Political Animal
Blog
Several months ago, Politico noted that many Republican voters, especially in the activist base who’ll help choose the GOP presidential nominee, “have a dark, foreboding feeling that America is in decline.” Leading Republican candidates are keenly aware of these attitudes, and will be eager to speak to these voters’ sense of dread, “tailoring their rhetoric to tap into a fear that is apocalyptic in tone.”
That was in March. Nearly six months later, the GOP field has no use for hope, and has decided to push a message of dread and dismay.
Looking for a bit of optimism about the future? Hoping for a quick psychological pick-me-up amid the economic downturn?
Don’t tune in to the Republican presidential candidates.
As they reach for the sharpest contrast they can find with President Obama, the Republican presidential hopefuls are sounding anything but hopeful. On the trail, they are painting an increasingly gloomy picture of the nation they want to lead.
I haven’t the foggiest idea how this resonates with the American mainstream. On the one hand, the public is frustrated and in a deeply sour mood. It’s not unreasonable to think miserable voters might connect well with candidates who speak of nothing but misery. When folks are depressed, do they want to hear about optimism and sunshine?
On the other, it seems at least as likely the public may not want to hear would-be leaders wallowing in despair. As the NYT’s Michael Shear noted in his piece, “Too much talk about gloom and doom could turn off voters who are tired of feeling worried…. It’s easy to fill a stadium full of excited supporters with a rallying cry that suggests things will get better. Wooing supporters with depressing news is a tougher sell.”
This could prove to be an interesting angle to the 2012 race.
Whenever this subject comes up, the conventional wisdom generally tells us we’re supposed to think of Ronald Reagan, since “optimism” was a key element of his appeal. It was fundamental, we’re told, to understanding his entire persona — the former president had an infectious, unyielding optimism.
I tend to think much of this is just hype and p.r., but the myth has endured to the point that it shapes coverage of presidential campaigns. The media scrutinizes contenders based on their capacity to be the “optimistic” candidate.
And campaigns take this seriously, too. In 2004, one of the first big general-election ad buys from the Bush/Cheney camp was for an ad that quoted the then-president saying, “I’m optimistic about America because I believe in the people of America.” A voice over said John Kerry was “talking about the Great Depression. One thing’s sure — pessimism never created a job.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if President Obama tried to take advantage of this, too. In his debt-reduction speech in April, he took on Paul Ryan’s House Republican budget plan from a variety of directions, but he specifically noted, “I believe [the Republican plan] paints a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic.”
It’s a compelling charge. Not only are Republicans miserable about the present, they’re also presenting a dour vision of the future, with the elderly, low-income families, students, small businesses, and struggling communities all left to fend for themselves.
Republicans, in other words, aren’t merely wrong. They’re also lacking in optimism and a can-do spirit. Or to borrow some cliches, Obama still believes, “Yes, we can,” while his GOP detractors still want Americans to accept, “No, we can’t.”
If an underlying theme of the 2012 race is optimism vs. pessimism, I suspect President Obama would welcome the campaign dynamic.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on August 31, 2011 8:48 AM:
If Conservatives had a single atom of self-awareness, they'd realize that they're "miserable about the present, they’re also presenting a dour vision of the future...," because of their very own policies, which we've been following for 30+ years.
The chickens have come home to roost, and have also sh*t all over the henhouse.
And that they want to take all of this out on "the elderly, low-income families, students, small businesses," and to leave struggling communities all left to fend for themselves - especially if they are minority communities.
Marko on August 31, 2011 8:52 AM:
The [Republicans] are also presenting a dour vision of the future, with the elderly, low-income families, students, small businesses, and struggling communities all left to fend for themselves.
Which is exactly what we'll get if we keep voting for them. These jackasses can't even approve disaster aid; you think they'll give a crap about you?
c u n d gulag on August 31, 2011 8:52 AM:
Oh, and it was easy for Reagan to be optimistic.
Reagan hadn't been President yet when Reagan was sworn in and started "The Reagan De-evolution," so it was easy to be optimistic.
We went from a "CAN DO!" nation, to a "Nope, can't afford that nation - you're giving too much of my money to the black folks and old people."
