I’m looking forward to posting tomorrow what I suspect will be a lengthy review of Michael Kimmel’s new book, Guyland. I’ll be re-reading sections of it tonight before blogging about it — but let me advise those of you in the vicinity of a bookstore or in possession of an Amazon gift certificate to pick up a copy for yourself at once.
This morning, I’m thinking about politics. One of my mentees came to see me yesterday. Nineteen years old, “Rolo” is active in politics and is volunteering much of his time with the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. He was an “early adopter” of Obama; when Rolo was first my student a year ago, he already sported a button. He’s as active a young progressive as I know, and we’ve had some good discussions about politics.
Like so many folks from across the political spectrum, Rolo is obsessed with Real Clear Politics and its constantly-updated polling data. The results of the post-convention polls for the GOP show a substantial “Palin bounce” that has put John McCain ahead of Barack Obama by anywhere from 2-10 points in the national polls. Individual swing states remain too close to call. And while Rolo knows perfectly well that post-convention bounces rarely last more than a fortnight, he’s gripped by the sudden fear that the Democrats might end up doing what even a youngster such as he knows they have done so often: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Others know a lot more about the ebb and flow of polls and politics than I. Rolo was coming to chat less out of hope that I would give him some particular insight (he has a favorite poli sci professor for that), and more for the sake of having someone with whom to process his anxiety. And I know that Rolo isn’t alone; a great many of my progressive friends seem to be filled with a sense of foreboding as they contemplate the very real possibility that John McCain might well defeat Barack Obama, despite all the economic and historical indicators that ought to augur Democratic victory.
I’ll admit I’m anxious too. I do care about the outcome of our national elections even as I remain dubious that electoral politics is the best arena in which to expend energy for the purpose of changing the world. I reminded Rolo yesterday that on November 5, whatever the outcome of the previous day’s balloting, we will still have to confront violence, poverty, environmental degradation, and countless other institutional and personal injustices against living creatures. Rolo is Catholic, and sees in his Democratic Party work a partial fulfillment of his spiritual commitment to social justice. (He has a t-shirt he sometimes wears with Robert Kennedy and Cesar Chavez on it. Pretty remarkable for someone born in 1989!) I shared with Rolo this post I wrote on the eve of the last presidential election, nearly four years ago, and I’ll reprint some of it here:
Tomorrow’s election is important for all of us. It is important for our nation, and for the world. But while I do believe that Christians are called into the political arena, I don’t think that the world of secular affairs is our most important battleground. Whoever wins tomorrow (if, deo volente, it ends tomorrow), we shall still have poor to care for. We shall still have hungry to feed. We shall still have lonely to comfort. I will still have teenagers to hug and laugh with. The work of the church is going to continue under a President Kerry (Obama), it will continue under a second third Bush term. Ultimately, the president is still Caesar, and though we are subject to Caesar’s laws (and in this society, may even help him make those laws), our focus must always be on service to another, grander, greater kingdom.
Both liberal and conservative Christians are too enamored of the power of the secular state to transform the hearts and minds and lives of its citizens and the citizens of the world. Yes, the moral character of the ruler matters. Yes, the policies of the state matter — and good Christians can differ in good conscience as to what those policies ought to be. But the God I worship had little time for great leaders when he walked the earth. Jesus was political, yes — but His politics were far more radical than anything any modern politician could possibly espouse. To claim Jesus’ endorsement for any party, any candidate, is unbiblical and profoundly offensive.
I’m tired of the question, “What Would Jesus Do?†Though a useful corrective to the self-absorbed, the question assumes that there is always a clear answer. Sometimes, the answer is clear. More often, it isn’t. I’m no bible expert, but one thing I see in the Gospel is Jesus consistently confounding the expectations of his followers. He tends to do the unexpected, the surprising, the scandalous. Even those who knew Him best were taken aback time and time again.
So do I know how Jesus wants me to vote? No, I don’t. I don’t think anyone else knows either. I know He calls us to service, sacrifice and giving. But beyond that, a humble respect for mystery does not allow me to go. I’m voting for Kerry Obama. I want him to win. But I would never, ever, be so bold as to say that he is God’s candidate. Of course, I also categorically reject the suggestion that the incumbent Sarah Palin is God’s favorite in this race. Ultimately, Bush and Kerry Obama and McCain are competing to be the most powerful prince in the contemporary world’s greatest principality. And while Christians can and should take an active interest in the affairs of this world, there is no question that real justice, real transformation, and real hope cannot come from the princes of this world.
The real battle is already over. Jesus already won. And in the certainty of that, I am struggling to remain tranquil on this tense and anxious day.
