August 28, 2008
More than one Jewish dinner party has been stopped cold by a conversation like this:
He: My mother won’t vote for Obama, even though she’s a lifelong Democrat.
She: So she’d prefer McCain, who would appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court and continue the policies of George Bush?
He: She was all for Hillary, but just doesn’t trust Obama. Forget the pastor thing — she just thinks he’s too young and untested.
She: But Hillary wasn’t just a symbol — she had a specific set of policies on health care, and the environment, and the economy. McCain is many things, but he’s still a Republican. How can she say she’s a Hillary supporter and then vote against the policies Clinton stood for?
He: But Obama only talks about change — where are the specifics? What does he stand for?
She: He certainly doesn’t stand for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, criminalizing abortion, and leaving the teaching of creationism up to school districts. Unless you’re telling me that there are no policy disagreements between the candidates, why would she base her vote on “trust” and “experience” instead of important, specific policies?
That’s not the only conversation of course. Missing from the dialogue are, for example, Jewish Republicans, single-issue pro-Israel voters, and — though we all hate to admit it — Jewish voters who are not ready for an African-American president.
Let’s put aside the last group for the moment; there’s a shelf of books devoted to the complicated generational schism between blacks and Jews.
As for the committed Republicans and the pro-Israel voters, there is little mystery about how they choose a candidate. The Republicans embrace the policies of the Right, if not in total at least in general. Pro-Israel voters will make up their minds based on a candidate’s combination of voting record, public statements, and foreign policy advisers and their own gut feelings about his sincerity and Israel’s vulnerability.
These are “issues” folk, and examples of the kinds of voters, Left and Right, who judge candidates on the policies they stand for and not concepts like character, likeability, or whether or not they’d be good drinking buddies. For issues voters, the 2008 presidential election is a no-brainer. The Republican base may be wary of McCain’s full commitment to the cause but certainly prefer him to any Democrat to the left of Joe Lieberman. As McCain supporter William Kristol wrote this week, “If you’re pro-life, conservative, and/or Republican, you certainly don’t want Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid running the country.”
Liberal issues voters would certainly agree. Obama’s Jewish outreach coordinator, Dan Shapiro, told JTA the campaign will begin to focus on the domestic issues that distinguish Obama from McCain, including church and state separation, Supreme Court picks, and other issues that are “in sync” with historic “Jewish values.”
The problem for issues voters is they don’t decide elections — “swing” voters do, and they approach elections as referenda on individuals or, to be generous, as correctives to the country’s prevailing mood. To give them credit, swing voters are more flexible than issues voters, less doctrinaire, and more open to new ideas and directions. And as a result, they drive issues voters nuts. “Who cares about his wife!” you imagine issues voters shouting. “Look at his policies! Look at the people he would appoint to his cabinet!”
Defenders of swing voters say they force politicians to moderate their views and at least hint at “reaching across the aisle” to engage their ideological opponents. Swing voters are the dried potato flakes you add to a stew that’s too salty.
Issues voters say that’s fine in theory but that recent history has given us politicians who run to the center but revert to the base once they’re in office.
Swing voters are credited with being open-minded; issues voters suggest there is something ominous in their lack of “principle.”
If ever there was an issues election, this is it. George Bush is historically unpopular, his party, and policies, in disarray. Republican rule has saddled America with an unpopular war, a shredded economy, an energy crisis, and an environmental emergency. Democrats are confident the majority will recognize these deficits as a failure of policies, not personalities.
Republicans know they are vulnerable. Again, Kristol: “Obama and Biden will try to frame the presidential race as a normal Democratic-Republican choice. If they can do that, they should win.”
But there is nothing “normal” about this election. Obama represents something new, which is both his strength and his liability. He’s not just the Democratic candidate. He’s the black candidate. And nearly everything that can be said in his favor can be used against him by his opponents. Young and fresh? Callow and untested. Cerebral? Elitist. Inspiring? Glib.
McCain’s strategists know this, and their ads portray Obama as a “celebrity” and neophyte. Obama’s camp strikes back, saying McCain is out of touch.
Issues voters watch and gnash their teeth. “You’re voting for a president, not your best friend!”they shout. And another dinner party is shot to hell.
