Posted on 07/17/2004 4:11:41 PM PDT by MadIvan
The old Nixon saw had it that all campaigns had an arc. They tilted to the true believers during the primary season and then they tacked to the centre in the summer and autumn.
You shored up your political base — and then you made a pitch to the middle. Hyper-liberal or hyper-conservative positions in the winter were finessed by the summer convention, where the candidate had a chance to win over all those undecided voters.
There is one thing, however, that this scenario didn’t quite take into account: what if there are decreasing numbers of genuine swing voters in the middle? That certainly seems to be the case in this campaign. A recent Pew Forum poll found that the undecideds form about 21% of the electorate at this point in the campaign, compared with 32% at this stage in 2000.
Moreover, finding those swing voters is very hard. It takes prodigious market research to track them down, to figure out how to appeal to them and to offer them the one argument in each case that might sway them.
Core believers, on the other hand, are relatively easy to find. Find the counties where you did best last time and revisit them. Or go to organisations that already support you and that can mobilise the base some more.
So last week you saw John Kerry addressing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), one of the oldest civil rights groups in the country. And you had George W Bush on a bus in the middle of rural upper Wisconsin, visiting places that he had won easily only four years before.
In some ways Bush’s base work was more significant than Kerry’s. Kerry’s base is already highly mobilised — by loathing for the president. Sure, he has to make some overtures to black and Hispanic groups and he has plans for a big media buy on the black and Latino television channels. But in general Kerry is now playing to formula: moving to the centre, speaking of his “conservative values”, taking a position on Iraq that is almost indistinguishable from Bush’s and so on.
But Bush, once again, is playing a different, riskier game. Karl Rove, his political guru, has been obsessed these past 3½ years that 4m evangelical voters did not show up to the polls in 2000. With them, Bush might have won some critical states and might not have had to endure the Florida nightmare. Did the last-minute revelation of a past drunk-driving arrest offend these rural, Christian voters? Or was Bush not attentive enough to their needs all along? There is no risk of that this time. Bush is playing hard to galvanise his religious base — even at this stage in the campaign. Last week Bush unveiled a central part of the strategy. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was introduced in the Senate. It failed miserably and predictably — but that wasn’t the point. The point was to use the issue in the coming campaign. Bush pushed hard for it, used it on the trail and lobbied senators individually to come to his side. Evangelicals held telethons, where they sent a tsunami of telephone calls and e-mails to lobby for the measure.
The Republican leadership cleared the schedule of other less important matters — such as passing a budget — in favour of an emotional debate about values. All of this was not because they believed that the amendment would pass but because they wanted to find an issue to rev up their base with as much fervour as Kerry’s is mobilised against Bush.
The president has used the anti-gay gambit twice before and it is already becoming a staple of politics in the South. When he was governor of Texas, Bush used his support of the state’s anti-sodomy law (struck down last year by the Supreme Court) to portray his opponent, Ann Richards, as soft on moral values.
When Bush was in trouble in the 2000 campaign, after Senator John McCain beat him in New Hampshire, Bush’s surrogates in South Carolina sent out e-mails showing McCain meeting gay Republicans. Kerry, of course, is from Massachusetts, the one state where gay marriage is legal. It all adds up to a perfect subliminal message — and sometimes not at all subliminal — that a vote for Kerry is a vote for gays, drugs, sex and general moral decline.
Could this turn off the moderate voters? Of course. Kerry tried to exploit this at the NAACP. Here’s his riff on values: “Later today, John Edwards and I will embark on a series of front-porch tours — going to the homes of ordinary citizens across this nation and talking with them about the values that matter most to them — values you live by every day: Family. Responsibility. Service. Opportunity. Inclusion. Fairness. Faith. And the most revolutionary value of all — that we are all created equal.”
But Bush figures that his own rawer appeals will work better. And losing gay voters, their families and some suburbanites is more than compensated for by upping the anti-gay evangelical vote. It’s a classic wedge issue. Aren’t all the evangelicals in states where Bush wins easily anyway? Not at all. In places such as Ohio, these voters count in rural areas. If they come out in force, they can tilt the entire direction of the race.