Rolo comes from a working-class family. He lives closer to the margins than I do, and I know that the stakes in any political event are always higher for the more vulnerable. I would never impose upon him or anyone else the myopically privileged position that “politics don’t matter.” The only people for whom politics are truly irrelevant are those powerful enough to be certain of prosperity and influence regardless of whoever it is who holds office. Politics matter; who wins matters; issues matter. But in the end, there’s going to be a colossal supply of work to be done regardless of who wins. Focusing cheerfully and honestly on the post-November 5 task is, perhaps, the best source of comfort for those who are tied into knots by the hourly fluctuations reported by the pollsters.
As far as poll anxiety goes, I’m not particularly worried. For one thing, conventions almost always give a bounce, which generally disperses shortly after the convention ends (Obama’s did, you may recall). For another, given the avalanche of weirdness coming to light about Palin and her current church, all the attention garnered from the convention could backfire horribly. That, I’d say, is why she’s being sequestered away from the media, which is it’s own problem given how suspicious it looks.
Then there’s the big picture. Convention bounces are typically expected to result in a significant lead. McCain’s only resulted in a statistical tie. You do the math.
Obama’s bounce was like two points, and it did indeed dissipate. There was no bounce from the Republican convention, because the convention (Palin’s speech aside) was a near-disaster. Instead, the post-Palin shift is structural; it’s a big chunk of purple America deciding that they (a) love her and (b) hate the people who have been smearing her grotesquely from the moment she came onto the national stage, who (rightly or wrongly) are tightly bound up with Obama and his friendly media in the public view. McCain has shifted the race by as much as ten percentage points, permanently, and will go down in history as making the most electorally significant VP pick ever. (And so much for the conventional wisdom that VP picks change nothing.)
The Wilder effect is very likely operative in this election, and is probably worth about four or five points. (Voters are reluctant to tell pollsters they aren’t going to vote for a black candidate, so they lie.) On paper, McCain has been a few points behind for months; in reality, McCain has been a little bit behind or a little bit ahead all through the general season, and is now solidly ahead by at least a few points. He will win in the EC comfortably but not overwhelmingly, and will somewhat blunt the Democratic gains in the Congress.
The “why” of all this is simple. Palin is an outstanding VP candidate, and has won real votes from millions of people who previously leaned Obama or didn’t know who to vote for. On the flip side, Obama is an unqualified candidate, and everyone not enthusiastically waving banners for him knows it. He captured the nomination by winning the hearts of the party’s activist base, but cannot win in the general election. Hillary knew this and she and Bill were both crucified for daring to even allude to it; after Obama’s defeat destroys the hope of a unified Democratic administration and Congress, there will be a great deal of bitter recrimination and a lot more infighting as the finger of blame gets passed around.
You have to love the Democrats; they basically have every advantage they could have short of God himself descending from the Throne and announcing “Vote Democrat, all my children!”, and they’ve thrown it away. No Presidency, and what should have been veto-proof majorities in both houses will instead be just another slight pro-Dem shift. (If the Obama campaign completely implodes as their defeat looms, it might even be a neutral race in terms of Congressional outcomes, as dispirited Democratic voters don’t bother to turn out for the down-ticket races, but I don’t think they’ll completely implode.)
The thing I find most notable is that despite McCain’s current poll lead, the prediction markets still show Obama up 53% to 46%.
I care about the outcome of our national elections as well, although I’m far more concerned with local city and state elections. Local lawmakers impact people’s lives far more than what goes on in the national arena…I wish more people understood that.
I saw a recent poll showing that McCain now has a ten percent lead with women voters. If McCain receives a majority of the women’s vote, he will win the election. However, if Obama receives a majority of the men’s vote, he will win the election.
My mom keeps emailing me from Germany that she’s following the polls and asking me to FER CRYING OUT LOUD DO SOMETHING so that McCain and his anti-environmentalist sidekick don’t win this election. Europe wants Obama. Can’t the McCain voters get that into their heads?
Also: I can see myself being anxious enough on November 4 that I’ll go into early labor …
Europe wants Obama. Can’t the McCain voters get that into their heads?
So does Kenya. Assuming that you aren’t joking, why should we care?
We’re citizens of the world, Robert. I care who the president of Iran is. I care who the prime minister of the UK is. I care about the upcoming Canadian elections. I follow, and take an interest in, what happens in Colombia and India and Angola (and I can name the current leaders of those places too.) Though other countries’ citizens shouldn’t get a vote, we ought to always consider how our choices impact the global community.
