Article Of The Week

Paul Krugman's Op-Ed column in Sunday's New York Times analyzes the reason(s) "the growing financial and economic crisis worked so overwhelmingly to the Democrats' advantage" in this election cycle, especially the Presidential race.

I disagree with one minor point Krugman implies at the tail end of his piece. In noting the McCain-Palin campaign themes of "Mr. Obama consorts with '60s radicals! He's a socialist! He doesn't love America! Judging from the polls, it doesn't seem to be working," Krugman implies that this would not have been an effective campaign strategy. I have always believed, however, that McCain's only possible path to victory would have been to have painted Obama as a stranger in this land, someone different from the rest of us (whomever that might be), and not a true patriot- as reflected in the ad from March, 2008 with the tag line: "John McCain. The American president Americans have been waiting for." Disingenuous and possibly nativist- but his only chance, were it a strategy instead of a collection of disjointed tactics.

That would have run counter to the campaign's most oft-used tactic: trying to claim the mantle of "maverick," of which Krugman notes

....what does that mean? His maverickness seems to be defined as a free-floating personality trait, rather than being tied to any specific objections on his part to the way the country has been run for the last eight years.

I believe the Arizonan went in that direction in part because he chose as his running mate Sarah Palin, who came to power in Alaska as a rebel, only to run an administration based on loyalty and secrecy, "surround(ing) herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church" (ironically, as in the conservative "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"). And as V.P. nominee, she herself has become a celebrity, cutting into the viability of the Presidential nominee's same charge against his Democratic rival. As Krugman notes, McCain "has attacked Mr. Obama as a 'celebrity,' but without any specific explanation of what's wrong with that- it's just a given that we're supposed to hate Hollywood types."

The Nobel Prize-winning economist acknowledges "I'd like to believe that the bad news convinced many Americans, once and for all, that the right's economic ideas are wrong and progressive ideas are right." Unfortunately, however, a greater factor is that "as the economic scene has darkened, I'd argue, Americans have rediscovered the virtue of seriousness." The emphasis on what he terms "trivia" has been a succesful strategy in the past, as when

President Bush got within hanging-chads-and-butterfly-ballot range of the White House only because much of the news media, rather than focusing on the candidates’ policy proposals, focused on their personas: Mr. Bush was an amiable guy you’d like to have a beer with, Al Gore was a stiff know-it-all, and never mind all that hard stuff about taxes and Social Security. And let’s face it: six weeks ago Mr. McCain’s focus on trivia seemed to be paying off handsomely.

But that was before the prospect of a second Great Depression concentrated the public’s mind.

Krugman is too much a gentleman to blame this primarily on Sarah Palin (or her selection) or even on the endless politicians, pundits, and strategists who suggest, simplistically, that John McCain is behind solely because of the economic plunge. Nevertheless, he explains clearly that the campaign's response to this crisis, and the unserious nature of his campaign, are what appears to have sunk his campaign. And, I believe, helped lead to the virtually inescapable conclusion that Obama-Biden is the adult option for November 4.