I didn't have a chance to watch this debate as closely as the others. Truth be told, I like it that way. Most voters don't micro-analyze every moment of a political engagement like this. Viewing it with some detachment can sometimes make you notice overriding patterns that you otherwise might take for granted.
To me one thing stood out. John McCain's maverickness is not gone. McCain doesn't need to return to his old maverick self. If anything, McCain's maverickness is the problem.
I noticed this whenever someone would ask about the economy. McCain would launch into a tirade against the greedy special interests on Wall Street. Obama would tend to lead with how it affected the voter. Two very different reactions. And I can't help but think that Obama's response connected better.
McCain has long tried to appropriate the populist, muckraking instincts of TR and the progressive Republicans. But there's a reason why these tactics haven't worked since, well, TR and the progressive Republicans.
Yes, voters may say they are mad about corporate pay, and Wall Street, and a do-nothing, self-aggrandizing Congress. But they are ultimately looking out for #1. The most relevant questions are and have always been: what are you going to do my taxes? my health care? my job?
This is why populism ultimately has such weak appeal. Sticking it to corporate CEOs and greedy politicians doesn't in and of itself put food on the table.
Conservatives have long understood populism as a weakness in liberal economic rhetoric, allowing us to win debates we otherwise would not have won by deploying more grounded, solution-oriented arguments (e.g. populist rants against trade and greedy CEOs who outsource vs. the direct benefits to the consumer of cheaper goods and services). But now this populist rhetoric is being visited on our own house.
In a time of crisis, people especially want to know what this means to them. And in this light, I can't help but think that John McCain's rush to indict distant bogeymen and his Senatese reminiscences about fighting the good fight against the bums in Washington fell a little flat.
John McCain has a very distinct worldview. Contrary to some of the conventional wisdom, it is actually shining through quite well in this campaign. The problem is that it's ultimately not a very salable brand of politics. Reform is an ethereal, process-oriented concept -- it's what the political community does to itself. "Change" on the other hand is a reflection of what the people do to the political community. One concept is distant to most voters; the other is direct and active.
Wasn't this the Bush 2000 critique of McCain? That campaign finance reform was popular with the media, but had no constituency in Peoria? And that, to some degree, to win the election, you needed a safer, bread-and-butter conservative to actually connect with voters on their own terms?
Sean reminded me yesterday why Jay Cost puts us all to shame as political commentators. But I tend to view his point about McCain as the "Diet Republican" in a different light after tonight. That to some extent, to elevate Republican numbers, someone has to stand up and make the case for a Republican solution to the crisis. You'd have to be a hell of a salesman to ultimately win with it, but an articulate, coherent case that conservative activists can get behind would at least have a rally-round-the-flag effect that might save our guys downballot.
Instead I get the sense that people don't quite know what to make of John McCain. His instincts may be sound, but his return to a few of his hobbyhorses (earmarks, defense contracts, populism) suggest an inward focus on his own unique brand of politics rather than a broader focus on what this means to the country.
