In the chaotic, colourful, cathartic American primary campaign of the past few
months, it has in the end come down to a clarifying choice.
In a completely open field – with no incumbent president or vice-president
running and both Republicans and Democrats casting about in a newly fluid
ideological world – two fundamental emotions have bubbled to the surface. In
the final few days before the first critical contest in Iowa, the race is
between hope and fear.
The reasons for fear are obvious. America is still adjusting to the impact of
9/11 and the gruelling wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The country is also
experiencing a wave of immigration – much of it illegal and uncontrollable –
greater than anything since the beginning of the last century.
In the past few years, what were once heartland certainties have been
shattered: America is immune from direct military attack; America’s public
culture is overwhelmingly Christian; America does not torture prisoners; if
the worst happens – a hurricane like Katrina – the federal government comes
to the rescue. All these bedrock assumptions have been called into question.
These are unnerving, unmoored times and the candidates who have based their
campaigns on fear – and their ability to assuage and reassure – have
propelled themselves to prominence.
Among the Republicans, Rudy Giuliani banked everything on his response to
9/11. Fear of Al-Qaeda resonated through every speech. The assassination of
Benazir Bhutto might be seen as a boon to his campaign. But in the end,
Giuliani’s utterly unnuanced commitment to fighting back any time, anywhere,
did not reassure. It alarmed. His mercurial temperament, fiery egotism and
willingness to make enemies of everyone have become liabilities. He has
fallen consistently in the polls for the entire year.
Mitt Romney, at the start, pitched himself as an inveterate optimist. Alas,
his set speeches often came off as robotic invocations of themes lifted from
the 1980s. And so his pitch soon reverted to fear – especially of illegal
immigrants, where he taunted even Giuliani for being soft on “illegals”. For
evangelicals, suspicious of his Mormonism, he relied on another set of
fears. He promised to fight to make abortion illegal and ban rights for gay
couples in the constitution itself.
Mike Huckabee, Romney’s chief rival in Iowa this coming Thursday, has tried
another tack. His credibility as a candidate came from his being the only
real true-believing fundamentalist in the field. In a Republican party
remade by George Bush and Karl Rove as a religious movement, he was “one of
us”. His good humour and ready wit struck many as a strange confluence of
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
However, it was his economic message that appealed to working-class
Republicans. In a world where globalisation unsettles many, Huckabee is the
first Republican candidate in a long time to attack unabashedly free trade
and unfettered market capitalism. Railing against Wall Street, he deftly
exploited populist themes that had special power in states like Iowa. But,
in the end, fear also undid him. In a dangerous world, his total
cluelessness in foreign policy remains a huge liability. In the wake of
chaos in Pakistan he looks like a risky bet.
On the Democratic side, John Edwards shifted his uplifting message of the 2004
election into a populist screed against the moneyed and powerful. Declaring
the tax system to be rigged for the wealthy, the healthcare system cruelly
indifferent to working Americans and Washington controlled by corrupt,
wealthy lobbyists, he insisted that he alone was able to fight the forces
arrayed against the little guy. Using the skills he finessed as a trial
lawyer, and focusing almost manically on Iowa, he enters this week with
surprising strength. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has been able
to consign him to the asterisk status that many expected. Most polls still
show the race as a tight three-way tie.
No one has exploited the politics of fear as intuitively as Clinton. Her
deepest fear has long been of Republicans. She believes deep down that they
command a majority and has long practised a politics that seeks first to
neutralise the enemy before attempting anything positive herself. This is
the scar tissue of the Reagan and Newt Gingrich eras – with the biggest
wounds her 1993 healthcare debacle and the impeachment nightmare of her
husband’s second term. Her biggest appeal to her party is that she can
withstand the attacks from the right. And as long as they fear the Rove
Republicans more than they believe in themselves, she wins.
In the battle with her fellow Democrats, she also resorts to fear of the
unknown. When Obama’s poll numbers equalled hers in Iowa and New Hampshire,
her surrogates unleashed a torrent of negative attacks: the Republicans will
eat the young Obama for breakfast; they will smear him as a former cocaine
user, as a Muslim, as black.
The candidate herself, bereft of any serious policy differences with Obama,
made her final pitch that she has the experience that Obama lacks. For those
afraid of risk in a world at war, she is a surer bet than the young dreamer
from Illinois. And if all else fails, Bill Clinton will be there – an
insurance policy for the jittery.
This leaves one viable candidate on either side. They are the least afraid and
the most hopeful. They are Obama and John McCain, the Republican senator and
Vietnam war hero. Yes, McCain’s experience has emerged as a great strength
in an unstable world. But what remains impressive about his candidacy is
that he has taken positions that are more forward-looking than many of his
younger rivals.
