Nope, no way, absolutely not.

Politicians should never in any way shape or form get into ideological discussions, they should leave that to supporters. I think we know where it gets us.

Politicians should stick to the facts. So when talking about Palin talk about the contrast of her record on pork-cutting and her vote in favour of the ‘bridge to nowhere’, talk about the contrast between her preaching to invade the privacy of personal health decisions while asking the privacy of her own familial decisions to be respected, talk about the quality of her judgement in being able to defend constitutional rights while admitting she didn’t understand the reasoning behind the Iraq troop surge until she heard about it on TV. Can you really depend on a person like that?

I think you make a persuasive case Sunder, though I think I was more influenced by this brilliant analogy on the excellent FiveThirtyEight.com:

In the hockey analogy, Palin wouldn’t get within a thousand miles of an NHL All-Star Game because she’s not a scoring talent. She’s a role player, an emotion-rouser. Emotion messes with the chalkboard-drawn game plan and thus achieves a specific strategic objective. She can make game-changing agitation plays that rouse her home team and provoke the other side into counterattacks that – 100% of the time – end up punishing the team who hits back. Democrats would be smart to understand her as such, and I see a lot of reaction that doesn’t seem to grasp what Palin is doing and the value she’s providing. I see a lot of Democrats taking a lot of bait.

But, while I agree that this election will be won if the media cycle comes back to the economy, and that is where the Democrats should focus, I do think that Democrats and progressives everywhere unnecessarily run away from the ‘culture wars’. This is a big Achilles Heel for the Democrats and one they should address.

More on this at your Fabian Fringe

When I’m feeling down, I think that the opposite of what you said here is, in fact, the totality of modern politics:

And Palin is not – after another week or so – and a flurry around the Veep debate, going to dominate this election. This strikes me as a good example of the goldfish bowl 24/7 media and blog culture. Yes, its a deliberately interesting V-P pick. But does it really change all of the rules about how much who the V-P will be will affect voters on November 2nd

This election is moving into it’s last two months. It is perfectly clear that Palin consolidates the Republican base:

NRA? – check

State Rights? – check

Oil? – check

Anti-abortion? – check

you know the rest…

The point being that Republicans will consolidate around these core culture war issues. That are embedded, right now, into the Repiblican psyche. The VP choice did that for McCain. It was a clever move, was it not?

Which is to say that Obama must push for a united United States. The point you made later in your post.

Reading Obama’s own memoir seemed to confirm that analysis for me. To react to the Republicans going back to the culture wars by shouting “bring it on” would be to retreat from what he stands for, and has told people he stands for.

I certainly hope so. It has just become a lot more difficult.

The swing always comes among the non-partisan voters, the unaffiliated and the registered independents.

So do you corral them by appealing to their intelligence and highest aspirations or do you try to scare them off your opponent by stimulating the emotive power of fear? Well, that depends whather you seem them as an amorphous bloc of indecisive centrists or as a wide range of individuals with individual concerns and needs.

They might not phrase it like that, but I bet it would have resonance with many voters if they did.

My point wasn’t really about the reality of the outcome of the war, I was talking very much from the perspective of examples where I have heard Americans say what I put in quotation marks. I.E that such language is confrontational towards other nations, certainly arguably racist/xenophobic, because it paints another nation as enemies that must be opposed and wary of.

Again, to reference your second paragraph..I’m not trying to have a debate with you over the merits of China here, just to say that I would be hugely surprised if any candidate (other than perhaps a republican at a push) put an ad out that said “vote for me, or you’ll be speaking chinese” as it’s a xenophobic (maybe not racist) statement.

“Want a job? Vote Democrat. Want to lose your job? Vote Republican.”

It’s got too many conotations for me with those people that say “if it wasn’t for us (the US) you’d all be speaking german by now”

It would be more accurate to say if it wasn’t for Russia we (and the USA) would be speaking German now.

it kind of paints China not as a growing economy but as some kind of fascist superpower that wants to subversively destroy society as we know it.

China wants to be a superpower, certainly. And they would only need 1/4 of the GDP per head of the USA to have a larger economy than that country. Are they fascist? Not in anything like a literal sense — fascism was an early 20th century European phenomenon.

China is a rising power and it will certainly want to change the way the world is run so that it’s more congenial to China (all countries do that sort of thing). So the world of the mid 21st century will be one where Western vlaues are not anywhere near as dominant as they have been.

(The argument against McCain is that he couldn’t change his party so he changed himself)

The Democrats want this election to be about the Bush record, the state of the economy, and the lack of substantive change from McCain on the economy or from Bush. The Palin selection was an attempt to change the subject, back to the culture wars, reconnect McCain to the Republican base, and try to create a problem for Obama with some groups of blue collar and women voters.

The Democrats should stick with the election they want to fight.

The first reason is tactical: they might squeeze a victory by re-running the 2004 and 2000 election and hoping for a different result at the margin. But the party keenest to re-run the 2004 election remains the Republicans: denying that McCain is Bush, yet using Palin to repolarise anyway. (And Palin is not – after another week or so – and a flurry around the Veep debate, going to dominate this election. This strikes me as a good example of the goldfish bowl 24/7 media and blog culture. Yes, its a deliberately interesting V-P pick. But does it really change all of the rules about how much who the V-P will be will affect voters on November 2nd??)

