president and worst kind of leader to vault to the presidency since Warren Harding. And we all know how that turned out.
- chaitless
May 14, 2012 at 4:35pm
wow, if even drofnats thinks Obama might win, I may need to revisit my pessimism!!!
- miceelf
May 14, 2012 at 4:38pm
As a strategy, fear mongering may provide short term gains. Best used as voters are about to go to the polls. When long term fear is required to assist one candidate distance themselves from an opponent, SUPER PACs will produce the elixir. The choice of whether to frighten the public or hit the book fair circuit should be made critically with the knowledge that choices have consequences.
- Doug12
May 14, 2012 at 5:20pm
miceelf. I think my posts have been very consistent-- BHO would probably win if the economy does not tank. However, IMO the probability of a win is MUCH less than the near-certainty of a BHO win expressed or implied by most tnr pundits and commenters--largely because (and I agree) Repub candidates and policies are a disaster. However, IMO that will NOT matter to voters if the economy tanks. In which case, it is ABO time. Furthermore, it is NOT at all clear to me that a BHO win is going to be a help or a curse to Progressive policies and real economic recovery 2013 and beyond. Seriously, what do you really see a lame duck BHO accomplishing 2013-2016 with a Repub House and/or Senate. [Or are you predicting a Dem sweep??] And are voters really NOT going to blame Dems for an 6-8 year Great Recession in 2014, 2016 and beyond?
- drofnats1
May 14, 2012 at 6:07pm
drof, with all due respect, you're engaging in a bit of revisionism here. Yes, you have consistently argued that Obama could/would win if the economy didn't tank, but you have also consistently predicted that the economy would tank, making it impossible for Obama to win. I must say, I was very interested to read an article either here or in the Times or NYer--I can't recall which--that suggested that there is zero empirical basis for the assertion that presidential elections are decided by economic fundamentals. It's a line that pundits like Douthat--and you--repeat as if it were axiomatic, but maybe it just isn't so. Maybe Barack "Smoove" Obama can win largely on the contrast between his own potent, agile cool and Romney's herky-jerky, Max Headroom weirdness entirely independently of the economic outlook.
- AaronW
May 14, 2012 at 9:05pm
I'm beginning to think that the President has adopted the famous Rope-A-Dope strategy from Muhammad Ali. He is out there taunting the conservatives and sticking his chin out begging them to take a swing. And we have 5 months left. By the time the election rolls around the Right Wing Blogosphere will be exhausted. Very clever idea from the President.
- CRS9TNR
May 14, 2012 at 9:12pm
Aaron. With due respect, you need read other articles and my posts more carefully. I have consistently given unemployment and GNP ranges/combinations where BHO wins vs loses vs tossup. I know of no NYT (or 538) article that says "NO basis for economic factors to determine elections". Rather, that the prediction is not strong or debateable if you take absolute figures, but is strong if you take direction of CHANGE in employment + GNP in the 2-4 months before an election. And, read carefully, it is that direction of change if it occurs on which I base my pessimistic preditions--- and on which I would place bets. An EU crisis is one of three external events (the other two being a downturn in the Chinese economy and a drop in state spending) that I have consistently said have an excellent chance of triggering a worsening of the current US Great Recession. And electoral probabilities for BHO. How's the former (EU) and the latter (state budgets) looking to you? And how about an answer to.."Seriously, what do you really see a lame duck BHO accomplishing 2013-2016 with a Repub House and/or Senate. [Or are you predicting a Dem sweep??] And are voters really NOT going to blame Dems for an 6-8 year Great Recession in 2014, 2016 and beyond?" Politics really is more an adult game of chess than a kids game of "Battle" in which each round is won solely by the high card for that round (although at present, US politics seems like it's being played mostly by kids)..
- drofnats1
May 15, 2012 at 11:12am
As Paul Krugman points out, (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/24/how-end-depression/) improving the economy is not really that hard to do. It just needs more stimulus in the form of a jobs program. When Romney said that most women had lost jobs after January 2009, I wish Obama had called on him to join in a "Lets get the teachers back in school." bill. Obama needs to make the voters understand Keynesian economics. Difficult, but not impossible.
- Vekert
May 16, 2012 at 1:02pm
When I read Douthat's piece, my first thought was "Ross, chill out, it's only May fer cryin' out loud." The idea that Obama would base his general election campaign on social issues was ludicrous, and it should have been obvious that by November few people would care about this stuff, and the Obama administration is not so politically incompetent not to know it. But they do know good fundraising material when they see it, don't they?
- dsimon
May 16, 2012 at 9:28pm