The Specter of 1988
I covered the 1988 presidential campaign. I was in my 20s and had no idea what I was doing, though I did enjoy myself. And watching as the George H.W. Bush campaign turned it into a referendum on prison furloughs and the pledge of allegiance (the reductio ad absurdum being Bush's visit to a flag factory), I learned some fundamental lessons about politics: Democrats must never be outflanked in the culture wars. A Democrat must never allow him/herself to be portrayed as less than 100 percent patriotic; must always express outrage at crime, even hypothetical ones; and never be photographed riding in a tank. (The coda being: never allow yourself to be photographed in a flight suit. Politicians may control the military and exploit it symbolically or bureaucratically -- but they shouldn't literally cloak themselves in it.) The final lesson: at its highest levels, politics is most effective when reduced to the trivial and sentimental, to cultural hot buttons divorced from the actual functioning of government or the presidency.
But are these rules still in force today? With the exception of the tank/flight suit rule, I'm doubting it more and more. But 1988 won't go away:
That year, the Republicans used the symbols of nationhood (notably, whether schoolchildren should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance) to bludgeon the Democrats, challenge their patriotism and utterly redefine their nominee, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts.The memory of that campaign -- reinforced, for many, by the attacks on Senator John Kerry's Vietnam war record in the 2004 election -- haunts Democrats of a certain generation.
The 1988 campaign was, in many ways, the crucible that helped create Bill Clinton's centrist philosophy and his fierce commitment to attack and counterattack, which drove the politics of the 1990s.
Things have changed. It's the attitudes of the political class and the media that haven't.
Unlike '88, there are now some real issues before the country, and a record level of political engagement among Democrats, and, with conservatism in the ditch, a sense that some kind of political-cultural change is afoot. The main question now is not about the cultural resonance of, say, Obama's absent flag pin. (It does have some.) It's that much of the media is still stuck in 1988, and that 1988 itself has gained a kind of mythic resonance with the campaign press corps.
Back then, the press corps was a bit stunned at the success of such tactics (which were very self-consciously, almost ironically, employed by the otherwise temperamentally and politically moderate elder Bush). Today, by contrast, the media almost revels in it when the culture war's long knives are drawn. There's a weird bloodlust to it.
The media won't give up its flag pins easily. The "1988 forever" bit of conventional wisdom is the cornerstone of the current campaign press sensibility. But by definition, the conventional wisdom is, and must be, several beats behind what's actually happening.
Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Democrats could easily outflank the Republicans in the flag wars. The Democratic candidate should pledge to educate every American in the proper display of the American flag, including the fact that it is not supposed to be worn on clothing and that every American flag is eventually supposed to be burned. I learned those things as a Boy Scout (they didn't know I was gay), and the Democrats should not only learn those things, but teach them.
I certainly wish that Obama would wear a lapel pin, but it should be a Constitution lapel pin, a scroll that says "We, the People." Now that would be appropriate. Let's see if McCain would dare to wear such a pin considering his willingness to put all laws and the Constitution right into the shredder.
I couldn't believe the idiot Matthews telling us we "just can't get enough of Reverend Wright" over and over today - even as polls showed being allied with Bush was more damning.
The one-time Obama bias has now become a Clinton bias.
I guess Act Three will be a McCain bias.
God help us.
Nice little piece. I wish it were true, though.
However, when we see Wright looped for weeks now and nothing substative on Hagee and the "agents of intolerance", we aren't just dealing with a media caught up in 'tabloid' type, lapel pin focused journalism. We're caught up in an actual political force.
This political force isn't an accident of lag time. The media isn't becoming 'us'.
MSM is more a function of corporate sponsorship, if not out 'right' corporate ownership. It is now a tool of the powerful with the intent to mis-inform and to promote a particular agenda. They spew a stead intellectually low nutrition diet, with high carb glitz ... Leo's Strauss's 'Noble Lie'.
It isn't 1988 we are dealing with, it is 1984 ....
Snerd
Snerd,
Finally someone else understands:)
In 1984 Hart won the California primary but didn't get the credit probably due to the time difference. Neither Hart or Mondale had enough delegate votes to give them the nomination so
Mondale rounded up some Superdelegates (very quietly) and when he had enough he pulled out
all the stops and had a gigantic press conference declaring him the winner!
