Matthew Yglesias (April 25, 2008) - The Politics of Understanding (Politics)

That post of Ross's is so disingenuous, I'm surprised someone as bright as him bothered to post it. He quotes the rabidly racist Sailer and Obama's unwillingness to pander to the rabidly anti-choice crowd as evidence that Obama will be letting down those with whom he disagrees. But this collections of racists and religious zealots are let down even by the Republicans they vote for. Only the most hard right demagogues would please these people.

Posted by br | April 25, 2008 3:36 PM

McCain's going to run against Obama the same way he ran again Romney, by implying he's a big phony. With Romney, we had two sets of data points: he used to be a liberal Republican governor and now he's a conservative Republican candidate. How'd that happen? And Romney didn't provide a persuasive narrative of how that happened, so lots of people decided he was a phony and the GOP ended up with Yosemite Sam.

Similarly, with Obama. Right now he's running as the post-partsan / post-racial reconciliator, but he's also the guy who devoted most of pp. 274-295 of his autobiography to Rev. Wright. How did he get from there to here? He appears to be a Heisenbergian electron, first in one orbit, then in another, with no narrative to explain the change.

Obama, of course, is a very good narrative-writer, so my recommendation is that he write himself another 5000 word speech, this time on how he used to be on the left but then he changed to the middle because ...

Aye, there's the rub, so, if you are interested I offer Obama an escape hatch from his dilemma at the end of this post:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-obama-can-avoid-becoming-democratic.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 3:39 PM

I also think it is important to recall that the contrast to Obama's approach is the "Go f%#& yourself!" way of settling disagreements. That approach makes it clear to the people not getting their way this time that there is probably also no possibility of negotiating a settlement with you in the future, so there is little downside to them basically declaring total political war.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 3:41 PM

That sounds to me like the kind of thing a liberal would have said before getting pummeled by Ronald Reagan.

Or what we all said prior to the 2000 election, come to that. People give the people they like a fair bit of leeway--"We begin bombing in five minutes"--which makes winning elections and governing easier, which in turn is why it helps to be likable. Sucks if you're not (e.g., Romney), but there it is.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 25, 2008 3:51 PM

If that's the Republican line of attack, in a year where they're on the opposite side of the majority of the country on every issue, the only way Obama loses the election is if he hires Clinton's team.

Posted by 55 | April 25, 2008 3:54 PM

Well Douthat might want to turn this place into Sailer's proxy blog, but does Matt really want to help?

Posted by sniflheim | April 25, 2008 3:56 PM

Forget cynicism. The "I understand you" schtick is really the first part of a sentence that ends with "but it doesn't change my ultimate view on X policy." Claire McCaskill talks about it all the time with amazement. To me, it seems nothing more than paying lip-service to someone's views on a subject. In fact, that's what his speech on race/Wright was about, wasn't it? He acknowledged the qualms of white people and black people, but didn't have any upshot as to either.

Posted by nvs | April 25, 2008 3:57 PM

Forget all this crap about it being a new type of politics. It's just a more polite way of discussing politics with people, the same way you talk to your wife if you want to reach some sort of compromise rather than shouting at each other. Honestly, the marriage goes a lot better if we at least make the effort of trying to listen to and understand one another, even if it doesn't change our minds.

It's about process and restoring a bit of decorum to the political sphere.

I appreciate Republicans who pay lip service to liberals more than the ones who call me traitor and coward. I would much rather have a Republican Party filled with Voinoviches and Lugars, even if their politics don't change.

Posted by blah | April 25, 2008 4:03 PM

This is preemptive negative campaigning. Let's leave that to the Clinton team:

From: "Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html

"Friday, April 25, 2008

Clinton, Obama, and Negative Campaigning

Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin, the replacement on the Clinton team for Mark Penn, claims in today's WP that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."

November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]

December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]

New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?

Hillary Clinton 21%

John Edwards 9%

Dennis Kucinich 9%

Barack Obama 8%

Joe Biden 3%

Mike Gravel 3%

Christopher Dodd 3%

Bill Richardson 3%

None/Not sure 43%

Source: The Iowa Poll

[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]

What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:

January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]

Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]

Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:

Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election

Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report:

For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

March:

The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said."

April:

MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes

And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don’t believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it’s an ad on lobbying, and it’s circulating...

MR. GARIN: It’s not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it’s 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you’re new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you’re a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there’s some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...

(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The—well, first of all, that’s what’s in your negative ad that you didn’t know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

From:

Head of State:

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html

Posted by Robert Hewson | April 25, 2008 4:07 PM

"the same way you talk to your wife if you want to reach some sort of compromise rather than shouting at each other."

What's this "compromise" thing that you speak of?

