| Remember back in June, when Barack Obama "clarified" his positions on a whole raft of issues-including warrantless wiretapping-all in a rightward direction?
At the time, I felt there were three things worth noting:
(1) Some shifts away from majority positions to rightwing minority positions were presented as shifts "to the center". Most notably, even most Republican voters now see "free trade" as more bad than good.
(2) We were told that this was a "political necessity."
(3) We were told that this "always happens."
(1) and (2) were particularly dubious when Obama backed away from his criticism of NAFTA, given how crucial Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are to winning the White House, and how hated NAFTA is among the very blue collar voters that Obama needs in order to beat McCain there. But #3, at least, seemed plausible to those who don't recall the elections of 1968 and 1980. Even those who do recall those elections are likely to insist that they, too, followed the standard pattern of running away from the center in the primaries, and towards it in the general election. And now, at least, I'm not inclined to argue with them, because now we clearly have a counter-example on our hands: John McCain ran center in the primaries, and now is running right.
|
| The "Political Necessity" Canard
Before turning to my main topic, it's worth taking note that the claim of "political necessity" was soundly refuted, when it came to Obama moving right. Chris pointed this out quite clearly in a July 8 diary, "Obama Seen As Less Liberal; Polls Don't Change":
First, Chris took note of Obama's shift to the right:
The conventional wisdom is that, as a result of a recent statement on guns, a recent flip-flop on FISA, and a conservative toned television advertising campaign, Obama is "moving to the center" now that the primary campaign is over. According to Rasmussen, that CW is mirrored by the shifting perceptions of the general public, who view Obama as less liberal than they did one month ago:
During the Primary campaign season, Obama was viewed as politically liberal by an ever-increasing number of voters that grew to 67% by early June. However, since clinching the nomination, he has reversed that trend and is now seen as liberal by only 56%.
Twenty-two percent (22%) characterize the Democrat as Very Liberal, down from 36% early last month.
McCain similarly has been seen as politically conservative by more and more voters, also hitting 67% a month ago, but he is still viewed that way by 66%. While19% saw him as Very Conservative in early June, that figure now has risen to 28%.
This was rationalized at the time in the terms cited above. "Move to the center" (not right), "political necessity", "always happens", yada yada yada. Well, not exaclty, Chris noted. The political payoff for this oh-so-necessary rightward shift turned out to be precisely nil:
So, now that Obama is perceived as moving to the center, while McCain is still perceived as conservative, Obama's poll numbers should improve, right? Wrong. According to the daily tracking poll from the same polling firm, Rasmussen, the campaign has not changed at all as a result of Obama being perceived as less liberal:- Obama has been at 49% every single day since June 22nd
- Obama has been at 48%, 49% or 50% every single day since June 8th
- Obama has led by between 4-6% every day since June 23rd, and in all but three days since June 11th. In the other three days, he twice led by 3%, and once led by 7%.
Poll movement of this small degree is not really movement at all, but rather "statistical noise." .... This is very strong proof, even scientific, that Obama's move to the center has not won him any votes, and that the perceived change in the ideological gap between Obama and McCain did not impact their relative vote share.
Indeed, the real reason for shiting rightward is simply that that is what the political elites demand, and now that the pesky Democratic voters no longer have to be appealed to (where else do they have to go?), Obama-like others before him-was happy to comply.
"Political necessity" is simply an elite, rightwing narrative that provides cover for this abandonment of what the voters wanted. "It always happens" is another such narrative. And it, too, has now been shown to be a lie.
The "It Always Happens" Canard
In terms of ideology in the 18 GOP primaries, McCain's appeal was so decidedly centrist that in 15 of those states his percent of the vote declined monotonically to the right. This means an absolute negative correlation between how conservative a voting block was, and how likely they were to support McCain. He got the highest vote percentage among those who considered themselves "somewhat liberal," with a smaller percentage among those who considered themselves, "moderate," an even smaller percentage among those who considered themselves "somewhat conservative," and the smallest percentage among those who considered themselves "very conservative."
There were only three states where this pattern did not hold. In South Carolina, he got 49 percent of those calling themselves "somewhat liberal," compared to 51 percent calling themselves "moderate." In New Jersey, it was 64 percent "somewhat liberal," compared to 67 percent "moderate." In Massachussettes, it was 56 percent "somewhat liberal," compared to 59 percent "moderate." These are all neglibable differences well within the margin of error. For all intents and purposes, McCain's strongest ideological appeal was to the most liberal group of those who showed up throughout the primary process.
The results were similar, though not as striking when we turn to partisan identification. Ron Paul had such a strong appeal to independents-drawing a higher percentage of them than Republicans in every single state-that he made it harder for McCain to grab more independents than Republicans. Still, McCain managed to do this in 8 out of 18 states, with equal percentage in one state, and a larger percentage of Republicans in 9 states. In comparison, Huckabee did better among independents in just 4 states, and Romney did better with them in just one.
There is no mistaking it. This is not just another media myth. John McCain was running center in his primary campaign. And now, with Sarah Palin's nomination as his running mate, he's clearly running right.
The most commonplace analysis of this casts this as a "base turnout" strategy, and sees it as a risky choice, given the growth of the Democratic base since 2004, when a base turnout strategy worked to re-elect Bush. But it's clearly more complex than this, since it involves a concerted effort to reshape the campaign narrative in ways that greatly favor the Republicans. Media support for such a reshaping strategy has been quite evident throughout the Bush era, and McCain has benefitted even more from media favoritism ("We're his base."--Chris Matthews.)
McCain's high level of support among independents, and his relatively high level of approval by Democrats can be directly attributed to the media's buddy-buddy relationship with McCain, which goes even deeper than their similar relationship with Bush, who endeared himself to them by giving them insulting nicknames as if because they were his pets. It's true that McCain's relationship with the media is starting to show considerable strain. But it's not because McCain is shifting hard right. It's because he's lying so blatantly, so clumsily, and attacking the media so hamfistedly.
A similar general election shift to the left by a Democrat could hardly be imagined. |