McCain is the only Republican eager to address climate change. Faced with a
Republican base furious about illegal immigration, he stuck to his view that
illegal immigrants needed to be assimilated and even defended a bill that he
authored with Ted Kennedy, the Democrat senator, to achieve this. He also
bravely said that America does not need to torture prisoners and that the
war in Iraq can be won. As the candidate of honour, he also became a
candidate of hope – especially in Iraq. He has seen his numbers surge
recently in New Hampshire and, if he can prevent Romney getting momentum, he
still has a chance to pull it off.
Obama, of course, based his entire candidacy on the title of his campaign
book, The Audacity of Hope. The fearful have every reason to look elsewhere.
If you do not believe that a black man can be president; if you do not
believe that America can risk talking to Iran’s leadership or withdrawing
from Iraq without losing the wider war; if you think it’s naive to hope that
the polarising culture war of the past 40 years can ever end; if you doubt
that a man with a name like Obama who once attended a secular madrasah in
Indonesia can ever win a majority of US votes, you really should vote for
Clinton.
Obama knows this and directly confronts it. In the final days his appeal is
disarmingly simple. “The question is, do you believe in change?” he asks.
“The question is, do you believe deep in your gut we can do better than
we’re doing?”
There are real and powerful reasons to fear right now. It is not crazy to want
the reassurance of a former president back in the White House; it is not
mysterious that retrenchment is a powerful sentiment in a world of terror
and globalisation and mass immigration. Americans have to make a gut
decision – whether Republican or Democrat. Should they take a risk or stick
to what they know? Should they dare to be optimists or rely on the pessimism
that these past few years has been a good guide to a darkening world?
After following this race for an almost interminable preamble, all I can say
is that I can’t imagine a more constructive race than one between
Obama and McCain. The odds are still against it. But it is more imaginable
now than at any time in the past year.
And it reminds me of something. In Tel Aviv, a while back, a slogan began
appearing on walls in graffiti. In the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
as optimism seemed like a delusion, it spread the way memes do. It’s a
simple slogan and, as this new year beckons, worth holding on to, as a few
Americans in a wintry state decide in which direction to take their country.
Know hope.
It is near impossible to not be overwhelmed with fear for the fate of this country when the best candidate, offering the most hope, the clearest and most honest talk, and the most radical change we so desperately need- is once again forgotten, ignored or censored.
RON PAUL.
Marcella, Philadelphia, USA/PA
It is sad to learn that billions are spent on things like the
olympic games when some of these funds could have been used to tackle the world poverty and world health issues.
There seems to be some arrogant attitude towards the world's poorest nations and some of the worlds poorest communities, and it feels like if we don't even want to take these nations with us to the games.
The world's media seems to have turned an blind eye to some of these issues relating to some basic health care and housing,food and clothing,and basic education for some of the world's poorest communities and nations.
There are hundreds of billions spent on things like space stations when we have some immediate problems which needs to be tackled in the world.
It may be fair to say that we need to rethink our policies and our spendings and we do need to to keep the world's poorest nations and communities in our minds when we spend on our lives as things could have been vice versa.
mohammed saleem, Huddersfield, England
ABC
irene, pinehurst, usa, nc
I agree with much of Dr Sullivan's analysis, unobjective though it may be. It is very surprising that in an article on the politics of hope v fear not a mention was made of Congressman Ron Paul. As a non-American observer of the Presidential race, I would favour either Congressman Paul or Senator McCain as the Republican nominee. The rest seem to be a worryingly amoral group of opportunists and intellectually lifeless panderers, even Rudi Giuliani. As for the Democrats, I had hopes for Senator Obama's integrity (even if I seriously disagreed with him on policy) but he has proved himself just as much a Beltway mud-slinger as any other candidate. Hope may live on, but civility will not.
James, London,
Sullivan's view and logic are as ridiculous as ever. This is the same guy who spouted undying support for George Bush and now that his judgment has been proven wrong, he goes from one neophyte to another. Instead of examining his own faulty thinking, as is the case with the vast majority of the gas-bags who argue about these things, he comes up with a new knight in shining armor with whom he suddenly infatuated yet again. It is funny how some of those who pumped up Bush in 2000 like Mathew Dowd, now having wrought havoc, is spouting off more nonsense. Sullivan should simply shut up and stop writing even more nonsense. But true to form, I doubt that he will.
Carlyle Rogers, The Valley, Anguilla
Right now we need someone who is intelligent, and who will take the job seriously. That's Hillary Clinton.
Those who say she will just continue Bush's policies are wrong--she will balance the budget and stop borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia because she will not be afraid to raise taxes on the upper class. She will stop spending huge amounts of money on the useless, wasteful Iraq occupation.
