Dynamic Politics

In this day and age, the face of politics is changing dramatically. So much that even in a single campaign, one cannot completely nail down the policy of oneself yet alone one’s opponent. This election season, nothing could be more murky than the politicians’ understanding of their opponents. Nothing could be more clear than the changing nature of political engineering and political thought in the US. This leaves us, the voting public, to think critically about the party platforms of both candidates, and think critically about them.

This current presidential campaign has been a campaign which will be analyzed through out history. It is a situation where history has already been made, and will continue to be made throughout the next presidency. The candidacy of Barack Obama as the official Democratic Presidential nominee, and the presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in Sarah Palin give us a chance to re-evaluate our conception of the office of the President. Although this is an important aspect of American history, what does it mean practically in this era, in 21^st Century American politics?

This situation of having two brand-new types of candidates means a changing nature of the race we have seen so far this election season. Sen. McCain can no longer attack Sen. Obama on the basis of experience because he has a VP is much more inexperienced. Obama cannot attack McCain for being too old and out of touch quite as easily as he did before Palin came onboard. Similarly, it is hard for Obama to attack McCain as too much institution, when he himself has Biden, who is more senior in the Senate than McCain. The platforms have shifted. The status quo has shifted.

The platform of “change” became real to Democrats and everyone else in tune to Sen. Obama’s acceptance speech Friday night (estimated at 38 Million viewers). He unveiled the grand master-plan that his constituents and on-the-fence voters were waiting. Among his many propositions were a plan for energy independence in 10 years, heavy research in renewable energy, social security reform, education reform, and more. In contrast to his platform of “change”, he pointed out that his opponent, Sen. McCain, though wishing he was a maverick, wasn’t all that different from his party. With endorsements from a despised President, a voting record of Republican ideology and a lack of foresight on energy and foreign issues, Sen. McCain has towed the line 90% of the time. He put the ball in the Republican’s court. With McCain’s selection of a Vice-President nomination, McCain seems to be responding, however feebly.

Sen. McCain’s claim that he is a maverick would have been much more solidified had he gone with a better VP pick. Had he chosen Sen. Lieberman, he would have sent the message that he plays well with others (across the isle that is), and that he wanted to play the change game too. The problem with such a pick would have obviously been that of his own party. If he had picked some one on the moderate side of his party, such as Mitt Romney, or in Lieberman’s case, an Independent, he would have proven to the “evangelical” voting base that he did not at all have their interests in mind. He was struggling with that from the get-go, being far from the portrait of the model Christian Republican that George W. Bush painted in 2000. By selecting this much more right-wing Republican as a running mate, he appealed to that base.

If by some misguided illusion he thought he could bring a few Clinton sympathizers with his flashy new VP, he failed. The voters who supported her throughout her candidacy would have been much more inclined to switch parties for a McCain/Lieberman ticket, not a pro-drilling, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-environment platform. Sidling up to a woman in the White House is only a very small part of the Clinton equation. Palin’s lack of feminist qualities and feminist appeal will repel those voters much more than a more moderate ticket would have.

The details of the McCain-Palin ticket won’t be completely articulated until later this next week, when the Republican National Convention kicks off in St. Paul. A word to the wise: don’t anticipate a shockingly-new platform. In fact, if you want to get a bit of a preview, just get a hold of some footage of the 2004 RNC.

Though this campaign season will become much more complex and heated as the season progresses, we can already see where it is going. It is a competition over who can be the most change appealing without contradicting themselves more than the other. There will be mud-slinging. There already has been. There will be promises of reform; there already has been. There will be one winner, in the end.