Cabot on August 31, 2011 8:55 AM:
Ever watch Fox News
It's easy to see where the tone comes from.
FRP on August 31, 2011 8:58 AM:
In any contest the opponent who relies on a unilateral strategy which seeks to immobilise the other opponent , creates an irresistible target for those contesting who can .
The Spanish Armada comes to mind , American Revolution , Vietnam war , to name a few . The Maginot line was attractive to the Germans as a target because the French ran into political difficulty justifying the cost . The Line worked where it was complete .
The corresponding idea to competing with the gloomy Guss's of right wing class warfare stock , is to complete any line that illuminates the dread simple stock of right wing dread , fear and , defeatism . If you see people who believe their actions are covered by some distracting action , they don't look quite so scary in the plain light of reason and sense .
Why in some cases where you can see the absolute hypocrisy , like Gov Walker talking to a comedian posing as a Koch genius , it becomes very difficult for the stern and proper burgher to insist on his gravity .
Bob M on August 31, 2011 9:03 AM:
3am in America. Very dark and scary.
sjw on August 31, 2011 9:04 AM:
I concur with Mr. Benen when he writes that "the public is frustrated and in a deeply sour mood." And a lot of that has to do with our leader not being a leader. He talks quietly and backs away when things get noisy. He complains about the culture in Washington D.C. and acts like he's a victim, like he's got no power. He follows through on nothing. He aims low and then lower again. He deals with it all by taping Saturday radio addresses. He promised Hope but now peddles frustration. Once it was "Yes We Can," but now it's "now we can't." He's The Invisible President.
DAY on August 31, 2011 9:06 AM:
I think the Rachel Maddow spots on MSNBC hit the right tone. She draws a sharp contrast to Depression Era America- when we built dams- to America today, where the Republican mantra is "nope, can't do anything, we're broke."
Meanwhile, China is building the 21st Century full bore.
A small, but telling example of our infrastructure problems. A 52" sewage pipeline broke in Reading, PA after the earthquake/hurricane events of last week. A relief valve had to be opened, dumping raw sewage into the Schuylkill river. From which Philadelphia, downstream, draws it's water. The pipeline is 60 years old.
How many other 60 year old pipes/bridges/etc are on the fast track to disaster? Doesn't matter- WE ARE BROKE!
Ron Byers on August 31, 2011 9:06 AM:
Optimisim will win in the long run. The grumpy old people will just wear out and young people want to feel good about the future. What Republicans don't understand is the boomer generation, and all the self indulgent pessimism it represented, is on the way out. People want hope.
On the other hand I sometimes think Obama's handlers have forgotten how he won the White House.
davidp on August 31, 2011 9:09 AM:
I remember that George W had an effective comeback whenever Democratic candidates sounded a cautionary note about the economy. "They don't believe in America. Well I believe in America." It was an effective pitch for him, why not for Obama too?
KurtRex1453 on August 31, 2011 9:13 AM:
These new Republicans are freaky in their opposition to Obama and their chant that Obama is too liberal. Nixon was economically to the left of Obama. I think Obama should be reelected in parht because he has done a great job as resforing competence to the federal government. No WACOs, no ethics scandals, a refreshing reenergizing of civil rights, energy, the EPA, FDA & foreign policy. He helped get poor people health care. And more, but he is not as liberal as FDR or LBJ. Am I annoyed at him, sometimes, like when he lets GOP stupidity (death panels) dominate the media and I think he could be way more liberal, but the alternatives the GOP are offering make Reagan (minus his irresponsible AIDS policy) look like John Lindsey or Nelson Rockefeller. If you like Dickensian England, "Disaster Reief? Bah Humbug!" you'll love America under the radical Republicans.
Daniel Kim on August 31, 2011 9:18 AM:
We have seen this attitude in some of the comments made to this blog, where conservatives promote the idea that there is only a certain amount of "pie" to go around. This scarcity attitude pits everyone against their neighbor, saying that 'any gain by my neighbor is a loss to myself'.
There is no future in such a viewpoint.
