Gosh, it sure it nice to see Obama kicking McCain’s ass.
How’s he doing it? Well, no ass-kicking this serious has a single cause. McCain has run a campaign that seems almost designed to highlight his weaknesses, among them a lack of discipline and coherence. His basic campaign pitches are so stupid—Obama pals around with terrorists, Obama is a socialist—that they really amount to an insult to the intelligence of the voters he’s trying to woo. And, of course, there’s Palin, the gift to the Democrats that keeps on giving. On top of all this, the media smells blood, and has started to call the McCain camp out on some of its stupider stuff recently.
What else? Ah, let’s not forget the money. Obama has lots and lots of money. And he can spend it too, thanks to his decision to break his earlier promise about accepting public money in exchange for spending limits. It’s been widely remarked that this has given Obama a real advantage, though McCain’s camp is running such a crappy campaign that I’m not quite sure how decisive it is. Still, I’ll bet it’s made some difference, and perhaps quite a significant one.
This is an issue I’ve not been inclined to think about much recently. It’s been simply too sweet to watch McCain getting his ass kicked. And looking around at other blogs I see that other people seem to share my view. But seriously, can you imagine how we’d howl if our preferred candidate were being outspent by such a wide margin? After breaking a promise about accepting public funding?
I’m starting to think that fans of Obama should be more troubled by this than we are presently. For one thing, I think everyone now recognizes that the system of public financing is dead. This is bad. It certainly wasn’t a perfect system, but reforming it would surely have been preferable to seeing it die.
It also seems potentially bad from a long-term tactical point of view. It’s not as if the Democrats’ fund raising advantage is likely to remain a deep structural feature of American politics. (Is it? I’m just guessing.) So long as they make any pretense to look out for the less fortunate, the more fortunate are, all other things being equal, going to be giving more to the other side. Serious reform of campaign finances seems to me to be in the long term interests of any left-leaning political party.
And then there’s this, which the right-wingers are talking about a lot recently, and everybody else not so much. I’m not sure what to make of it, or whether there’s something left out of this story that I don’t know about. But it certainly doesn’t look good, and that matters too.
I’m so happy about Obama’s big lead right now that I have to really work to care about this issue. And of course I’m only letting myself care now that he has a wide lead. But I’m guessing that some time in the not-too-distant future, I’ll find that caring about campaign finance issues comes much more naturally.
Aaron | 30-Oct-08 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
I truthfully expected that there would be a lot more to Obama’s stated concern – heavily funded 527′s attacking him without the constraints of campaign finance laws. Fortunately for him, those efforts largely sputtered out.
I would also be more indignant about Obama’s promise had McCain stuck to his word about public funding during his primary campaign. I suspect that’s one of the reasons, if not the leading reason, why McCain hasn’t tried to make more of this issue.
On the whole, you’re right – the party that is most aggrieved by big spending, and most in favor of finance reform qua “spending limits”, is the party that is at the financial disadvantage. Will the Democratic Party maintain its present edge? Probably not for any longer than the Republican Party maintained its own fundraising edge and “permanent majority”.
DC | 30-Oct-08 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
Yes, in terms of exploiting the conjuncture in order to embed structural change, cutting (in so far as possible) the link between politics and money would be crucial. It’s just not easy to imagine a political system where private donations to candidates plays as large a role as is the case in the US at present producing egalitarian outcomes.
The problem is, not only are Obama’s incentives wrong given his huge fundraising capacity, but that very fact may make it politically more difficult for him to push reform in the area even if he wants to. Firstly, even if he were willing to forgo a money advantage in 2012 like the one he has now, his Democratic allies might resist. Second, it might look like he’s being a) hypocritical and b) self-serving (in the sense that he could be seen as having first exploited the money-route to power and then destroying it to weaken challengers).
Not only is Obama’s money advantage inherently dubious, he also seems to have done some damage to the existing campaign finance system.
OTOH I do think his small donors base (especially in the primary) is one of the most exciting things about his campaign.
Chris | 30-Oct-08 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
Aaron,
Yes, I agree that Obama had reason to worry that they would try to screw him through loop holes.
As far as McCain goes, I’m not really concerned about fairness to him. His entire campaign is so juvenile and sleazy that I don’t feel terribly sympathetic to him when I see him whining about the issue. I am, however, concerned about fairness to the electorate. Surely decisions are best made when they’re not heavily distorted by a vast disparity in money spent. Seriously, I’m willing to bet that if the Democrats were outspent by such a huge margin people would be arguing that the results were in some way tainted. And they’d have a point!
DC,
The small donors base is very exciting. But if there’s anything to the story I linked to, they need to tidy up the operation in certain respects, or risk having the entire model fall into disrepute.
Anne | 31-Oct-08 at 12:42 am | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31spend.html?pagewanted=all
Some relevant details about what they’re doing with the money in here.
(And FWIW, I agree with you)
DC | 31-Oct-08 at 8:20 am | Permalink
“…the $140,000 that the [Obama] campaign has spent at companies that make American flags, apparently mostly for campaign events, compared with just $7,000 spent by the McCain campaign.”
I suppose McCain is just so damn American he doesn’t need to try? I seem to remember he, unlike Obama, wasn’t wearing one of those bloody flagpins in the debates.
Chris | 31-Oct-08 at 9:19 am | Permalink
That’s interesting, Anne. I had read that he was a real tightwad. Hope he’s as careful with public funds as he is with campaign funds.
It’s always amazing to me that some campaigns seem to be a financial free-for-all. E.g., Hillary Clinton’s. They pay these consultants so much money, and often for pretty lousy advice.