Archives
Monday, July 17, 2006
If night were day,
then...
Hillary
could win just like Reagan did.
GETTING ELECTED. Our jaw just closed, finally, after reading Hil's Keys to the Oval Office, an article by supposedly reputable pollster Frank Luntz, who fancies Hillary's chances of winning the presidency.
For all those Republicans and a few
Democrats who think Hillary Clinton can't possibly be elected
President, I have two words for you: Ronald Reagan.
I remember it well. He was too old. He was too conservative. He was too scary. And he was elected in two landslides. The exact same kinds of assumptions about electability 25 years ago are alive and well in 2006, and they are just as wrong for Hillary Clinton today as they were for Reagan in 1979.
She's too divisive. Too calculating. Too marred by the Clinton years. Oh, - and she's a woman.
Reagan was suspected of being a reactionary, war-mongering old coot.
Hillary is suspected of being a corrupt, ruthless bitch. Both
characterizations embody assumptions about electability, to be sure,
but are they really the "exact same kinds of assumptions"? Specifics
aside, the term 'kind' would seem to indicate a categorical similarity,
such as that voter suspicions are basically (in)accurate or
(ir)refutable. Is that what Mr. Luntz means? Let's see. He goes on to
say:I remember it well. He was too old. He was too conservative. He was too scary. And he was elected in two landslides. The exact same kinds of assumptions about electability 25 years ago are alive and well in 2006, and they are just as wrong for Hillary Clinton today as they were for Reagan in 1979.
She's too divisive. Too calculating. Too marred by the Clinton years. Oh, - and she's a woman.
Never mind the chatter. Hillary Clinton sits atop many polls for President with good reason and, if she plays her cards right, she could remain there right through November 2008.
Why? Because her intelligence, assertiveness, personality and celebrity are powerful strengths. I know this for a fact. My firm has conducted extensive focus-group research in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Iowa and New Hampshire, huh? (We've all heard the old saying: as go Iowa and New Hampshire, so goes the nation, haven't we? Haven't we?) Well, he's a professional pollster. He must know what he's talking about. Of course, his optimism is mitigated by some caveats. We'll consider them one at a time:
First, she must be herself. Her recent
tack to the right - from equivocating on the Iraq war, to supporting a
ban on flag burning - is fooling no one and is seriously agitating her
liberal base. The reason Hillary became so popular in the first place
was her unflinching willingness to tell it like it is. She must say
what she means, and mean what she says.
Similarly, recent efforts by Clinton to
inject religious references
into her speeches to prove she's a person of faith is like fingernails
on a chalkboard to Democrat primary voters. Clinton must win the
primary first - then worry about the general election. If Democrats
really cared about religion, they'd be Republicans.
Being himself was pretty much what Reagan did from the beginning of his political career to the end. That's what put the voters at ease in the 1980 election. The self he was was friendly, reassuring, hopeful, idealistic, and charming. Isn't it just a little worrisome to Mr. Luntz that Hillary has yet to declare her presidential candidacy and already needs advice to start being herself rather than a politically expedient flip-flopper on deeply consequential matters like foreign policy and religion? Just asking.
Second, Clinton must give us answers,
not just criticism. She is already applauded by most voters for her
focus and determination and does a good job explaining the specifics
(and even the minutiae) of the issues she cares about. None of that
should change.
But she spends so much time criticizing the Republicans that voters aren't hearing enough of what she would do instead. If Clinton can modulate that overly negative tone, she will bolster her chances.
Democrats already know what they don't like about Republicans. They expect Clinton to prove to them that she can, and will, undo all the “damage” that has been done. So, she should write another book that outlines a positive vision for the future. Give voters the alternative to Bush's America - in writing.
But she spends so much time criticizing the Republicans that voters aren't hearing enough of what she would do instead. If Clinton can modulate that overly negative tone, she will bolster her chances.
Democrats already know what they don't like about Republicans. They expect Clinton to prove to them that she can, and will, undo all the “damage” that has been done. So, she should write another book that outlines a positive vision for the future. Give voters the alternative to Bush's America - in writing.