Ron Byers on August 31, 2011 9:20 AM:
I think Cabot is on to something. Fox News caters to cranky fearful old people. The old guys who run the kids out of their yards watch Fox News. They are the same guys who go to bed with a gun under their pillow in their nice middle class homes in their gated subdivisions because they are sure someone is going to break in and rob them and they have to be ready.
The more Fox News gives them the tone they want the more they watch. It is a feedback loop. Now Fox News has a "large" loyal audience filled with the old and cranky.
Don't believe me, look at the demographics of the Fox News loyalists. They want the old and cranky and that is who they have.
Greg Worley on August 31, 2011 9:21 AM:
The Dems should repurpose and recycle the Republicans' attacks against Jimmy Carter. Be fun to watch
berttheclock on August 31, 2011 9:25 AM:
@FRP, I would expect better from you. The Maginot Line was bypassed and only a small portion of forts tried to engage the Germans, as the Wehrmacht, successfully, attacked them from their rear. Yes, the French government ran out of political will and money to complete the line, but, with the tremendous stupidity of the French high command, it would have never worked. Millions of gallant French soldiers died as a result of that stupidity.
davidp on August 31, 2011 9:26 AM:
Ron Byers's good comment makes me wonder if the GOP strategy is going to be not so much pessimism as fear. That has a different dynamic. All the talk about taking our country back stirs up a fear that someone is taking it away. Once you define who that someone is, that can generate a hostility that will energize people, not reduce them to passivity.
FRP on August 31, 2011 9:29 AM:
there is only a certain amount of "pie" to go around.
Malthus
Malthus, Thomas Robert (1766 / 1834), English economist and clergyman. In Essay on Population (1798) he argued that without the practice of "moral restraint" the population tends to increase at a greater rate than its means of subsistence, resulting in the population checks of war, famine, and epidemic.
DERIVATIVES
Malthusian adjective & noun
The big bonus was the great parties he threw !
SW on August 31, 2011 9:38 AM:
This is precisely why I feel that the President is missing a real opportunity by not 'going big' with his jobs proposal (although we don't know that yet, by the tone of the staffers chirping in here you would have to believe that the little people have the upper hand).
To me it isn't at all about ideology. I couldn't give a shit less about what Paul Krugman or Brad DeLong think about this issue. I have this deep sense that after three years of being beaten down, ten if you count the whole 9/11 terror nightmare from both bin laden and Bush/Cheney, the country is ready for a message of optimism about the future. To be energized by a sense of national greatness again. By a positive vision of what we could be. Not by nibbling around the margins. But by talking and actually proposing something truly transformational.
The essence of the problem in the US is that we stopped building everything but houses here pretty much since the late seventies. And as corporate America went on a political crusade to pocket any and all increases in productivity rather than pass them on in the form of wage increases, the only way that the spending could continue was through private debt. Debt financed in the end with a housing bubble.
We need to do two things. Deleverage that debt. And reengineer the economy so that we actually make things here besides houses. The deleveraging is painful and it is ongoing. But the reengineering on the economy can be an inspirational undertaking. It can and should be a call to national greatness. A shift from a militarized agenda to a commercial agenda. Something that we saw in the 90's and that we can see again only in a much greater and more sustained fashion.
Optimism will always win out over pessimism. And a broad sweeping vision will win out over a boring technocratic approach.
square1 on August 31, 2011 9:44 AM:
There is a massive difference between a candidate being pessimistic about our future given current policies and elected officials and being fatalistically pessimistic. Indeed, the job of a candidate running against an incumbent is to -- pessimistically!!! -- say the country is on the wrong track. Else why would voters vote for a switch.
Yes, Reagan was optimistic as President. But he sure as hell wasn't painting a picture of optimism in 1980.
But sjw hits the nail on the head. Democrats have become the party of "no, we can't". I understand -- as a majority of Americans do -- that the GOP is a major reason why the future sucks. But President Obama promised to change the tone in Washington (a stupid promise that actually gave the GOP an incentive to become as partisan as possible).
People dont care if you beat the GOP at the polls or find a way to work with them. But have a realistic plan for one or the other! Why should anyone be optimistic about the future?
I expect Democrats
Butch on August 31, 2011 10:10 AM:
re: Maginot line
As Berttheclock said, the Maginot line performed as expected - just like its predecessor did in WWI. (Google "Schlieffen plan".)
