SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Tough Campaign is a Needed Lesson for Candidates

WASHINGTON -- Back in 1972, a University of Chicago research project called the General Social Survey began asking the following question: "If your party nominated a black for president, would you vote for him if he were qualified for the job?" The first year, 75 percent of Americans said yes.

Over the next two decades, there was steady upward progress in racial tolerance. By 1996, the percentage willing to vote for a black candidate reached 93 percent, so close to unanimity that the survey dropped the question.

Tom W. Smith, who directs the biennial survey, tells this story to make a point -- not so much about the electability of Barack Obama as about how social change works in America. It's gradual, he says, but once a trend begins, it is inexorable. That has been the case on major social issues, from the role of women to racial equality to civil liberties. "Americans very much believe in progress," says Smith. "But most change in America is the slow and steady kind."

This snapshot neatly captures the twin pulls for the Democratic Party in this extraordinary election campaign. The country instinctively embraces change messages such as Obama's. But Americans want their change in gradual, digestible bites, and they like the experience and steadiness that Hillary Clinton claims to represent.

"Change is really a difficult horse to ride," explains Richard Morin, a senior editor with the Pew Research Center. "It's easy to get on, but hard to stay on. As soon as you get specific about change, you make enemies."

What complicates the change equation is that the public often wants things that conflict with each other. Americans want a balanced budget, but don't want to cut Social Security, Medicare or military spending. They want health-care reform, but don't want bigger government.

Obama's change message is appealing in part because it's so unspecific. Rather than calling for programs that might prove divisive, he summons the country to gather in a new bipartisan consensus. It's a somewhat vapid version of change, but it appeals to the country precisely because most Americans don't see themselves in ideological terms. They want to be in the new center Obama describes, which transcends racial and ideological lines.

The nonideological core of American politics is clear in data compiled during the past 35 years by the American National Election Studies project. Jon Krosnick, a Stanford professor who studies political and social change, notes that the percentage of Americans in this survey who identify themselves as liberal or conservative has been small and relative constant, normally about 15 percent. The largest group, usually about half the electorate, identifies itself as "moderate," or says it doesn't know what it is.

Data gathered last year by the Pew Research Center make the same point. Three-quarters of those surveyed said they liked political leaders who were prepared to compromise, although Democrats and Republicans each said it was the other side that should do the compromising. "People want less bickering and more bipartisanship, but this remains a country that is divided on issues," says Andrew Kohut, who directs the Pew center.

The promise of the 2008 campaign is that it will make for a better president in 2009. If New Hampshire had been a coronation for Obama, he would have missed the bruising political education he needs. Obama is one of the most charismatic politicians in a generation, but let's be honest -- he hasn't had much experience, and he needs the maturing process that a hard-fought primary campaign will provide. Similarly, if Clinton hadn't been beaten up in Iowa, she wouldn't have been forced to dig deep and find what she said was her authentic voice.

The GOP side, too, needs the clarifying heat that a long campaign will bring. Mike Huckabee is the freshest face in the Republican field, but does anyone have a clue what he would do in foreign policy? John McCain is a born change agent, but does he have the energy at 71 to prevail over an Obama or Clinton? We'll find out.

This is a "change" election -- for a country that loves change in principle but not so much in practice. After two previous change elections, in 1980 and 1992, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had rocky first years as they encountered a public far more resistant to the reality of change than to the abstract idea.

The 2008 campaign, in addition to being a great spectator sport, should help the candidates and the country to rise to this challenge. Everyone wants "change" -- but we need a good political brawl to help us all figure out what that means.

---

Facebook

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: clinton | election 2008 | huckabee | mccain | obama |

Sponsored Links