Wisdom Of Crowds
Posted on February 27th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
I can’t wait for the moment that the right finally understands it needs positive arguments to defeat Obama, not smears. ~Andrew Sullivan
Because the lesson of the Bush Era is that only positive argument shifts public opinion and smears have no power? That must be why reckless fearmongering over Iraq did not sway the public, why opponents were not branded as “apologists for despotism” and unpatriotic and why every elected national Democrat with hopes of higher office did not cravenly pave the way for the war–because smears are not that important. One of the crucial mistakes that a lot of Obama supporters are making is their habit of vastly underestimating the credulity and gullibility of the public. This is the country that re-elected George Bush, even if many of them may regret that now. In this campaign there are going to be arguments leveled against Obama, but there are also going to be smears, and frankly we give our electoral system and our electorate too much credit if we think that the latter will not have a significant effect.
Filed under: politics
But you forget: In Sullivan’s world, the sheer power of Obama’s noble visage has the ability to stop your average jihadist in his tracks. Soft power, you see. I’m sure it will have a similar effect on the nastier elements of the domestic right.
Or something.
If nothing else, I do hope that a career in the muck and mire of Chicago politics has braced Obama for the sheer ugliness that is coming.
You a pretty intelligent guy so you either dont read andrew’s site that often or chose to purposely misunderstand that sentence.
His point is that America is tired of 16 years of Clinton/Rove type politics. He belives that Obama is able to run a campaign above that type of politics and so far he has.
If your point is that in a general election he won’t be able to continue taking the high road that might be worth discussing. However the smear strategy has backfired in Clinton’s face every time she has tried so far so there is hope that the same can happen in a general election.
This isnt Kerry, Clinton, McCain, or Bush so maybe the broader point is that you can try to smear him all your want but no one has been able to find anything that can stick.
Well i guess he does do quite a bit of “plagerism” :)
I understand Sullivan’s view of Obama and what he thinks Obama’s potential is. Since he knows how effective smear politics has been over the last seven years, I found it remarkable that he thinks that this is going to change now. Yes, he thinks Obama can overcome this kind of politics, at least for one election, and he may be right, but right now that is based mainly on a lot of hope and the unrepresentative response of Democratic primary voters who are going to vote for the nominee anyway.
“America is tired of 16 years of Clinton/Rove type politics.”
That is an incredibly bold claim, and a very poor understanding of how low-information voters think and operate. I’m always amused by those who find that “negative campaigning” is some sort of modern phenomenon, or that we’re just on the cusp of bright new era where it will no longer work.
Please forgive me for the following senetce.
We can “hope” cant we?
“Yes, he thinks Obama can overcome this kind of politics, at least for one election, and he may be right, but right now that is based mainly on a lot of hope and the unrepresentative response of Democratic primary voters who are going to vote for the nominee anyway. ”
Are you discounting Clinton to much? This is a women whose only goal since birth was to become President and she spent 50 years building the machine that would do that for her. Then this upstart canidate comes from no where and whoops her good.
She used negative attacks and failed miserably, albeit only among “Democratic” voters. Why woudl those attacks all this sudden work in a general election? Kerry didnt get beat on being a big democrat liberal he got beat on his other factors. mainly swift boating…
I think his main point, and its a valid one in my view, is that McCain’s only chance is to beat him in the war of ideas.
” I’m always amused by those who find that “negative campaigning†is some sort of modern phenomenon, or that we’re just on the cusp of bright new era where it will no longer work. ”
Like i said im relativley new to politics but im not naive to think this is modern or that we are on the cusp of a new era. I think that we have a unique canidate in a unique time and i am extremly hopeful that he can be what we think he can be.
I guess i drink the coolaid when he says “We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting”.
I was actually turned on to your blog from Andrews blog and i appreciate a lot of the views posted her. Thanks for your feedback and discussion.
Just had a chance to read the low-information voters post.
While my optimism may get crushed in the general election so might your cynicsm. I think another possible reason to expect the optimistic view is the fiber that makes up McCain.
What you will hear in the general, but not from the candidates:
McCain.
Old, tempermental, crazy from his time in Hanoi, senile, etc.
Obama.
Muslim, red-diaper baby, radical black nationalist, etc.
Because both of these candidates are so defined by their biography, (although of course there will be serious arguments over policy) the campaign will be intensely personalized.
I come from a very different place than Daniel politically (secular/temperamentally conservative but substantively moderately liberal historically, but veering increasingly in a left libertarian direction. And, of course, like Daniel, an anti-interventionist), but I am as cynical as he is regarding politics and democracy, and I share much of his cynicism about Obama.
With that preface, my take is this. I have no faith at all that negative campaigning and smear tactics will lose their effectiveness. The usual rules will apply – the candidate needs to keep his hands clean, as people (including low information voters) don’t like to see a candidate use those tactics himself, but negative campaigning/smear tactics by surrogates will, generally, remain terribly effective.
And yet. Historically, some candidates seem more vulnerable to those sorts of tactics than do other candidates. It’s not entirely clear to me why mud seems to stick better to some candidates than to others, but empirically it does. In recent years, Reagan and Clinton are two examples of politicians who seemed relatively immune to even legitimate criticism, let alone to smears. (I know I’m not saying anything terribly original here, but it’s a truth that is oft stated but then promptly forgotten.) My tentative conclusion is that negative campaigning/smear tactics don’t work well against a charismatic candidate.
And Obama, for better or worse, is a charismatic candidate. So I am inclined to think that the typical Republican smear tactics won’t work against him. So Andrew may be right, but for the wrong reasons.
That said, McCain, as much as I shudder to admit it, is a pretty charismatic candidate in his own right.
I come from a very different place than Daniel politically (secular/temperamentally conservative but substantively moderately liberal historically, but veering increasingly in a left libertarian direction. And, of course, an anti-interventionist, as all informed, morally centered, thinking people are these days), but I am as cynical as he is regarding politics and democracy, and I share much of his cynicism about Obama.
With that preface, my take is this. I have no faith at all that negative campaigning and smear tactics will lose their effectiveness. The usual rules will apply – the candidate needs to keep his hands clean, as people (including low information voters) don’t like to see a candidate use those tactics himself, but negative campaigning/smear tactics by surrogates will, generally, remain terribly effective.
And yet. Historically, some candidates seem more vulnerable to those sorts of tactics than other candidates. It’s not entirely clear to me why mud seems to stick better to some candidates than others, but empirically it does. In recent years, Reagan and Clinton are two examples of politicians who seemed relatively immune to even legitimate criticism, let alone to smears. (I know I’m not saying anything terribly original here, but it’s a truth that is oft stated but then promptly forgotten.) My tentative conclusion is that negative campaigning/smear tactics don’t work well against a charismatic candidate.
And Obama, for better or worse, is a charismatic candidate. So I am inclined to think that the typical Republican smear tactics won’t work against him. So Andrew may be right, but for the wrong reasons.
Well, I plead guilty to all the things you have written above. I think I and other Obama supporters are, indeed, being a bit naive and idealistic about the capacity for the country to change its habits of political persuasion. That doesn’t mean I think we should give up, however. Nor do I think it means we are bound to lose either. It just means that there’s a fight on our hands, and it can only be won by an appeal to our better selves. It’s not as if our better selves never win, or we wouldn’t have a democracy in the first place. And there is indeed plenty of evidence that sizable numbers of the electorate are rather sick to death not only of what Bush has done, but of their own role in empowering such people. People may indeed elect Obama out of guilt, but it’s not racial guilt that’s the big factor, it’s guilt over putting into power so many crass and cynical deadbeats.