Speaking In Tongues, Or Trading For Votes?

The very idea of James Dobson nominating John McCain in glossolalia at the Dumbo National Convention was LOL funny. A McCain-Dobson ticket in 2008 is even funnier (unless they get elected). McCain's communications director in 2000, Dan Schnur gets it right on free trade and The Hillster and Obama are chasing after votes in the Rust Belt by pandering to the protectionist element. As John McCain (in effect) said in Michigan, "The old jobs aren't coming back." The last thing we need is the Son of The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (of 1930) raising import taxes on thousands of imported products. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, enacted in 1930, is considered the worst economic policy ever signed into law in our history. The Cintonistas and the Obamaniacs ignore history at our peril. If this is (fair & balanced) economic history, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Trade Talks
By Dan Schnur

Ross Perot must have been proud. As Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigned across Ohio last week, staking their candidacies on which of them is more strongly opposed to opening trade markets between the United States and the rest of the world, Mr. Perot might as well have been playing ventriloquist.

The Texas billionaire, who led the fight against the ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement back in the early 1990s, debated then-Vice President Al Gore on live television in an effort to derail the trade pact — and came up woefully short. The treaty was ratified with strong bipartisan support and Mr. Perot was essentially finished as a national political figure.

But in politics, as in life, it’s all about timing. Mr. Perot may have found himself on the short end of a New Democratic Party’s approach to trade 15 years ago. But his protectionist sentiment appears to have taken over this New, New Democratic Party. By the time Senators Clinton and Obama finished their most recent debate, it was worth wondering whether Mr. Perot would be able to drink a glass of water while the two candidates took turns warning of the perils of free trade, open borders and job creation in nations with emerging economies.

Just as a race car tends to veer to the outside of the track when it turns, the physics of politics are such that an elongated primary inevitably skews away from the center. Hillary Clinton began this campaign as a moderate, positioning herself for a general election. As the threat from Barack Obama grew, she headed leftward, first by increasing the volume and intensity of her criticism of the Iraq war and more recently as an economic populist. Senator Obama’s language, while less specific, has gradually been transformed as well, as he speaks less frequently about transpartisan conciliation and spends more time aiming potshots at the powers that occupy the White House and the surrounding G.O.P. real estate.

Nowhere has this trend been more apparent than on the issue of trade. Barely a footnote in the Democratic debate throughout most of 2007, trade has emerged more recently as perhaps the key defining policy distinction in Tuesday’s Ohio primary. One of the most important Democratic gains in recent years has been among financially secure and highly educated voters, most of whom understand the benefits of a global economy. A prolonged argument on trade policy between Senators Clinton and Obama could put those voters in play again in the fall.

There is a lot of talk about how a fight for the nomination hurts the Democratic Party by making it more difficult for their voters to come together for the general election. But the level of anger among Democratic regulars toward the Bush administration is so high that it’s difficult to imagine many party loyalists nursing their grudges through the fall. There may be some hurt feelings and bruised egos, but this group of Bush-haters should be sufficiently motivated to keep their eyes on the November prize.

If their candidate loses the nomination, Senator Obama’s supporters will rant and curse for a while, and then look to 2012 or 2016 as his next shot at the gold ring. If Senator Clinton comes up short, her backers will yell and stamp their feet, and then realize that a long and honored career as Senate Democratic leader is an acceptable consolation prize for their leader. Then everyone will fall in line to win back the White House. Either way, it’s unlikely that they’ll sit on their hands and let the Republicans stick around for another four years.

The danger for a protracted struggle between Senators Clinton and Obama is not that the party will fail to unify. Rather, the real threat is that the two candidates will continue to move leftward to try to win over voters in the remaining primary states, not just on trade policy but on other issues as well. Had John McCain lost the Texas primary to Mike Huckabee on Tuesday night, he would still eventually have become the Republican nominee for president. But after another month or two of competing with a fundamentalist minister for primary votes, Senator McCain probably would have had to put James Dobson on the ticket with him and give his convention speech in tongues to turn out conservatives in the fall. Of course, Senator McCain still faces challenges in shoring up support among conservatives. But because the nomination is now officially secured, he can devote more of his attention to staking out the political center.

There’s no such luxury for either of the Democratic candidates. Already, the Politico newspaper is reporting that a group of congressional superdelegates may attempt to pry further trade-related concessions from the candidates as a price for their endorsements. The harder Senators Clinton and Obama work to woo delegates this spring, the more problems they may create for themselves with swing voters in the fall.

Seven weeks of campaigning in Pennsylvania will only heighten the anti-trade language that both have been using. And if Michigan holds a do-over primary this summer, there’s no telling what Senators Clinton and Obama may have promised by then in order to gain an advantage in the nomination fight. But you can bet that the small army of researchers over at the Republican National Committee will be taking copious notes.

[Dan Schnur was the national communications director for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2000. In addition to teaching courses in political communications at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Southern California, he advises private sector clients and nonprofit organizations on media, communications and public policy matters at a public relations firm in Los Angeles.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.