McCain 2008: Good and Bad for the GOP
My friends, I come to praise Senator McCain, not to bury him. Despite lame speeches in front of green backgrounds, his ostrich-like insistence that the fundamentals of our economy were sound, and and bestowing the gift of Sarah Palin's VP nomination on thankful political satirists, I still think McCain was the strongest candidate the Republicans could have run in 2008. Yet running their strongest candidate was a bad strategic choice for the GOP.
Certainly McCain's campaign made its share of mistakes, but but he still won the votes of nearly 60 million Americans, more than all but one Republican candidate ever (W. got 62 million votes in his 2004 reelection), and he still got over 45% of the popular vote. What Republican could have run a stronger campaign? Mitt Romney would have been far easier to tie to President Bush and the Republicans than the maverick McCain. Branding is a powerful factor in popular perception, and McCain's image as a moderate Republican was vital to his (relative) electoral success. Mike Huckabee lacked the support of fiscal conservatives , who recoiled against his economic populism. Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson might have been appealing on paper, but neither showed the inclination to, well, actually campaign for the office.
And recall that any nominee would have made his share of mistakes (Romney's saying his sons had "more important" things to do than serve in Iraq, for instance) that would have blunted their appeal to a broader electorate. And, while she became a national laughing stock to most, Sarah Palin did solve McCain's core problem of an unenthusiastic right-wing base: after choosing her, that base came in strongly for the Arizona Senator. So I don't think the Republicans could have run a stronger candidate than McCain.
Yet I also think McCain's candidacy was a net negative for the GOP. Because of his "maverick" image, and his demonstrable mistakes, many on the right are deluding themselves into thinking that the problem was that the Republicans didn't run a "true conservative". They look at McCain's mistakes and console themselves that the problem was the candidate and the ineptness of his campaign, not the message. Ironically, the Republicans' long-term interests would have been better served by a crushing defeat of, say, Romney, running as a "pure" Reagan conservative than by McCain's not really close loss. Had they seen more clearly the country's rejection of the message, they would be forced to do more serious self-examination of what, other than reflexive opposition to "Liberalism", the party stands for.
The Republicans are becoming a regional party, genuinely strong only in the south and the sparsely populated plains states. Its elected officials, the main pool for future potential national candidates, is growing more conservative as the country is shifting more towards the left. And the growing homogeneity of the Republican party ("liberal" Republicans, or even pro-choice ones, have been purged, resulting in the party's death in the northeast) helps ensure that any future national candidates will stand far to the right of the American people.
McCain, despite his maverick image, was much more conservative than most Americans thought, but the growing consensus among Republicans is that it was his centrism and moderation that hurt him. And because he wasn't seen as a true believer conservative, the conservatives who are now a firm majority within the party don't see his defeat as a defeat of conservatism itself. They instead see it as a rejection of a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign (e.g. why didn't they push Rev. Wright as a campaign issue?). So the reassessment that the Republicans need has been postponed, and the party drifts further to the right on social issues in a country that is moving to the left.
This is good for Obama's political fortunes. I ascribe to the Clintonian credo that "it's the economy, stupid" that drives presidential elections. Obama is clearly inheriting an economy free-falling into recession, if not depression, so if things recover for 2012, he should coast to a landslide reelection. But even if the slump persists into 2011 or early 2012, Obama may not bear all the blame. Had a more pure Republican candidate (say, Romney or someone like Sarah Palin) lost in a decisive rout in 2008, Republicans might more easily see that on many issues, they're becoming increasingly out of step with more of America.
It is of course far too early to write the obituary of the Republican party, but their initial reaction to McCain's defeat shows more delusion than understanding of why Obama won.
Certainly McCain's campaign made its share of mistakes, but but he still won the votes of nearly 60 million Americans, more than all but one Republican candidate ever (W. got 62 million votes in his 2004 reelection), and he still got over 45% of the popular vote. What Republican could have run a stronger campaign? Mitt Romney would have been far easier to tie to President Bush and the Republicans than the maverick McCain. Branding is a powerful factor in popular perception, and McCain's image as a moderate Republican was vital to his (relative) electoral success. Mike Huckabee lacked the support of fiscal conservatives , who recoiled against his economic populism. Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson might have been appealing on paper, but neither showed the inclination to, well, actually campaign for the office.
