An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

And So It All Comes Down to Ayers…

As I have mentioned before — and it is hardly a radical observation — the McCain-Palin campaign is trying to shift the race away from the issues, and specifically the economy, and towards “character” and “values,” an all-too-common Republican strategy.

More specifically, what they want is for the race to be sort of culture war in microcosm:

– On one side are McCain the war hero POW and Palin the gun-slinging hockey mom. This is the real America, the Heartland, and McCain and Palin are the outsiders and reformists fighting for the people against Washington, New York, and Hollywood.

– On the other side are Obama the the dangerous, uppity black guy with the imposing black wife and the Muslim middle name who hangs out with terrorists and Biden the consummate Washington insider. This is the America of the coastal elites, the un-America, the anti-America, Obama as the fear-inducing “Other,” Biden as a symbol of a corrupt democratic establishment.

The question McCain and Palin are raising at their mob-crazed rallies (see here and here, for example) — “Who is the real Barack Obama” (Biden is largely ignored) — is meant to reinforce this either/or, us/them dichotomy, to change the narrative of the race, to get the media talking not about the issues, not about substance, but about the alleged threat that Obama poses to America.

Just as in 1988, when Lee Atwater and the Republicans turned Dukakis into a swarthy dark foreigner of dubious patriotism and trustworthiness, the McCain-Palin campaign is out to fearmonger voters against Obama. The race card can only be played suggestively, of course, but there has been no shortage of patriotism-impugning, and, of course, there are other ways to portray Obama as a dangerous “Other.”

The race card was played blatantly, if still suggestively, during the Rev. Wright flare-up during the primaries, and it will likely flare up again over the next few weeks. It is guilt by association — Obama is guilty for having associated with Wright — but the attack involves both race and patriotism: Obama was a member of this crazy black church and was close to this crazy black pastor who hates America.

For now, though — it has been going on since last weekend when Palin brought it up as a line of attack and, from what I can tell, has been picking up substantially since then — McCain and Palin are focusing mostly on Obama’s guilt by association with William Ayers, the one-time Weatherman and “domestic terrorist.”

In reality, there is hardly anything to the Obama-Ayers relationship. Ayers is now a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, specializing in education reform and social justice. (He is no longer a “terrorist.”) He have Obama have met, they have served on boards together, sat on panels together, and Ayers once hosted a small event for Obama. And they were neighbours. But that’s about it. As The New York Times put it the other day, “the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called ’somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.’”

(What more should Obama have done? Should he have avoided all contact with Ayers? Should have avoided all contact with anyone who has ever done anything wrong?)

The truth isn’t stopping McCain and Palin from attacking Obama over Ayers, however, and nor is McCain’s own past: Consider, for example, that McCain has very publicly forgiven the Vietnamese, that he was deeply involved in the Keating Five scandal, and that he has surely, over the course of his long career, been in contact with, and hence associated with, unsavory individuals who were still doing unsavory things (note, in contrast, that Ayers is not now a Weatherman and that Obama did not know him when he was).

Yesterday, as McCain-backer Ed Morrissey noted, “Team McCain has a new ad out this morning called ‘Ayers’, a comprehensive attack on Obama on his relationship with… Ayers.” “This ad demonstrates that McCain has no intention of nibbling around the edges on Ayers. He will go after Obama with everything he has on this subject.” (For more on the ad, see the Politico.)

And why? Because this is part of the culture war, with Obama linked to a (former) domestic terrorist, and hence to anti-American activities. In associating Obama with Ayers, McCain and Palin are trying to make the case, and they are making it rather explicitly these days, that Obama is himself an apologist for those activities, for domestic terrorism, and hence is not just guilty by association but actually a terrorist by association. (As Jim Hacker says to Humphrey Appleby in Yes, Prime Minister, he once had drinks at the Soviet Embassy, but that doesn’t make him a communist.) This reinforces the McCain-Palin characterization (and character assassination) of Obama as the “Other,” not just one who is dangerous but one who actively and vehemently hates America.

Will it work? I suspect not, or at least not much. The Ayers story has already played out, more or less. It was an “issue” during the primaries, but there wasn’t anything to it then and there isn’t anything to it now. The difference is that McCain and Palin are now emphasizing it above all else, and for that reason alone it will gain some traction in the media and perhaps even with some voters (as many just weren’t paying attention during the primaries, when it first broke).