The much bigger reason for Obama is that he must run on his own argument. The 2004 Convention speech set out his argument about the red/blue state 50-50 nation politics. He has to run on that. (The charge against McCain is that he couldn’t change

The most interesting thing about Obama is that he believes he can transcend this without conceding his own principled position. He manages to combine being clearly rooted in his own progressive (whisper it, liberal) argument about the positive and proective role of government, with a tone and style of campaigning which is respectful towards those who disagree with him.

One concern which I felt early on about Obama (the 2004 speech, the early ‘change’ campaign) was whether this was excessively anti-politics, or triangulation. The best piece I read about that was Mark Schmitt’s American Prospect analysis, just before the primaries began about the Obama Theory of Change (compared to that of Edwards and Clinton), particularly in the context of the US political system.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary

Reading Obama’s own memoir seemed to confirm that analysis for me. To react to the Republicans going back to the culture wars by shouting “bring it on” would be to retreat from what he stands for, and has told people he stands for.

Sorry, I thought you were joking when you said that you’d think that a message of “do you want your grandchildren speaking English or Chinese” would be a good image to present. Perhaps there would also be images of small, sharp toothed, Chinese academic ninjas killing pregnant american mothers too?

I totally get and agree with your argument in how effective it can be, I just thought it was funny that you’d consider the last line at all. It’s got too many conotations for me with those people that say “if it wasn’t for us (the US) you’d all be speaking german by now”, it kind of paints China not as a growing economy but as some kind of fascist superpower that wants to subversively destroy society as we know it.

Perhaps the message in the Democat camp should just be “Don’t Panic.” Latest electoral college projections, post Palin making The Greatest Speech In History Ever, show Obama actually stretching his lead. He’s even gone ahead in North Dakota (traditionally Republican, sparsely populated, very cold…) His best move might be to fly to Alaska and have a quick pop at her on her home turf. That line of hers to a Republican Convention about people “who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars” was quite revealing. I’d also start asking which side she was on when McCain took on the religious right in 2000.

Please explain to me how it is racist for someone to want their country to do well in comparison with other countries.

Then I’d say something about how science and the high-tech sector contribute to the US economy. With appropraite pictures of e.g. vaccines (some something biology-related), 747s, computers., etc.

Then I’d say “Obama wants Americans kids to be taught science in science lessons, while Palin thinks they should waste their time being taught creationism instead. They don’t teach creationism in Chinese schools”

I’d finish with something like “America needs a strong science base to remain number one in the 21st century”. Or maybe “do you want your grandchildren speaking English or Chinese”.

Of course he should. What is the point of attacking the presidentil candidates choice for VP? You might as well attack his choice of hair stylist.

I think you have to be careful with this. The Congress, does as you say have worse opinion ratings than Bush, but that is because many people thought that Congress was going to stand up to Bush after 20006. Instead, the Dems have shied away from taking on Bush. The war in Iraq has continued, Pelosi took Impeachment off the table, and the Dems have also capitulated on the immunity given to telecoms after they illegally spied on the American public. Time and time again the Dems have backed down. This is partly why many people think they don’t stand for anything.

The truth is that the Dems of the last 30 years have become complaisant and have sat back . Thinking that FDR’s new deal, and the civil rights movement of the 60’s had given them endless power. Remember, that 2002 was the first time the Republicans had controlled The White House, Congress, and The Senate at the same time for decades. In fact, I think about 60 years. Joe Lieberman is a very good example of what the Dems have become. FDR, or Harry Truman would have no problems fighting the current Republicans because they would understand what the modern Republicans stand for. Too many Dems have forgotten, or never experienced the 1920 Republicans. They still think they are dealing with Eisenhower Republicans of the 1950’s, where bi partisan politics was something to be encouraged. Eisenhower would have been seen as way to liberal to be a Republican today.

By trying to do exactly what he promised. A win in the ‘culture war’ doesn’t mean that Obama’s campaign has to be the liberal/progressive alter-ego of Bush/Rove; it’s about reducing the importance of those cultural issues as a reason to vote for someone to be President.

I haven’t read the Thomas Frank book, but I’ve read a lot of the discussion surrounding it and agree with the general premise. I think the crucial distinction to make, though, is that it’s not necessarily the case that these voters have been fooled, false consciousness style, into voting for ‘values’ Republicans against Democrats who campaign on their (arguably more pressing) economic concerns, but that they’ve lost their faith in government to actually address those concerns.

Such is the state of partisan gridlock, neither this nor the last ‘do nothing Congress’ has been able to get much passed of any substance, and Congress’ approval rating is even lower than that of George W. Bush. I think there’s a general resignation that Washington can’t or won’t deliver solutions, and so they vote for someone who stands for faith, traditional values & the 2nd amendment, because that way they’ll at least elect someone who seems a bit like them.

Well, that’s one theory, anyway. Personally, I think the mid-terms in 06 saw this trend beginning to change and, ever the optimist, I think it’ll be rejected in November….

…though now I’ve probably just gone & jinxed it.

This is interesting, because in reality she will be going out with a change message…all of them are after all. The reason why it is effective is the same reason people over here believe that knife crime is a bigger problem than it is…people can sit there with their own perspectives and allow themselves to get easily convinced the world isn’t sitting in accordance with their world views. Even if the US is largely fundamentalist (I’m not saying it is), the fundamentalists will still find ways to believe the country is “going to the dogs” and be looking for that change message. In a way, Palin could have the easiest job in the world with this campaign.