Funny how Democrats think voters will be persuaded by some book that says the right things. Probably because they think JFK won more votes with his ghostwritten Pulitzer-Prize winning book called Profiles in Something than he did with his patrician sex appeal and family connections. Reagan didn't start his political career with a book but a speech. In fact, The Speech. Which would be worth a second look by Mr. Luntz because it represents the opposite of the task he has set for Mrs. Clinton. The Speech was the most eloquent assault on all the failures of New Deal liberalism ever articulated, and yet it came across as a startlingly clear and inspiring vision of what America could become. What Luntz wants of his candidate, however, is a rhetorical tract that somehow avoids nasty criticism of Republicans and yet transforms "undoing" into a positive agenda for the future. Maybe the Reagan communication genius isn't something that can be learned and executed like a campaign tactic.
Third, Clinton, who can be charming and
funny in private, should be more candid and unpredictable. She should
tell voters something new every now and then to give them a reason to
listen. A been there, done that campaign approach won't sell in an age
of 24-hour news coverage.
A good joke - even one made at her own expense - wouldn't hurt.
A good joke - even one made at her own expense - wouldn't hurt.
Deja vu all over again. Spontaneity and charm in a public setting aren't skills you acquire from a textbook. Having a spontaneous, engaging personality that is heightened rather than shrivelled by the presence of ordinary citizens is quite likely a function of character, not practice. Ditto with a self-deprecating sense of humor. Self deprecation among friends is easy. Among opponents and enemies and inferiors, it's damn near impossible. As a ploy.
Fourth, Clinton needs to remember to
speak from her heart, not her head. Right now, she sometimes sounds
like Al Gore ... without the pizzazz. Successful Republicans think.
Successful Democrats - like Bill Clinton - feel. Hillary should lower
her decibel level, making voters strain to hear her. The softer she is,
the more emotional she will sound.
Ronald Reagan had a native ability to make Americans feel the simple
virtue of his
thinking. He never ranted, lectured, or blared like a stuck klaxon in partisan
rage. Luntz wants Hillary to stop arguing like a prosecutor and more
like a down-home defense attorney with no case, and thus persuade the
thinking middle to accept her policies on the basis of her intellectual
superiority. It sounds like he wants her to become a political pretzel.
Doesn't it seem like we just rejected one of those in the 2004
election? Unlike the other candidates vying for
the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton has genuine star power. She
clearly delivers the brains and the intensity, but there are a number
of verbal and visual miscues that could undermine her presentation, her
image and, eventually, her support. She must realize, as Reagan did,
that she is more than just a messenger. She is the message.
Hillary's star power, lest we forget, derives from her eight years as the grimly combative wife of a popular, genial president. In fact, minus the integrity and conviction, Bill Clinton resembled Ronald Reagan more than any president since FDR. But Hillary is not regarded as warm, humorous, humble, or personable, even to the millions who back her. So, is Luntz urging Hillary to become her husband? It sounds like it. But that's another problem, and possibly a fatal one. Bill Clinton never won a simple majority of the American electorate. The "simple" majority somehow always knew that he said what people wanted to hear and made his decisions based on what pollsters like Luntz told him would sell. They also suspected that despite his likability, he wasn't quite trustworthy. Isn't it ironic that so much of Luntz's advice is designed to offset these recurring Clintonian weaknesses with expertise drawn from the same source that both elected Bill and doomed his presidency to mediocrity?
Now let's think back to Luntz's generalization about "the exact same kinds of assumptions about electability." I think we can see that they're not. Reagan wasn't a reactionary, war-mongering old coot. He was a tradtionalist, to be sure, but also a visionary and paternally reassuring leader through a crucial time of foreign confrontation and domestic renewal. Whereas, Luntz's own advice to Hillary Clinton tends to confirm that despite her talents, she is a corrupt, ruthless bitch. He just wants her to manage the trick of concealing it.
ERGO: Hillary could be just like Reagan, if only she weren't his exact opposite, both politically and personally. Is this kind of advice going to help her? I think not.
But what do I know? I am only...