Robert, I’m reading your first comment, trying to find statements for which you could possibly have evidence. Unless you’re from the future and/or have supernatural insight into the motives of the citizenry, the total number of such statements appears to be zero.
We’re citizens of the world, Robert.
Really? Where do you file your tax return? Does the world have an army? Who sets environmental policy for the world?
Oh, sorry, forgot – “citizen of the world” is pious gas with no meaning. You’re a citizen of the United States (and of Austria, I gather), and as such you have a negotiated set of rights and responsibilities. To the world, you are free to do whatever you like – if your ethics call for you to behave in a citizenlike fashion, don’t let me stop you.
But my question wasn’t what you’re a citizen of; it was why “McCain voters” should care what non-citizen, non-taxpaying, non-resident, non-Americans think of our choice for our own, indigenous, national political leadership. YOU might be a citizen of the world, but damned if I am.
I suspect that your concern for what the “global community” thinks would disappear like the reality of “global citizenship” the INSTANT the “global community” didn’t happen to align with your particular ideological or political hobbyhorses. If the “global community” decides to be scared of Iran and DEMANDS a McCain presidency, are you going to change your vote? If the “global community” decides that they DEMAND high-energy technology, never mind global warming we’ll worry about that next generation, are you going to start advocating that we open ANWR and drill, baby, drill?
No. You’re not.
And similarly, I could give two flips what Europe wants in our president. They run their affairs, we run ours.
Noumena – I’m guessing. It’s a forecast. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. If you’d like a refund, I’ll get you a PayPal right away.
Europe wants Obama. Can’t the McCain voters get that into their heads?
Well, of course Europe wants Obama. He’s more likely to do things Europeans would approve of than McCain. Pointing that out isn’t a very persuasive argument to a modern US conservative (quite the opposite, as Robert conveniently demonstrated).
Robert-
I’m not sure that it’ll work out the way you’ve painted it, but there’s no question that the polls are stunning considering the low approval rating of Bush. I think Hillary would have had it wrapped up at this point., but with Obama we’re probably looking at a thriller. I’m planning to go to a sports bar and soak up the ambiance on election night.
As for what Europeans think about the election . .. there’s a whole segment that will vote for McCain just to tweak them.
there’s a whole segment that will vote for McCain just to tweak them.
Yeah, Left Behind readers. Pissing off the Antichrist spawners makes Baby Jesus giggle.
“Yeah, Left Behind readers.”
Not quite.
“We’re citizens of the world, Robert. I care who the president of Iran is. I care who the prime minister of the UK is. I care about the upcoming Canadian elections. I follow, and take an interest in, what happens in Colombia and India and Angola (and I can name the current leaders of those places too.) Though other countries’ citizens shouldn’t get a vote, we ought to always consider how our choices impact the global community.”
If Americans wish to see a more conservative president or prime minister voted in by one of these European nations, would they heed our request?
The prediction markets still trend toward Sen. Obama because the electoral math still favors him. Even if VA and OH remain “red”, Sen Obama just needs to hold onto the swing states of NM, CO, IA, and NH. IA and NM look favorable, but the battle may be in NH and CO, especially if you look at the sliding prediction market trend on Sen Obama’s lead in those two states. NH is interesting to see how NH-1 (where a very liberal freshmen Dem won a usually Rep seat in 06) and the Senate race (Sununu vs. Shaheen) break…the trend in those two races have shifted back to the Rep and mirrors the gains Sen. McCain has made over the last week in the polls.
Robert has a point in that Sen. Obama should, given the overall economic, foreign affairs, and domestic political situations, be ahead sufficiently to just “run out the clock.” Davev is right in that if NH flips, we could see a 269-269 situation..and wouldn’t that be fun? Although it’s hypothetical at this point, I think he is also correct in that the situation would not be as close if Sen. Clinton was on either spot on the ticket.
While I agree with you Hugo that “who wins matters; issues matter. But in the end, there’s going to be a colossal supply of work to be done regardless of who wins”, the federal government does not turn on a dime except for extraordinary crisis situations. To build on Karen’s point, trying to read too much from campaign tea leaves is a wasted effort. Presidents (and Congressional leaders) often fail to live up to their platforms/promises. Look at Candidate GWB’s speeches, especially in the primaries, or the ability of the Democractic majorities in Congress to deliver on the rhetoric of the 06 election. The next President is stuck for his first term, for better or worse, with the current Fed Chairman; limited budget flexibility, a military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan hard to unwind in any significant manner, and a likely slim Democratically controlled, but not filibuster proof, Congress…hardly the situation for major change..