Wait, I know -- when she finally gets her way, she stops shouting at me. Sometimes. Depending on how disobedient she views me for not having acquiesced from the outset. That's compromise, right?

Posted by Joe | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM

Wow.

Thank god we have Robert Hewson to cut and paste everything he's read in the past freaking year into a comment at Matt's place.

Dude, I'm impressed.

Posted by Davebo | April 25, 2008 4:13 PM

Exactly blah...

...that's why an ability to make a large circle of people believe that you understand them is such a vital political skill.

Why is it so hard for the established media of all forms to understand the concept of so many wishing to change our politics of recent years?

We are all Americans. Somewhere along the line we have ceded that to the slicers and dicers of divide and conquer.

The seriousness of our current slate of national problems is why many are turning away from divide and conquer.

It's not that hard to understand.

Posted by G Davis | April 25, 2008 4:14 PM

Obama's "I have understood you" shtick is also a bandaid for a couple of his weaknesses:

- He's not anywhere near as eloquent an impromptu speaker as he is a writer. He needs a few drafts to get into that Baroque O'Blarney mode that the punditry swooned over after his 5000 word Jeremiah Wright speech. (McCain's the opposite -- he's best at winging it, so he's going to run a reality TV-style campaign where his campaign puts him in wacky situations -- like he's currently campaigning against Obama among poor black people -- to attract TV coverage.)

- Also, while Obama's head may be in the middle, his heart has long been way, way to the left of the median voter. So, he's spent a lot of effort not leaving a paper trail of simple, easy to understand phrases over the years. He's developed a prose style that resists being boiled down to its actual content. What he wants is for people to forget what they want to know from him and just be awed by his nuanced thoughtfulness.

But, that shtick is running into diminishing marginal returns. The people who have been closest to him longest -- his wife and his minister -- can't do that shtick, so we keep getting hints about who the real Obama is (or, hopefully, was) from them. That leaves the door open for McCain to do to Obama what he did to Romney: portray him as big phony.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 4:17 PM

I suppose we could look to Illinois for some examples. He was in the state legislature there. He worked with people on both sides. Do the republicans in IL feel like Obama's talk of "hearing the other side" was only a platitude?

Posted by Mingpicket | April 25, 2008 4:22 PM

What I think is great about this election is that finally we don't have to hear conservatives harp on about identity-politics anymore. Because now, officially, working class white men are a political identity group just like any other. It's beautiful really.

Posted by Bubba | April 25, 2008 4:26 PM

That leaves the door open for McCain to do to Obama what he did to Romney: portray him as big phony.

Again, this is where likability matters. The Republicans tried to do the same with both Bill Clinton and Al Gore; they failed with Clinton and succeeded with Gore, because Bill Clinton is likable and Al Gore isn't. And Obama's likable. If you don't like Obama, that sucks. But I like Obama.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 25, 2008 4:27 PM

Indeed, this is not a new political technique--it is an incredibly old political technique, dating back at least to the Athenians. And it has lasted so long as a technique because it often works to help politicians achieve their ends, although to work well it does take a politician who naturally comes across as sincere.

Generally, it amazes me that many of the people who comment on politics (often making careers of it) seem to be blissfully unaware that politics was not invented sometime around when they came of age. And if you listen closely to Obama, he never really claims to have invested all of this himself. He more frames it as a restoration, which is indeed a bit Golden Ageish, but nonetheless a welcome acknowledgement of the fact that much of what Obama practices as a politician he learned from his mentors, and from history.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 4:30 PM

Everyone who is anti-abortion is not right-wing. The feckless nature of the Republican opposition -- all-tease, all-the-time -- keeps some opponents in the Democratic Party. Other liberal social policies helps. There's nothing about abortion rights that is liberal or progressive except by declaring it so.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 25, 2008 4:40 PM

I understand Douthat is a bit of a bell curve racist himself, as is Sullivan, ie a third of the Atlantic bloggers. I doubt that was the reason they were hired, the editors might not even have been aware of it, but I don't think there's any other western countries where they could have been open about those beliefs without it being an issue or a career impediment.

Posted by David Weman | April 25, 2008 4:42 PM

To me, it seems nothing more than paying lip-service to someone's views on a subject.

Which is, basically, all that many people want, particularly on these policy issues that are really actually cultural/identity issues.

There's a segment of the voting populace for whom showing proper respect and deference to their preferences is more important than delivering. Or they might actually realize that having their preferred policies implemented isn't feasible, but want a politician who "respects" their position.

Posted by Tyro | April 25, 2008 4:44 PM

He's developed a prose style that resists being boiled down to its actual content.