The real problem was deficiencies in the Parisian taxi cab fleet. (/snark)
Ok, as in WWI France hadn't put enough into fast mobile forces to protect the ends of the line. They managed to stop the German end around attempt in WWI - but failed in WWII.
markg8 on August 31, 2011 10:12 AM:
The difference is Republicans are trying to convince the American public that their pessimism is warranted because Obama is president.
FRP on August 31, 2011 10:16 AM:
Guilty shame . It may be a careless over reaction to the constant belittlement of any effort with non American actors .
Grumpy on August 31, 2011 10:23 AM:
"One thing’s sure — pessimism never created a job.'
And if anyone was an expert in never creating a job, it was George W. Bush.
Personally, I believe America is in decline, and it doesn't bother me. Decline doesn't have to be scary. It's like retirement. Plan ahead and enjoy it. These are America's Winnebago years.
Johnny Canuck on August 31, 2011 10:23 AM:
Daniel Kim on August 31, 2011 9:18 AM:
We have seen this attitude in some of the comments made to this blog, where conservatives promote the idea that there is only a certain amount of "pie" to go around. This scarcity attitude pits everyone against their neighbor, saying that 'any gain by my neighbor is a loss to myself'.
And ironically it used to be the conservative critique that that was what the democrats wanted to do, while republicans would grow the pie so that everyone would get more. At some point they failed to notice that only the rich were getting more pie. Now they seem focused on making sure the rich don't lose their increased share and inhibit the pie from growing for anyone else.
The reason deficits didn't matter in their previous incarnation was that growth would take care of them.
bob h on August 31, 2011 11:07 AM:
“have a dark, foreboding feeling that America is in decline.”
The irony of all this is that the Republican Party, comprised increasingly of white people lacking higher education and the ability to think critically, is the surest indicator of any such decline.
Anjinsan on August 31, 2011 1:05 PM:
Not so fast. Pessimism may have a surprising resonance with the electorate.
Wage stagnation in an era when luxury and opulence are featured prominently in reality television have underscored the difference between the haves and have-nots in ways that are unprecedented. Optimism reeks of promises made that won't be kept while pessimism plays directly to that "dark, foreboding feeling." Then, when you consider how uninformed much of the electorate is, it's not hard to see how "dread and dismay" can be a more compelling message on the campaign trail: "See? S/he understands. Things are bad now, and they could get worse. If s/he understands that, maybe s/he'll be the one to get it right instead of that pie in the sky guy with his hope and change when there hasn't been any."
Suddenly Gallup's 39% to 45% in Obama's favor starts to make sense. 39% is still a hell of a lot of people who apparently don't understand they'd be voting for more of what ails them.
JM917 on August 31, 2011 1:07 PM:
One major reason--perhaps THE major reason--why Reagan won in 1980 is that he came across as the sunny, can-do optimist with the disarming reassurance that he wasn't as dangerously radical as his right-wing reputation had made him out to be. The dour, earnest, eat-your-spinach, grit-your-teach pessimist in the contest was Jimmy Carter, who'd seemingly been castigating the American people for the "malaise" that was seeping into the nation 's vitals. Reagan didn't look as bad as he'd been portrayed; even some disillusioned liberals were willing to vote for him, given the crisis we were in (seemingly endless stagflation) and the out-of-gas sense that liberalism exuded in 1980.
(Full disclosure: I was such a [temporary] ex-liberal. I, who had voted AND worked for Carter in 1976, voted to give Reagan a try in 1980. OK, mea maxima culpa. But at the time he seemed "reasonable" and had a record of pragmatic deal-making with the Democratic California legislature.)
What's that got to do with the 2012 election, 32 years later?
Well, now it's going to be GOP in full, apocalytic, gloom-and-doom mode, preaching that the end of the world is nigh unless The Obamination--the Antichrist hiself--is ejected from the White House. And Obama is going to run as the can-do optimist, giving the lie to the Party of No.
Sounds like the GOP has forgotten their dear St. Ronnie. Gloom-and-doom isn't a winning formula in American politics.