If the last two administrations demonstrate something to obsess over, it would be the advisors and “friends of the candidates” who will fill the ranks of those 2d and 3rd tier political appointee positions.. the ones who have to translate and implement the policies of the President. A perhaps good thing from a VP Palin, unlike the current VP, is a thin cast of associates who will get positions in the next administration.
While “Europe” may want Sen. Obama, relations with those nations are complex. European leaders like a United States that spends a lot of resources of defense, just not a United States that then flexes that military power too much. Think secretly the leaders of most of our NATO partners like to hear Sen. Obama talk about committing more effort to Afghanistan, when our NATO allies have, for the most part, tried to dodge their Article V responsibilities?
Good point, Colonel, about looking at the associates of a candidate as a key to who it is that they might appoint to second-tier positions.
Bmmg39, we don’t let children vote in our society — but we allow them to express opinions, knowing that what others choose will impact them. Foreign citizens are also denied the franchise, but they too will be affected by what it is that we decide. I do not rightly have a vote in elections in Canada or Israel or South Africa, but I care very much about what happens in those countries. I will express those views, and perhaps hope to have some small degree of influence on a voter there.
When I go to vote, the question I have is “Which of the candidates with a chance to win is more likely to pursue policies that effectively address the great challenge of our time — environmental degradation?” I will vote accordingly.
Having your druthers about who wins a foreign election is one thing.
Insisting that the voters in said foreign election “get it into their heads” that they’re just not voting the way their foreign betters would prefer (a la Charlott’s mom and her friends) is a different matter entirely, and raw arrogance to boot.
Re: the bounce, I believe there is some evidence that the polling is not evenly sampling Republicans and Democrats but is actually oversampling Republicans. (I’m looking for the link – I think this is it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/poll-madness-mccain-takes_n_125158.html).
So McCain’s lead may actually be the result of a change in polling methodology as opposed to an actual change in how people think they are going to vote.
BTW, Hugo, what’s with these little clocks that appear in the middle of the comments?
Hmmm. I see no clocks in either my IE or Safari browsers.
I agree with Col Steve. Each new presidency inherits the pre-existing problems of the last and all politicians are notorious for failing to deliver on their platforms and promises. Actions speak louder than words and their words are empty and meaningless, except that it serves as a rally. Change only happens with cooperation. This isn’t the first time that environmental concerns were put on the table and anyone who is aware of history or who has at least lived through some of it can attest to that. I’ve been a longtime advocate for the environment, given that it was my major in college. Yet now I’m far more concerned with our economy and have been for quite a while. I’m absoltely infuriated with what has been allowed to take place in this country. If people want to see change get involved locally. State and local legislators have a far greater impact on our everyday lives than what goes on nationally.
But before that, Lee, when polls were sampling Democrats by a 70-30 margin — that was okay, right?
What disturbs me about a McCain victory is not so much that I think the world will become a dramatically worse place because of it. McCain has a platform of lawlessness and war. But we can’t fiscally sustain the Empire he imagines much longer. I just wish we could choose to abandon madness, rather than have our madness be rendered irrelevant by circumstance.
What makes me angry is that McCain’s victory would force me to give up on the idea of America as a force for the good. My love for this country is unconditional, but my respect is not. If John McCain wins, I’m going to be deeply ashamed of something that I still love.
If McCain wins, I’ll become a strict pacifist, because I’ll never trust any American, including myself, with the power of life and death.
Consumatopia:
I assume you’ll cheer the day when the police protecting you become pacifists. We wouldn’t want them to have power if they’re untrustworthy.
Stephen
Consumatopia,
Do the following statements would worry you as well?
To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace…We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.
We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marine corps.
I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened…We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability
—- Do the following statements give you more comfort?
If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world’s democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision — just as America led in creating NATO six decades ago.
American leadership has helped build a world that is more secure, more prosperous, and freer than ever before. Our unique form of leadership — the antithesis of empire — gives us moral credibility, which is more powerful than any show of arms. We are rich in people and resources but richer still in ideals and vision — and the means to realize them. Yet today much of the world has come to challenge our actions and doubt our intentions. Polls indicate that the United States is more unpopular now than at any time in history and increasingly viewed as pursuing its narrow self-interest. The people who hold these views are wrong. We are a special nation, the closest thing to a “shining city on a hill” ever to have existed. But it is incumbent on us to restore our mantle as a global leader, reestablish our moral credibility, and rebuild those damaged relationships that once brought so much good to so many places.
As president, I will seek the widest possible circle of allies… Working multilaterally can be a frustrating experience, but approaching problems with allies works far better than facing problems alone.
As you might suspect, the initial statements are from Sen. Obama while the latter ones come from Sen. McCain.