Welcome to this thing we call "Language". It contains this thing some of us like to call "Abstractions".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 25, 2008 4:45 PM

"He's developed a prose style that resists being boiled down to its actual content

I mean because it’s not like anybody and their cousin is digging around looking for ways to misconstrue everything he says.

He’s got a voting record, he’s got proposals on tons of stuff. If you were looking the content of his plans to govern then you’d find plenty of stuff in short order. If you were looking for something to write long polemics about his ideology you might come up short. Heaven forfend

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | April 25, 2008 4:48 PM

I think the Reagan comparison is right on. Except that Obama's more of policy wonk. It's stupid to call it schtick. He uses the "let's get beyond the politics of the past" approach the way Reagan used "it's morning in America." Perhaps more tactically as well -- you can see how he deflected one of Clinton's attacks with "well, that's just more old politics." Of course, Reagan had the good fortune to run against Carter, get a landslide, and a mandate. A "mandate" doesn't have to be defined -- I agree with Matt, the electorate cares more about a leader who understands them than masters of policy. If he sweeps into office, he'll probably do pretty well. I don't know what his administration will be like if he only squeezes in. But remember, the majority of Americans disagreed with Reagan's policies, they still liked him as president.

Posted by rj | April 25, 2008 4:54 PM

Obama's problem is that his surrogate father, Rev. Wright, whom he gave $26,000 to in 2007, is the anti-Obama when it comes to prose style. Wright's a master of boiling down exactly what he means to a really catchy little phrase. He's been doing it for decades and there are countless examples of them on the public record. Wright is a publicity hound, so he won't go gentle into that good night.

Similarly, although Michelle Obama is, judging from her Princeton senior thesis, a terrible, terrible prose stylist, it's hard for her not to blunder into occasionally revealing all her resentment she's felt her whole life over getting into high schools and universities and law firms on affirmative action, only to find out once again that everybody else there kind of notices she's not that bright. Thus her continuing Kinsley II "gaffes."

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 4:56 PM

It would appear to be belied simply by McCain's success. Obama's as much a wonk with policy proposals as anyone, certainly enough to keep Krugman busy complaining about them. So is the idea that people are doubly disappointed when they find out about them? McCain's got the rhetoric added to a mix of (1) self-declared ignorance about economics in place of policy and (2) actual positions and a record on everything from lobbyists to Katrina utterly at odds with his image, but the image still wins. For that matter, wasn't Clinton's success at positioning herself as the working-class hero proof that rhetoric matters?

Posted by John Haber | April 25, 2008 4:58 PM

Conservatism isn't so much about solving problems or improving this life on this earth, anyway. It's more about helping the selfish feel smug and righteous about themselves.

A little acknowledgment goes a long way for people who don't know or care much about policy.

Posted by Aatos | April 25, 2008 5:10 PM

"and law firms on affirmative action"

I worked for several years at Michelle's law firm. Her credentials were at least equal to, and possibly better than, the average attorney at the firm. Middle-of-the-pack grades at Harvard get you a job at all but maybe 3 or 4 firms in this country.

Posted by Joe | April 25, 2008 5:13 PM

I can't say I'm a fan of Steve Sailer, but I have to give credit where credit is due. "Yosemite Sam" is a great nickname for John McCain.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 25, 2008 5:18 PM

Just a suggestion, but if you ignore Sailer, he will produce a series of increasingly desperate posts, then go away.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 5:24 PM

Not passing the easy Illinois bar exam (81% passing) at your first opportunity is unexpected for a Harvard Law grad like Mrs. Obama.

The Newsweek cover story had a half dozen quotes from her, her mom, and her friends about how she felt resentful because she had lower test scores than the average at Whitney Young magnet high school, Princeton, Harvard Law, and her law firm (which she was out of after only 2-3 years).

It's called the rage of a privileged class: she's a hard-working person of above-average intelligence who would have been happy being a big fish in a small pond, but who kept getting dragged into intellectual environments over her head by racial quotas, where her adolescent self-consciousness interacted with awareness that she wasn't as smart as other people to keep her simmering in racial resentment.

For lots of quotes showing this:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080225_michelle_obama.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 5:32 PM

There's nothing about abortion rights that is liberal or progressive except by declaring it so.

Haha! Sounds like you might be an anti-choicer. I believe the whole argument around the pro-choice movement is that it is a progressive, liberal thing to do.

A principled liberal is someone who believes that the core values of liberalism are the correct political values and adopts position that reflect them. Principled liberals can disagree, and there may be a few anti-choicers among them, but I would maintain they are misguided. And not all Democrats are principled liberals. And a few of them are anti-choicers as well. But the existence of these minorities do nothing to prove that restricting women's control over their bodies is a liberal idea.

Posted by mpowell | April 25, 2008 5:40 PM