|
|
|
Jewish World Review Sept. 5, 2008 / 5 Elul 5768 The master strategist By Caroline B. Glick
The rarity of this sort of strategic wisdom in the public sphere was brought
to a fore this week in the political uproar generated in by Republican
presidential nominee Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor
Sarah Palin as his running-mate. McCain's selection of Palin was remarkable
because in selecting her from a list of possible choices, he made a decision
that embraced rather than ignored this most basic challenge of leadership.
Given that the universality of the logic which informed McCain's selection
of Palin is followed more in the breach than in practice, it is worth
analyzing his choice both for what it tells us about how his leadership
skills, and about the nature of his domestic opposition. But it is also
useful to reflect on his choice of Palin in order to draw lessons that can
be applied more widely by non-leftist political and military strategists
throughout the free world.
In months preceding McCain's announcement of Palin as his running-mate, his
central challenges as the Republican presidential nominee came into focus.
In Senator Barack Obama, McCain faces a young, vigorous, and charismatic
opponent who has successfully energized his supporters and the powerful
liberal media establishment. Owing to that excitement, Obama has raised
unprecedented amounts of campaign contributions. He has also rallied tens of
thousands of loyal foot soldiers who have volunteered to serve his campaign.
Both the donors and the volunteers are essential for winning voters and
bringing them to the ballot boxes on November 4.
Obama's velvet tongue is also a formidable asset. His ability to mesmerize
audiences with soaring rhetoric is compared favorably to president John F.
Kennedy's eloquence.
Obama's other massive advantage is the liberal US media. Since he first
launched his primary campaign, the liberal media - which include the major
US newspapers, television news networks and two out of three cable news
networks - have been actively advocating on his behalf while downplaying his
opponents.
But all of these formidable strengths are matched by countervailing
vulnerabilities. While Obama's supporters are energized, the drawn-out
primary election battle with Senator Hillary Clinton splintered the
Democratic Party base. Whereas most of Clinton's voters will no doubt vote
for Obama in the general election, their support is more tenuous in swing
states where Obama's cultural cache is less appealing.
And while Obama is a stunning speaker, his record of actual accomplishments
is all-but nonexistent. The combination of his extraordinary speeches and
his ordinary empty resume engenders a sense that Obama suffers from extreme
arrogance.
Then too, while the media has done its best to project a positive and
credible image of Obama, his past political associations with radicals like
Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres and corrupt influence peddler Tony
Rezko call both his patriotism and his honesty into question.
For his part, McCain's balance of assets and deficits is almost the polar
opposite of Obama's. He has a wealth of leadership experience and
demonstrable political accomplishments. His patriotism is massively
recognized and respected.
On the other hand, McCain has been unable to generate excitement in his
party. His reputation as a maverick has often been earned at the expense of
his political base which is overwhelmingly socially conservative and
suspects him of being a closet liberal. This has made campaign fundraising a
challenge, and raised concerns that many conservatives will simply not vote
on Election Day.
Moreover, McCain has never distinguished himself as a great communicator.
His war wounds, which prevent him from raising his arms above his shoulders,
make him appear even older than his 72 years. When compared to the vigorous,
handsome 46-year-old Obama, McCain tends to look and sound like an old man.
This age and rhetorical distinction is only magnified by the disparity of
media coverage of the two candidates' campaigns. The media have a pronounced
and documented tendency to play up McCain's weaknesses and Obama's strengths
while downplaying McCain's strengths and Obama's weaknesses.
In light of these realities, McCain's strategic challenge has been on the
one hand, to transform Obama's strengths into weaknesses while bringing
Obama's actual weaknesses to the public's attention in a persuasive way. On
the other hand, McCain needs to unify his own party around his candidacy
without alienating independents and Democrats whose votes can be won.
In recent weeks, largely through the well-conceived, satirical use of
television ads, McCain sought to meet these basic challenges. By comparing
Obama's speech in Berlin to Moses' parting of the Red Sea, he playfully,
yet effectively drew attention to Obama's arrogance and called the
credibility of his rhetorical skill into question. Other ads effectively
brought Obama's slim record of actual achievements into view. Still other
ads sought to attract disaffected Clinton voters by using her own primary
campaign denunciations of Obama's record and radical associations.
Most importantly, in the lead-up to Palin's selection as his running-mate,
McCain has successfully provoked a public debate about the fairness of the
media's support of Obama.
McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate then came after he had set
the conditions for a strategic assault on Obama by successfully weakening
him and discrediting his support base. The surprise entry of a young,
accomplished woman, with a compelling personal story who was all but unknown
to the national audience placed the Obama campaign and particularly his
media supporters in a state of shock. And in their shocked reaction to her
selection, the liberal media destroyed their own credibility - not to
mention likeability - among the general public.