Now, there was NO RIOT, none at all, in fact it was very quiet.
Dukakis lost in 1988 because it was Gary Hart's to win or lose.
Now is Obama Hart? No he is not because Hart was into his second term as Senator and had a wealth of new ideas. He had done environmental work ...he was an environmental lawyer and even wrote the report on 3 Mile Island!
This year, Obama is Mondale and Clinton is Hart.
Nice absconding of "1984", sort of a 'Sono-fa-glitch' as it were
In any case an interesting analysis. I like the superdelegate comparison. But does it mean in order for Hillary to loose, we have to wait to hear she's had an affair with someone named after a grain crop?
Snerd
"...at its highest levels, politics is most effective when reduced to the trivial and sentimental, to cultural hot buttons divorced from the actual functioning of government
I really wish you'd said "US politics". You can't believe how mystified the rest of the world is at how easy it is to distract, mislead and flatter the American people into making stupid decisions. Just about everybody else on the face of the Earth with a working democracy demands at the very least that its leader should be able to speak his native tongue almost as well as foreign leaders who learned it as a second, third or fourth language. And he should have an IQ at least a little higher than a toaster.
Oh, look, a plane.....
Republicans promote a flag-draped, “rah, rah” bumper-sticker Patriotism. It’s shallow, requiring only that adherents regurgitate a few talking points, wave a flag and chant “USA, USA…” This simplistic idea of Patriotism does not require -- in fact discourages -- people being deeply engaged in their own Democracy.
Republicans’ allegiance to America’s core principles has become a sham. They FAIL in their Patriotic duty to put the good of the country ahead of their own narrow agenda. They have shredded these principles at every opportunity. They find them bothersome -- a hindrance to achieving their objectives (Bush: “that damn piece of paper“).
The Bush/McCain Republicans are wanna-be Kings -- not Patriots -- who have taken away (and/or tried to take away) many of the very rights that Americans won at our country‘s birth, and have fought and died to keep ever since.
True Patriots believe in America. We believe in the foundational ideas of governance that make our democracy work. True patriots don’t kick our founding ideals to the curb when they become inconvenient. True patriots’ allegiance to these principles supersedes expediency. Supersedes self interest. Supersedes partisanship. Supersedes “winning” in the short-term political context.
Barack Obama is a true Patriot, calling on Americans to demand that their government be returned to them, its rightful owners.
Until we confront the myth of Republican Patriotism, we can’t counter many of the underhanded, dishonest tactics they will surely use (again) in their quest to con the American people into voting for them.
"Republicans promote a flag-draped, "rah, rah" bumper-sticker Patriotism. It"s shallow, requiring only that adherents regurgitate a few talking points, wave a flag and chant "USA, USA�" "
Democrats are best known for their biased and prejudicial attitudes toward anyone who disagrees with them.
When was the last time a rebublican supported anything free.
It's ironic that you mention "prejudicial attitudes toward anyone who disagrees.
The Bush/McCain Republicans quashed opposition in the best way they could. Anyone who opposed their lies, their fear mongering, their continued shredding of the Constitution was (and still is) labeled “un-American, un-patriotic, helping the terrorists,” etc. Shameless demagogues, they convinced a cowed Congress and an ill-informed electorate that disagreement was disloyal; that dissention -- maybe the most fundamentally Patriotic action we can take -- was UNpatriotic.
And best of all, they've managed to attract a segment of the population who can be manipulated so completely with a few "hot button" issues that they'll not only vote against their own best interests, they'll lap up the language of hateful venom and spit it back out at anyone who tries to tell them the truth.
Heck, there are some who will even take the time to post comments online, just to make sure anyone who points out that the Emperor has no clothes, is made aware right away that they're unAmerican, terrorist-lovers who hate their country. It seems these NeoCon-Artists will always be able to fool some of the people, some of the time.
"The media "almost" revels in it"? - I believe today's media stands up and cheers when they get a chance to place a piece which requires no forethought or analysis on their part.
Will Clinton or McCain be the first to visit a flag-pin factory? Oh... Never mind, they're all in China.
