ALEA JACTA EST**
(NPF is likely to be cancelled occasionally until Nov. 4 – I'll try to make up for it with weekends)
Let's say we have a pitcher, Joe, who owns a great fastball. In a big game he takes the mound and fires fastballs at the first batter, who swings wildly and misses everything. Confident, Joe sticks with the fastball to the second and third batters, who weakly pop up. Wow! That fastball rules, thinks Joe. The next inning, Batter #4 walks up, waits on the fastball, and smacks it into the bleachers for a home run. Joe hangs his head as the manager comes out for a chat. "I bet you're mad that I threw fastballs to four straight guys" he says. The manager, being a wise fellow, says "Of course not, but I will be if there's a fifth."
It doesn't make someone a fool to try a proven strategy and get beaten. Refusing to realize when the gig is up does.
Wednesday night made it perfectly clear that the GOP and McCain team are 100% invested in Rovian politics. Sarah Palin – a creationist, book-banning, anti-gay, abstinence-only (it works!), scandal-ridden, virulently anti-abortion nobody – is not, as initially suggested, on the ticket to appeal to moderates and disaffected Hillaryites. She is a big piece of red meat to hard-right social conservatives whose choice is not Obama vs. McCain, but McCain vs. Staying Home. As the Dobsons and Hagees of the world were decidedly lukewarm on McCain, Palin is on the ticket to let them rationalize supporting the GOP ticket (given McCain's ambivalence to outright liberalism on "important" social issues).
If they were interested in moderates, they'd have gone with McCain (already appealing to that segment) and Romney, or Pawlenty, or any other predictable choice. Palin is the Rove strategy in action: screw independents, just turn out the Evangelicals and everything will be fine. That was a great strategy in 2000, and it worked again in 2002 and 2004 (see the Frontline episode "The Jesus Factor"), right? So why not try it again? Well, it didn't work so well in 2006. And Rove et al, in their hubris, wildly overestimated the effect and future prospects of Evangelical pandering. What put Bush over the top in 2000 and 2004 were suburban Republicans who like tax cuts and aggressive foreign policy. And "independents" who were drawn to the GOP based on security/terrorism concerns. Well, the party lost the high ground on foreign policy expertise in Iraq and the failing economy has a lot of voters wondering if McCain's admitted ignorance on that subject is what we need.
So with Palin the die is cast. McCain has gambled everything on the Rove Plan yet again – get the social far right really excited and turned out in large numbers. They persist in the belief that this is enough to win elections. Getting throttled in 2006 apparently did little to shake their faith. Good. I subscribe to the theory that, when one's opponent is engaged in self-destructive behavior, it is unwise to interrupt. As David Frum notes, maybe the gamble will work and maybe it won't; if it does,
"When someone takes the rent money and puts it on black at the roulette table, and it comes up black, we don’t say “Wow! What a terrific piece of judgment.”
**(This relatively well-known Latin expression is frequently misinterpreted. "The die is cast" is the correct translation, but it does not refer to a die of the type used to cast metal objects. It refers to casting die in games of chance, i.e. when a gambler casts the die in a game of craps, the point of no return has been passed.)
September 5th, 2008 at 12:48 am
thanks for the link love.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Good analysis, and I hope you're right. You know, watching McCain last night, it kind of makes me realize what he could've been. He didn't throw to much red meat to the evangelical base, he took a few jabs at his own party. There's still no way I would've voted for him if he had chose a moderate VP, and I realize I'm being naive in assuming he was sincere about all the "maverick" stuff. But his selection of Palin is just a sign of the extent to which the GOP has been hijacked by the religious right.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
It is too bad about McCain. At one time he really was a maverick. I didn't agree with him on many issues – libertarianism is great in a utopia where equal opportunity and intelligence are honeslty valued and protected by a limited government. Too bad we're about 180 degrees from that society.
At some level I get the impression he either genuinely thinks he still is or is so dissapointed in himself for not still being a maverick that he's working overtime to convince himself and everyone else that he still is.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
MMMM, LATIN QUOTES. I love you more and more each day, Ed. Speaking of love: I recommended your site to the AP government teacher, specifically the senatorial race section. We'll see if he ever speaks to me again… :)
September 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I really like this writeup. I think it's less strategy and more desperate survival techniques. It was clear that if they didn't put someone extremely pro-life on the ticket (Romney doesn't count) it was over – not just on election day, but in terms of fundraising and keep the campaign's heart beating.
I preferred Palin's speech when I heard it 16 years ago by the inventor of positive polarization – Mr. Patrick Buchanan.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I am glad to see that someone is writing about this pitt bull for the right got on the ticket. I like McCain as a moderate, but I am fearful about filling looming openings on the Supreme Court. Palin's "abstinence only" stance is so hypocritical. It didn't work for her and it didn't work for her daughter. An then to parade her entire family in front of the media two nights in a row indicates her willingness to subject them all to the full menu of celebrity horrors awaiting children in the spotlight. It appears she values electibility over her own family – what kind of "values" does that represent?
September 5th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
ed – so much of US politics (on both sides) seems geared towards "getting the vote out". this seems to me to further polarise (or polarize, if you prefer) the whole process. i'd be interested to read your take on compulsory voting.
possible? unconstitutional? just never gonna happen?
i think i recall you addressing this briefly in the past, but the archives are getting kinda extensive, and i am not having any luck searching…
September 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I agree with your assessment of Palin. The only point I would argue in this piece is the baseball comparison, in that with a pitcher in one single game you've got a captive audience with no turnover on either team, which means no memory loss; i.e. it's logical to change strategy once the other team catches on. With Republican party politics, you've got to factor in the "I forgot" syndrome most Americans suffer from. I think in 2000, 2004, and 2006, Republicans were able to hit either brand new or forgetful audiences each time, and so were able to reuse the same tired illogical arguments they'd been using with so much success. Will it happen again? Who can say?