Style Over Substance
Posted on June 5th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Mark Halperin has another one of his lists, this time outlining the things that McCain is underestimating as the general election starts. Number 10:
That in modern America, perception is often reality and style often beats substance.
Perhaps McCain underestimates this for some reason, but it seems to me that he is the one Republican candidate, aside from perhaps Mike Huckabee, who understands this better than anyone and has used it to his advantage many times already. McCain and his loyal backers are counting on the perception that McCain is the anti-Bush, the independent maverick truth-teller, will trump the reality that he represents a continuation of almost every policy of Mr. Bush’s administration, and they are being aided in this on a regular basis by gullible or sympathetic pundits and journalists who keep framing every McCain move as an instance of “McCain distancing himself from the Bush administration.” McCain regularly won among anti-Bush voters in the GOP primaries, and this perception of independence from the conventional GOP line seems to be a reason for his continuing appeal to independents and his ability to outpoll his own party label by ten points or more. In the eyes of the media, McCain must necessarily be distancing himself from Bush, because they “know” that McCain is the Good Republican and Bush is the antithesis of this. They are also counting on McCain’s ability to get by without having a clue about numerous areas of policy. They probably anticipate that he will once again be able to prevail by muttering boilerplate about opposing wasteful spending and the dreaded earmark with the odd gas tax holiday pander thrown in for good measure. It’s worked before, so why not on a larger scale with the general electorate?
What Halperin also misses here is that in any contest between Obama and McCain, Obama is the substantive, policy-oriented candidate, while McCain is the one offering mostly pious bromides about victory, service and being American. If style often beats substance, Obama is in trouble because, as his supporters tirelessly remind us, Obama does have a substantive policy agenda (even if he doesn’t spend as much time talking about it and a lot of his boosters don’t care what it is) and McCain’s entire campaign has been even more driven by biography and character than Obama’s.
Filed under: politics
Style and substance aren’t mutually exclusive. Obama has a lot more to say than McCain, and he says it far more eloquently, as countless folks noted when they contrasted their speeches on Tuesday night.
Obama also has a better slogan than McCain, and a better logo. The proof of that is the fact that McCain has ineptly tried to steal both.
Thanks for revealing once again that the wannabe-Emperor has no clothes. I keep coming back to one thought about McCain: what are his guiding principles? What does he believe in? Reagan talked patriotism, but also had principles that carried him to the White House. McCain seems to patritoic in the blindly loyal fashion that can be so dangerous when wedded to power.
Basically, if substance beat style in American politics, we’d be making plans to watch Ron Paul’s acceptance speech in St. Paul.
Peace be with you.
Good point. In wondering what it is about both McCain and Hillary Clinton that allows them to get away with claims of substance when they have little to back it up, and why Obama seems vulnerable to the charge of lacking substance when he clearly does not, I’m thinking that it has something to do with the issue of pessimism vs. optimism. It seems to me that much of McCain’s “substance” boils down to being a fairly dour, pessimisstic guy, whereas Obama is clearly an upbeat, “hopeful” candidate. I think it terms of public perception, being downbeat and pessimistic is more easily associated with “substance”, whereas being optimistic is associated with being dreamy and insubstantial. The one area where McCain is the weakest is Iraq and the surge, where he is highly optimistic, and this seems to undermine his credibility. Likewise, the one area where Obama gains the most “substance” has been his essentially skeptical and pessimistic views of the Iraq invasion. It would seem that McCain has built a career, for the most part, out of the idea that being pessimistic about what government can do is the way to gain respect and a reputation as a man of experience and substance, which has of course led him in the exact opposite direction – to not bother to even study the issues in any depth, but instead merely to opt for whatever policies seem to require the least of government – tax cuts, minimal health care, etc. This often leaves McCain with no idea of what he’s talking about, but he still ends up seeming “substantial” because he’s basically pessimistic.
Curious of your own thoughts on this, being a pessimistic skeptic of government.
So well said, and so why I keep coming back to this blog that is so not what I normally agree with. Anyway, it’s great post, although Obama will clearly win and you should stop pretending otherwise.
[...] As I’ve noted before, McCain has to hope that policy knowledge is not a prerequisite to becoming President (Mr. Bush’s election suggests that it is not), because compared to Obama it is he who will be playing the part of the confused naif.   [...]
[...] This is very much in line with what I have been expecting for some time now. Given that McCain knows nothing, or next to nothing, about policy (including his own positions!) and his biography is what has recommended him to voters all along, this strategy was almost guaranteed from the beginning. Furthermore, this approach seems to have some chance of working. [...]