Every time the media brings up 88 and/or Dukakkis and compare Obama to him, they should also bring up the fact that
1. Dukakkis was a generic vanilla democrat who didn't really have much to offer.
2. He let the Repubs have their way with him because he was an idiot
3. The country was at a relative time of peace and the biggest issues were cultural domestic ones, namely crack and crime.
4. The differences between Obama and Dukakis and the country then and now are literally black and white.
5. The current administration and views towards the GOP party are much, much, much worse now then they were back then.
6. The media and the polls have a horrible track record of predicting these things and that november is a lifetime away. Case in point: After their conventions, Dukakis lead Bush by 18 points and wound up losing in a landslide.
7. National polls don't mean jack, either in the primary or the general election. Delegates and the Electoral College elect the candidate and the president. If you go by that metric, Obama is the democratic nominee and the democrats in general TROUNCE McCain.
8. If Hillary looses North Carolina and Oregon, mathematically she cannot overtake or tie Obama in pledged delegates even if she got 100% of the vote in the other states.
9. Primary results do not translate to the general election.
10. Hillary cannot win in a democratic fashion
Democrats are always rationalizing why they lose elections. It's simple; they're incompetent. They'll be doing alot more of this kind of article after the GE.
This from someone who doesn't know that A LOT is two words. Basic illiteracy exposes the true mentality of those who would mindlessly repeat Rovian talking points as a substitute for thoughtful comments, because they don‘t have any to make. Intelligence, character, substance -- they possess not one.
And they defend the most incompetent and criminal administration in my lifetime.
The biggest Democratic incompetence in the 1980s was sparing President Reagan impeachment. Not only did this work against them politically, they betrayed the nation and encouraged criminal behavior by Reagan's successors (particularly the present one).
As a naturalized citizen I find myself flabbergasted by the unending ability of Americans to be flim-flammed by silly Public Relations tricks. I am even more amazed at how easily Republicans swallow political lies and promises that will never be kept but will be trotted out a few years later with the same disasterous effect.
Why is it so hard to teach critical thinking in this country? Who decided to teach to tests rather than to think? Why is this allowed?
Perhaps you can teach us some critical thinking by recalling all the promises the Dems made before, and completede after the 2006 election?
It just isn't republicans that believe these lies. It is everyone. The GOP knows how to run a campaign. They understand what the average American thinks. That is why these tricks work. There is a reason that only 1 democrat running for president in the past 40 years (10 elections) has gotten more than 50% of the popular vote. And Jimmy Carter was running against a guy who was never even elected and promptly lost in a landslide 4 years later. They are great at feeding lines the average American will believe, and if you think they are just Republicans that believe that you are mistaken. It takes Republicans, Democrats and Independents to win elections.
In 1988 Bush won on Reagan's coat tails. The tank incident played into the popular theme of the time that Reagan had made American's proud of their country again (implication: Vietnam had brought everybody down in a big way).
We do not have that situation at all today.
People see the Republicans as ineffective leaders. When Reagan pulled out of Lebanon quickly and called it his mistake he avoided a much bigger mistake: Getting bogged down in a hopeless war and being called ineffective. Unfortunately, the Clinton/Bush dynasties have falled into the trap Reagan was avoiding and that is the source of our problems today.
When Obama runs as Reagan against McCain (on foreign polilcy), the repubs are toast.
The main thing now is to get the clueless, corrupt Clintons out of the way so we can gitt'er done.
A good commercial would be Obama photoshopped in that tank Dukakis used. There still hasn't been an Obamaniac who has been able to cite an instance where a far left candidate has ever won a Presidential election in America.
FDR and LBJ are further to the left than Obama.
Also, just after Reagan retreated from Lebanon the invasion of Grenada provided a convenient distraction.
both parties need to be thrown out of office. if you want to be president then that should disqualify you. the two party system does not work anymore. the consitution needs to be changed and one change is term limits for congress.
things have changed in 200 years time for a new consitution. today presidents can commit war crimes and nothing happens to them.
all must go jefferson time in america. reagans trickle down theory trickled up.
register independent and throw them all out.
corp fascism is here until we throw out these politicans. if nancy is on the take and reid and all of them to win elections.