And recall that any nominee would have made his share of mistakes (Romney's saying his sons had "more important" things to do than serve in Iraq, for instance) that would have blunted their appeal to a broader electorate. And, while she became a national laughing stock to most, Sarah Palin did solve McCain's core problem of an unenthusiastic right-wing base: after choosing her, that base came in strongly for the Arizona Senator. So I don't think the Republicans could have run a stronger candidate than McCain.
Yet I also think McCain's candidacy was a net negative for the GOP. Because of his "maverick" image, and his demonstrable mistakes, many on the right are deluding themselves into thinking that the problem was that the Republicans didn't run a "true conservative". They look at McCain's mistakes and console themselves that the problem was the candidate and the ineptness of his campaign, not the message. Ironically, the Republicans' long-term interests would have been better served by a crushing defeat of, say, Romney, running as a "pure" Reagan conservative than by McCain's not really close loss. Had they seen more clearly the country's rejection of the message, they would be forced to do more serious self-examination of what, other than reflexive opposition to "Liberalism", the party stands for.
The Republicans are becoming a regional party, genuinely strong only in the south and the sparsely populated plains states. Its elected officials, the main pool for future potential national candidates, is growing more conservative as the country is shifting more towards the left. And the growing homogeneity of the Republican party ("liberal" Republicans, or even pro-choice ones, have been purged, resulting in the party's death in the northeast) helps ensure that any future national candidates will stand far to the right of the American people.
McCain, despite his maverick image, was much more conservative than most Americans thought, but the growing consensus among Republicans is that it was his centrism and moderation that hurt him. And because he wasn't seen as a true believer conservative, the conservatives who are now a firm majority within the party don't see his defeat as a defeat of conservatism itself. They instead see it as a rejection of a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign (e.g. why didn't they push Rev. Wright as a campaign issue?). So the reassessment that the Republicans need has been postponed, and the party drifts further to the right on social issues in a country that is moving to the left.
This is good for Obama's political fortunes. I ascribe to the Clintonian credo that "it's the economy, stupid" that drives presidential elections. Obama is clearly inheriting an economy free-falling into recession, if not depression, so if things recover for 2012, he should coast to a landslide reelection. But even if the slump persists into 2011 or early 2012, Obama may not bear all the blame. Had a more pure Republican candidate (say, Romney or someone like Sarah Palin) lost in a decisive rout in 2008, Republicans might more easily see that on many issues, they're becoming increasingly out of step with more of America.
It is of course far too early to write the obituary of the Republican party, but their initial reaction to McCain's defeat shows more delusion than understanding of why Obama won.
Advertisement
A short while after the election in Nov. I emailed a friend writing that I had doubts that the Republican party would survive much longer. I went out on a limb and predicted the neocons would retain the Republican name and brand and slowly kill it over the next decade or two. The former Republicans, the ones more to the middle, would form a new party....and, I fear a lot of conservative Democrats would join them. Time will anwer this hypothesis.
I agree with your take that the Republican party is pretty much deluding themselves. Now if they would only stop deluding others...well, that would be awesome.
Good post
January 5, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain's life story is a compelling one. His appeal was, and is, based upon his unique life story. Even those of us who voted for Obama trusted that if elected John McCain would do those things that he believed would help America most. John McCain lost because when voters came to understand what just John McCain believed would help America most, most voters could not agree with McCain's ideas.
None of McCain's ideas revealed as much as McCain's choice of a running mate. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain declared that the "conservative values" of his Republican base are just what American needs. Obviously, most voters did not share John McCain's enthusiasm for "conservative values".
To his credit, John McCain did not take the George Bush propaganda route. John McCain forthrightly stated his beliefs. And he lost by doing so.
The lesson to be learned is that not even a candidate with such a compelling a life story as John McCain's can win by espousing "conservative values". The current crop of GOPpers may not be willing to act upon that lesson, but their successors will.
Hopefully, the next ten years of elections will bring enough GOP losses to install new leadership in the GOP -- a new crop of leaders with a credible vision for the future of America that is shared by a large portion of the voters in every state. Then a GOPper may be able to win without a life story as compelling as John McCain's.
January 5, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That strikes me as a pretty good political analysis.
The radical neo-Con "Conservatives" seem to be marching off into oblivion as they insist on no compromise on their dogmatic "values" that America doesn't share.
It seems that what usually happens in situations like this is that the majority party grows until it splits. I think that Obama may take a rather conservative (for a Democrat) middle-of-the-road course, which will attract the conservatives of both parties, and get a lot of consensus, and get a lot done. But that will eventually irritate the extreme left wing of the Democratic party. The new party may be the most radical Democrats forming their own party.
January 6, 2009 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink