af40's Blog

It's kind of funny to see this year's crop of candidates attacking each other on records that might make them nationally appealing. Romney has attacked McCain on his willingness to work with moderates on bills concerning climate change and campaign fundraising reform, while McCain has made light of the former Mass. governor's socially friendly policies- such as legislation concerning abortion and gay rights- and his lukewarm support for a phased troop withdrawal (interpreted by many Republicans as "defeatist"). A Romney attack upon McCain stating that the Senator would not appoint a Supreme Court nominee like Samuel Alito- who is considered socially conservative- drew harsh denials by the McCain camp. McCain has struck back by stating Romney had refused to join high-profile Republicans attacking John Kerry during the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston.

Mike Huckabee has likewise alluded to both McCain's and Romney's moderate positions in the Senate and the Governor's office, respectively, attempting to come off as the "true" family-and-religious-values-strong candidate. Yet even Huckabee has been attacked for seeming weak on law enforcement (via a claim that he willfully paroled an inmate who later on killed a woman while on parole) and his social spending policies as governor.  Weakness on law enforcement and liberal spending policies are big "no no's" for Republicans.

On the other side of the political aisle, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have attacked each other for coming off as too Conservative- Obama attacked Hillary on her support for the Iraq War and Hillary has made allusions to Obama's comments in support of President Reagan, the pillar by which it seems all modern Republicans are compared.

I find it refreshing- not unappealing- that front-of-the-pack candidates like McCain and Romney on one side, and Clinton and Obama on the other, are actually not hardcore ideologues, but really just pragmatic political realists that just happen to identify with one ideology over another. Their moderate stances actually show that they are capable of working with political opponents- which is exactly what is needed to remove gridlock in Washington. That is, it is exactly what is needed to effect that magical word of this year's campaign season, "change".

Yet in the game of partisan politics, the type of game that primaries are all about, attacking an opponent even for the slightest hint that he or she might actually be a political moderate is very effective.  But this translates into candidates being forced to take ideological positions that are near the extremes of the political spectrum. 

Take Romney's position on gays in the military and abortion rights.

As Massachusetts governor, Romney was in favor of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. This policy has worked quite well and it is viewed as striking a careful balance between outright denial of military admission for gays and outright approval of the gay lifestyle. But among Republicans, this decision is much less popular, seeming almost to betray the traditional "value" of considering the gay lifestyle as a sinful choice. Romney has since distanced himself from that position, calling it a "mistake". Likewise, Romney's pro-choice stance has since become "pro-life", yet another so-called mistake for the governor.

Nationally, Americans tend to support the Clinton policy on gays in the military and are almost split right down the middle on abortion rights. Americans are also much more attracted to, on average, candidates who have shown that they can work with political opponents. Ironically, the attacks candidates have made on each other claiming that opponents have been too bi-partisan while in office would be strong points in a national election. But in the primaries, anything remotely "friendly" to the opponent's party is fodder for attacks.

Candidates can afford to take more radical positions during the primaries because by the time a general election comes around, voters have already largely made up their minds if they are highly partisan, and the moderates (the independents) tend to be much less critical of partisan choices made during primaries. For example, moderates themselves are not generally issue-based ideologues, so they can vote for a candidate whose stance on an issue like abortion or gay rights differs from them.  Furthermore, many candidates tend to come closer to the middle, ideologically speaking, during the general campaign, oftentimes drawing attacks from opponents as being "on the fence" or wish-washy (this brings to mind John Kerry's claim in 2004 that he was in favor of an increase in war funding- $87 billlion worth- before he voted "against it". Kerry had clearly tried to come off as dually pro and anti-war, and he later on paid a heavy price for this).

While partisan rhetoric makes for lots of fanfare and great press during primaries, which is all repeated again during the coronation ceremony that we know of as party conventions, it is almost never effective in eliciting moderate support. The end result is that all the heated political rhetoric that is chimed during the primary season will likely fall only on partisan ears.  It consolidates one's base, which is undoubtedly the key to winning the party's nomination, but it does nothing to help candidates win a general election, where the base is already strongly in either one or the other camp.

This year is unique in that not only is there no incumbent in the run for national office, but even among the current candidates there does not seem to be any clear front-runner on either side. All of this might be decidedly more clear in a week from now, when several key states hold primaries.  But if the primary season does stretch all the way to the late summer conventions, it remains to be seen whether moderates will increasingly tune out of the political process, leaving behind an election that yet again falls along standard partisan divides.