In Wisconsin, Bush played all the tricks. He won’t gay-bash directly. In fact, he has yet to say the word “gay”, “lesbian” or “homosexual” in public. He simply asserts that he will stand up and defend “traditional marriage”, a proposition with which it is indeed hard to disagree. But his audience knows what he really means — “protecting” marriage from gays — and cheers.
Or he will refer to Kerry mockingly as someone who said that he shares “conservative values”. Or he will lambast those who hobnob with “sophisticates” and “entertainers from Hollywood”, a veiled reference to a large fundraiser that Kerry has just held. The message is: “I’m one of you and he isn’t. He talks funny, has a mega-rich foreign wife, likes the gays and is super liberal.” It’s not a subtle message but it can be an effective one.
Slate magazine recently visited Tennessee, a swing southern state. Its reporter found one Randall Vinson who said: “There are three things I know about John Kerry. First, that he speaks three or four languages and one of them is French. Second, that he’s married to an ex-senator’s wife who’s worth a billion dollars. And third, he is supposedly a Vietnam vet.” Rove should be proud of himself.
The base mobilisation has only just begun. Republican groups in several swing states are organising their own anti-gay marriage amendments to their state constitutions, and if the measures are on the ballot this autumn they will help to stoke a big turnout of fundamentalist voters.
To give you an idea of the kind of rhetoric being used, here is an e-mail from a conservative lobby group sent out to its evangelical members last week. It was designed to shore up the troops after the failure of the marriage amendment: “No true believing Christian or Jew can afford to sit this fight out. The fight is not over. You must continue to speak up to ensure Washington understands . . . You must keep in mind where your senator stood on this vote as election day approaches.”
The Southern Baptist Council’s “I vote values” campaign reminds readers on its website that the founding fathers favoured castration for homosexuals. The Traditional Values Coalition has a campaign advertisement on the web that shows a demonic green man spliced with a child. The slogan? “Exposed: homosexual child molesters”. When Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, a key Republican group, was asked how he felt about alienating gay Republicans in this campaign, his response was, “Good riddance.”
Bush does not want to have a rerun of his father’s campaign in 1992 which allowed Patrick Buchanan to foment a culture war in front of a prime-time television audience. So he has put up speakers at the convention who are uniformly social liberals: Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, George Pataki, governor of New York, and Rudy Giuliani, another liberal Republican. But beneath the surface the “values” campaign is in full swing — especially in local media markets. If the distinction between a debate about values and a homophobic campaign gets a little blurry, then that’s all part of the plan, too.
People wonder why America is polarised. It’s polarised partly because the parties want it to be. And by November it will be polarised to within an inch of its life.
Oh me nerves! *LOL*
We can and should expect a very tough battle. Undecideds tend to swing for the new guy, not the incumbent.
None so blind as he who doesn't want to see.
But Sullivan is so excruciatingly wrong about the gay marriage issue that he becomes unreadable.
KangarooJacqui..you are the one who requested I not address you on threads.
I respectfully suggest, you follow your own advice.
BTW, please qualify.
Andy talks an awful lot about his penis.
I have no intention of 'winning back' anything or anyone.
Nor have I ANY intention of lowering myself by playing out a crude game on a public forum.
I have no intention of being bullied by you KJ.
That's not at all what he said. He said if there wasn't a celibacy requirement, more non-pedophiles would go into the priesthood. Part of the problem is that the Church is short of priests, so (the argument goes) it is less likely to turn away bad candidates.
I don't think Sullivan ever said depriving a normal person of sex would turn him into a child molester. I challenge you to find where he said that. I think you're (deliberately?) mis-stating his argument to make him look as bad as possible.
So this is not being addressed?
Bet you even money though, that he occasionally eats possum stew... (g!)
Thank you.
Regards, Ivan
I agree. And I hope so.
Regards,
A. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.