The media claimed that McCain's choice of Palin was ill-conceived for three
reasons. First, they argued that the popular Alaska governor has no
experience in foreign policy and with only two years in state-wide office,
little demonstrable experience in governing. Yet their assertions merely
highlighted Obama's own inexperience while amplifying McCain's wealth of
experience.
Second, the media insinuated that Palin is unfit for office because she has
an infant child with Down Syndrome. Either she will be a bad mother, or she
will be a bad Vice President, they claimed. Yet in so arguing, the liberal
media merely demonstrated their own hypocrisy. While claiming the mantle of
feminism, the media commentators belittled Palin's right to choose --
together with her macho, blue collar husband -- to serve her country as a
mother of a child with special needs. Their harping on her personal family
choices angered the vital demographic of middle class, working mothers who
felt personally insulted by their attacks on Palin.
Finally, of course, there was the media circus generated by Palin's belated
announcement that her teenage daughter Bristol is pregnant and engaged to
marry her teenage boyfriend. The news of her daughter's pregnancy evoked the
ugliest media assault on a teenager in recent memory. Here too, the media's
pillorying of Palin as a lousy mother and her daughter as morally challenged
discredited the media while increasing Palin's sympathy with voters shocked
by this scurrilous assault on her daughter and her family values.
At the same time as McCain's selection of Palin as his running-mate pushed
the media over the edge, it profoundly rallied his own Republican base to
his side. Palin's opposition to abortion, her membership in the National
Rifle Association, her remoteness from Washington, her Pentecostal faith,
together with the media attacks on her family gave social conservatives
reason to be enthusiastic about the prospect of a McCain candidacy.
It bears noting that that the sight of Palin's pregnant daughter appearing
happily with her clean-cut fiancé at the Republican Convention on Wednesday
served to reinforce the fact that women who are "pro-choice" actually have
the choice not to abort unplanned pregnancies. Their presence in the hall
demonstrated that embracing the responsibility of parenthood even at an
early age can be a source of happiness and personal fulfillment for both
fathers and mothers. That image alone no doubt ensured that on Election Day,
tens of thousands of volunteers will work to bring voters to the ballot
boxes for McCain.
Indeed, the value of the image is so enormous, that the possibility arises
that using his understanding of the media as an adversary and his
understanding of his own political base, McCain viewed Bristol Palin's
pregnancy as an electoral asset.
In the midst of the maelstrom swirling around her in the days that preceded
her address to the Republican Convention, it was noted repeatedly that
Palin's performance Wednesday evening would make or break McCain's
candidacy. If she failed to present herself in a compelling fashion, she
would destroy McCain's chances of election because her failure would serve
as an indictment of his judgment. But if she succeeded, she would advance
significantly the Republican ticket's chances of winning on November 4.
Many argued that McCain took an unnecessary gamble by placing such an
enormous burden on her shoulders. Yet the fact is that McCain no doubt knew
precisely what her capabilities are as a speaker. Unlike the media, he
claims that he has been watching her political rise for years. He knew that
she was capable of rising to the challenge. Far from a gamble, his move was
a stroke of brilliance which showed an acute understanding of who Palin is,
how he himself is perceived, and what motivates both the media and his own
party base.
McCain's undoing of the elite, leftist media provides a universal lesson for
contending with the Left. At base, the Left's ideology, whether relating to
women's rights, human rights, academic inquiry or war and peace is not
universal but tribal. Moreover, when the Left is challenged on any one of
its signature issues, because it cannot actually make a case for the
universal applicability or even logic of its views, it tends instead to
embrace the politics of personal destruction while ignoring the obvious
contradictions between its stated beliefs and actual behavior.
Although a necessary component of political warfare against the Left is the
ability to expose its hypocrisy, exposing its hypocrisy alone will not bring
victory. Leaders and policies capable of supplanting the Leftist elite and
their failed ideas are also required. In the case at hand, had Palin been
perceived as under-qualified to serve as Vice President on Wednesday night,
McCain's chances of winning the Presidency would have been vastly diminished
despite McCain's successful unmasking of the Left's hypocrisy.
McCain's strategic grasp of the requirements for a successful presidential
race provide an important lesson for policymakers and political leaders. To
win in politics and war you must be willing to acknowledge both your
strengths and your weaknesses and those of your opponent. It is never easy
to look reality in the face. But unless leaders are willing to do so, they
will never win. What's more, they will lose.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