But it’s also a sign of desperation in the McCain-Palin campaign. McCain and Palin are going after Obama with everything they have on Ayers not just because it fits their desired narrative but because they don’t have anything else left. They keep talking up McCain’s experience and alleged expertise (”I know,” he kept repeating the other night during the debate) and their outsider-reformer credentials, but, thus far, nothing has stuck. The Palin bubble has burst, McCain’s post-RNC surge has collapsed, and, on the issues that matter to voters, like the economy, it is clear that Obama has the advantage.

And so, predictably enough, McCain and Palin have gone negative, and ever more negative. It is Ayers now, but it may be Wright again soon enough.

Anything to smear Obama — damn the truth. That’s what the McCain-Palin campaign has become.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

  • bootlegger
    This has the potential to produce violence as those who have harbored these sentiments feel more emboldened. It's not the "middle" who will hear these things and take to the streets, but rather those who already believe this crap and are now validated. Once validated that "Obama is a terrorist", then any action can be legitimated to "stop him".
  • roro80
    One aspect of this story that I find fascinting is that it puts something very odd in common between McCain's wild-eyed fans and Obama himself: they're basically daring McCain to bring up this issue to Obama's face in the next debate. If he does, whoa nelly, I cannot wait to see what Obama's reaction is. Obama will get the chance to tell McCain it's all bull and he knows it, but will he go for the jugular and bring up 20-some years of McCain's involvement with shady figures, or will he maintain the high road? Which would be a better strategy?
  • It's new McCarthyism, except instead of communism it's terrorism. The bigger part of the issue is that these attacks may be intended to undermine Obama as a candidate, but the are going to have the longer lasting effect of undermining him as President if/when he's elected and takes office. When it is all said and done, are McCain and Palin going to reach out and calm all the crazed "omg he's a terrorist!" backwoods militia types who will be out to save our country from Barack Hussein Obama? No, they'll go back to their dayjobs and the people they've riled up will have to find their own outlet for this paranoia.
  • kritt11
    So, McCain-Palin will win 100% of the skinhead vote!
  • jkarczek
    It seems to be somewhat hypocritical to characterize the agitated crowds that show up to listen to McCain and Palin as dangerous, when I've seen similar behavior at left wing events go on to ACTUALLY erupt into violence. This just highlights that people on every side of the political spectrum are more likely to presume that energetic partisans with whom they agree are more rational than those on the other side.

    As for race, I do think that skin color is being leveraged to give more credibility to all of the rumors and innuendo swirling about Obama. Based on what I've read online in the last week, Obama is a closeted gay crack smoking communist Muslim terrorist. These accusations are empowered by an inability of too many people to give him the standard benefit of the doubt because of his "otherness". If he were a white, Harvard educated lawyer turned US Senator named Mike Johnson, I firmly believe these sorts of slanders would not gain nearly as much traction as they have, even if all of the votes and associations were the same.
  • bootlegger's comment gets at something I've been thinking about all this: The net effect of the McCain campaign's focus on Ayers is that they're shouting in an echo chamber.

    The only people who are affected are people who already have a tendency toward believing what they're suggesting. (imo)
  • JSpencer
    jkarczek : "I've seen similar behavior at left wing events go on to ACTUALLY erupt into violence."

    If you're trying to make a case for there being an equal amount of nutcase rabblerousing at Obama/Biden rallies, then you must be prepared to show some proof of this, otherwise it's merely an opinion.
  • jkarczek
    JSpencer: No, I don't really have any evidence one way or the other concerning rallies for Obama/Biden during this Presidential race, since I haven't attended any. Certainly I haven't seen anything like this reported in the media.

    I was speaking more broadly of events from the past ten or fifteen years in support of left wing causes (some witnessed personally) that, for one reason or another, included some violent outbursts, in addition to the more expected vocal fury. My intent was merely to say that no side (left or right) can claim to lack a certain amount of rabidity, especially when they feel like they are being pushed against a wall. Violence isn't excusable from any side.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice/Joe Gandelman | Designed by Elegant Themes | Customized by Tyrone Steels II/Enxit Group, LLC