Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
 
Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

Rallying cries

Candidates on both sides have yet to define their campaigns. Any ideas?
By STEVEN STARK  |  September 19, 2007

070921_tote_main

Though the press focuses on organization, tactics, and fundraising, campaigns are won by unifying ideas. And, because no candidate in either party has yet to articulate the kind of broad theme that can galvanize an electorate, this year’s race remains undefined.

Having “ideas” does not mean outlining a detailed set of policy prescriptions. It means presenting an expansive and memorable argument that resonates with voters. In 1960, John F. Kennedy proposed to “get the country moving again,” and in the 1980s Ronald Reagan announced it was “morning in America.”

In each case, voters knew exactly what was meant, just as they understood, in 1976, that when outsider Jimmy Carter promised “I’ll never lie to you,” he was offering a complete break from the disillusioning era of Vietnam and Watergate. Even George Bush’s 1988 tag line, “Read my lips — no new taxes,” was shorthand for the more prosaic “Stay the course.”

In the current presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has come closest to articulating a potentially defining theme — essentially, “Back to the future, this time with a woman.” Admittedly, voters would rather focus on the future, not the past, but there are enough Clinton enthusiasts and people who want a female president that her campaign has at least established an agenda around which supporters can rally. Now it behooves the other candidates to do the same.

So far, the rest of the major Democrats haven’t. John Edwards toyed with focusing on his electability. But that’s a tactical argument that doesn’t inspire voters — and a weak distinction given that nearly every Democrat is currently running ahead of every Republican. Next he tried to become the liberal in the field (I oppose the war the most, etc.), but the truth is that all the major Democratic contenders take a similar approach to the issues. The differences are ones of style and personality.

Recently, Edwards has presented himself as a “common man for the common people.” That’s an idea that could have legs, as long as Edwards is willing to go on the attack and make the populist argument that Clinton and Barack Obama are upper-class elitists who don’t understand the travails of ordinary folk. It’s not an easy argument to sell, but as a trial lawyer, Edwards undoubtedly has had harder ones.

Obama’s failure to articulate a broad theme has been puzzling, since he came into the campaign as the candidate who had done precisely that in his 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address, when he talked about the need for one America. Moreover, he has a natural asset — his age — that seems a perfect lead-in to a discussion of the need for new politics in a new era — along the lines of JFK’s first congressional campaign slogan, “A New Generation Offers a Leader.”

But instead of displaying the visionary tone found in his books and his 2004 convention speech, Obama has often come across like a lawyer presenting an oral argument, or — even worse — a law student trying to impress his professors with how much he really knows. (Question: how many law professors are in Obama’s inner circle? He should stop talking to them so much.) The result has been that he’s abdicated his natural advantage to Clinton. If that continues into next January, Obama won’t be the nominee.

All the GOP candidates have faced a similar definitional problem, which is why that race is still wide open. In 1988, Michael Dukakis promised that he would do for America what he did for Massachusetts. Substitute New York City for Massachusetts and you essentially have the 2008 Giuliani campaign to date.

The problem there is that a national Massachusetts was a lot more appealing to Democratic primary voters 20 years ago than a national New York City is to GOP voters centered in the heartland and the South today. Thus, Giuliani faces a culture clash almost wherever he goes — not an easy path to victory. He’d be better off also accentuating the tough-guy-prosecutor part of his résumé and promising to go after terrorists the way he went after Wall Street crooks and street crime. Interestingly, in the past week, he’s begun to sort of do that — only his “enemy” hasn’t just been Al Qaeda but the New York Times (there’s New York again) and Clinton. It’s a thought-provoking juxtaposition.

Mitt Romney is a nice, wealthy, respectable candidate who has presented absolutely no overriding themes — which is why, sooner or later, his campaign will implode if he doesn’t shift gears fast. He has the business record to offer himself to the nation as a kind of “national CEO” — which might be enormously alluring, à la Lee Iacocca or even Wendell Willkie. But it’s getting very late to go down that path.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related:
  • The shape of things to come
    The defining issues of each party’s campaign are being decided now
  • Suffrage net city
    The Web has become key to presidential politics — we rate the candidates on how they’ve put Al Gore’s invention to use
  • Let the horse race begin
    Odds are you won’t be able to avoid the run-up to 2008, so you might as well start laying your bests now
  • More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , Fred Thompson (Politician) ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Rallying cries
While I agree with a lot of what you've said regarding Pearl Jam's new album, notwithstanding the overlooking of songs of equal passion regarding war and politics on other albums, most notably Grievance & Insignificance from Binaural, I cannot agree with this statement " you get the sense the band members have agreed, at least tacitly, that their health depends on Vedder’s keeping his political activities separate" I have no idea where you got this idea, but this band is united in their politics. I can't imagine that Pearl Jam, who have gone through so many trials and never backed down from their convictions ~ as a group ~ would suddenly decide to distance themselves from Ed Vedder's views. They share his views, and these men are not afraid of consequences. If anything, their motivation ~ as a group ~ is greater now than it's ever been. The times are dire indeed. Thank you for writing the article. I agree with many points, but this one is simply inaccurate. .
By Aless on 05/16/2006 at 8:24:19
Rallying cries
An author's correction: John McCain did offer a middle way in 2000 but actually Bill Clinton had already thought of it first. I got my dates mixed up. My apologies to readers and to former President Clinton.
By Steven Stark on 09/19/2007 at 5:46:38

election special
ARTICLES BY STEVEN STARK
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   ODIUM AT THE PODIUM  |  September 25, 2008
    This year, with such a close contest, the debates could have an impact like never before. Here’s what to watch for.
  •   SARAH, GET YOUR AK-47  |  September 17, 2008
    The Alaska governor is dominating the election as we head into the fall — Why that is bad news for the Obama campaign
  •   PEACOCK PROBLEM  |  September 10, 2008
    MSNBC is in Barack's corner, which may cause an electoral backfire for the Democrats
  •   DAWG DAYS  |  September 03, 2008
    The 2008 campaign is turning out to be our first-ever American Idol election
  •   FEELING MINNESOTA  |  August 28, 2008
    If McCain wants to gain on Obama, he needs to achieve these four goals in St. Paul

 See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



Featured Articles in Music Features:
Monday, September 29, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group