"Main stream media" is toast and they know it. The idea that the news could be entertainment has been flipped every which way it can be done and it just doesn't work. You get crappy news and boring entertainment. Or you getting crappy entertainment and boring news. And THIS is so that $$ won't be spent on research, development, reporters OR directors, writers, actors, etc. Tell me which MSM anchor isn't just an announcer with good make-up and lighting? There are no news reporters.
So just turn it off and read, read read.
What you are seeing in this election is a symptom of a generational shift. The politics of 1988 are the politics of the "boomers". For whatever reason, they eat it up. Gen X and Y simply are not moved by such trivialities. You can see it in the candidates support. Clinton, who uses those tactics heavily, has the boomer vote; Obama has the younger generations.
And he is going to lose big time
and the younger generations will get old and won't be able to remember a Democratic Presiden. Should obama win the nomination , you can count on 12 more years of Republican presidency( maybe sixteen} Mccain two terms, and his VP at least one
And your evidence?
era996--pa
First, Obama is going to win.
Second, how could a loss by Obama affect the election of McCain's running mate in 8 years? Remember, Hillary will be 68 then and there's no guarantee the Republicans would nominate her even after eight years at McCain's side.
Third, McCain won't last more than four years anyway.
While I agree with your sentiments overall, many, many boomers are leading the charge for Obama. Just note the sizable number at his rallies. As a boomer who had an Al Gore for President sign in my front yard in 1988, I'm rooting for Obama to prevail.
I disagree. There are many intelligent boomers who support Obama. It's the media that has helped to create this divide - the black vs. the white, young vs. old, uneducated vs. educated, etc. Look at the 35,000 people gathered to watch Obama. Not all are boomers. Not all are blacks. Not all are men. Not all are wealthy.
I also disagree with this blog piece. I think the media is "partying like it's 1999." They're still stuck in that "bridge to the 21st century" that Clinton has supposedly built.
I agree that a shift is occuring, but I think it is premature to say that it has arrived. Roughly 20% of the electorate is under 40 (12% or so is under 30) and Obama is doing very well (55+%) among the Democratic Primary voters who fit this demographic. He will certainly win it in the General, but his margin won't be as great when more conservative young folks enter the mix.
I say it is premature, because the numbers suggest that we need another two or three election cycles before the shift takes hold and drives results.
In my view, there have been two great "cycles" in the US electorate since the Great Depression. The period from FDR's to Reagan's elections (the FDR Cycle) spanned 48 years and brought us the Warren Court, Social Security and the Great Society. We are still in the Reagan cycle which I personally believe has another 12 or so years to run (40 years through 2020) and which brought us a conservative judiciary at all levels and especially in the Scalia/Ali
"There's a weird bloodlust to it." - but not without explaination. It's much easier not only for the less educated citizens but also for journalists and commentators, many of whom are not actually bright enough to hold their positions, to avoid detailed knowledge of policy. The politicians themselves are complicit in so far as they play along but ostensibly they at least grasp legislation.
Sorry, but being outraged by crime is the ONLY way to react - because crime is outrageous. Period. Save the explanations for why it occurs until after the trial and incarceration - which is when people will feel safe.
A Democrat can be photographed in a tank - just not when everyone knows he's being an insincere doofus i.e. a guy named Michael Dukakis.
If you, Mr. McQuaid, think these and other issues are trivial, which you clearly stated in your article, then it's no wonder why you and your gang can't take the reigns of power the way you want. These are core issues, and people demand that they be properly addressed FIRST.
Conservatism isn't in the ditch. That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is in the ditch. Conservative leaders (the math teachers, if you will) are in the ditch. But then they are human and they just politicians, so you can't expect them to hold up.
Bottom line: The government is not the solution, the people living their own personal lives are the solution. Not an original utterance by any means, but a truism, and one that renders moot the point you're trying to make.
Sorry. It's wishful thinking. The medium is the message, conservatism IS the conservative leaders--and look around: you don't have any.
The ridiculousness of having Mitt Romney carry the standard for the Right a handful of years after being pro-gay rights AND pro-choice exposes that even if the last disastrous eight years hadn't made it clear enough for you.
And there's that whole "they're human" argument, too.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