TheoShul, NYC,
Why do so many people think the word "madrasah" describes beyond doubt, a Muslim school, ie one where radical islam is taught. (I am going back to a comment made by Trish Anderton in this post, though living in Indonesia, she should know better.) The word "madrasah" simply means school in Arabic -- ANY type of school -- just as ecole means school in French and escuela means school in Spanish. This misunderstanding is right up there with Allah being misunderstood as a word; it simply means God in Arabic. Even my mother didn't know that until it was pointed out to her.
cabriole, brooklyn, NY, USA
As for Alexander his comment re Obama being a millionaire and out of touch sounds simply angry and misinformed. Most of the candidates in this campaign have come from relatively average, even humble, backgrounds (Romney was born in to a wealthy family, I think, and McCain's was certainly privileged, but I think nearly everybody else came from relatively average middle class or working class backgrounds.) Surely not all of them have forgotten what it was like.
cabriole, brooklyn, NY, USA
All this wisdom from the guy who with gusto supported George Bush over the 2007 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. This despite the fact that Gore was part of the administration that did more to advance the cause of gay rights than any other in the past, and appointed judges who espoused the "liberal" (philosophical, not political) Sullivan claims to espouse. Pecking at his keyboard all day long with a beagle on his lap, or looking at his navel, too lazy to get out on the streets and see how Americans (of which he is not one) live, he has no qualifications whatsoever to tell us how to vote. Screw him.
I can vote for any Democrat against any Republican, but I still prefer Clinton because she knows how to throw a punch.(Biden though is my favorite, and if he's still int the race by the time it gets to Pennsylvania, he's my guy.) I challenge Sullivan to name a Republican who will appoint good Supreme Court judges and make government fiscally responsible, and take care of health care.
Stuart Wilder, Doylestown, PA
And Mr. Alexander, the Democrats have not actually "been worse" his president had spent more than *any* president ever. With a Republican Congress for most of it. So you can blame the dems for a lot, but you can't hang that one on them anymore.
Mark, Toronto, ON/Canada
Alexander you need to check your facts, Obama was not a millionaire - in fact he was a community leader prior to law school, attended law school and worked as a civil rights lawyer. He was not born into wealth by any means and everything he attained has been self-earned. Simply because someone has selflessly committed themselves to social justice and community building does not mean they've never had a 'real job'. Please, check your facts.
Curtis, Philadelphia, PA
Oh please. Andrew Sullivan, the disaffected ex-conservative, hopes for a race between Obama and McCain, the most liberal of Republicans? Give me a break.
Andrew's visceral hatred of all things Republican has disqualified him from commenting in any meaningful fashion on this election. He gave up trying to be objective long ago. Strangely enough, the same quaility he decries in others he exhibits in spades.
reuben, chicago, IL
Just what we here in the USA do not need; a president - Obama - who has never had a real job in his life. Ditto for Clinton. Both are clueless millionaires as to how normal working folks live and the effects on working people of the ever higher confiscation of their hard earned money by irresponsible, greedy local, state and federal politicians. Our incompetent politicians consistently spend $1.50 for every $1 they confiscate from working folks, independent of the level of tax revenue. As profligate as the Republicans have been, the Democrats are even worse. Somehow they believe - contrary to the most basic laws of economics - that they can tax and spend our country into prosperity. But this is the unshakeable religious belief of socialists like Obama, Clinton, et. al, whereby despite trillions spent on failed "social" programs, their "solution" is to spend more on these failed programs that have a dismal 40 year record of failure.
Reality never intrudes into their fantasy world.
John Alexander, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
I find it humorous how you paint such a bleak picture of false hope and fear and act as if there isnt a canidate who stands apart from the rest.
ron paul.
not even mentioning him does nothing more than add to the fear that the canidates you mentioned are all we have to choose from.
b neavs, chicago, il
The most astonishing, and frighteningly perceptive comment, i have recently heard was by the BBC presenter who said that electing Hillary Clinton would ensure that President George W Bush's policies would be continued for another four years..
B Bendixen, City Island, NY, USA
Shame on you! You don't even mention the one - and only - candidate that understands the world we live in.
I refer, ofcourse, to Ron Paul. He is the ONE person who could make a difference.
Richard Le Vieux, Chipinge, Zimbabwe
Andrew has a crush on Obama, that's all this is about.
Dan, Dearborn, USA, Michigan
Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are simply not electable, and should either Obama or Clinton become president, they will transform the USA into a police state.
If the Republicans are going to win the election they should nominate Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, all of whom are capable of winning a nationwide election.
A win for either Clinton or Obama is a victory for socialism.
Chris, London,
The republicans are not prepared to fight Obama and will fail in the attempt. Is thsthe same Andrew Sullivan who wrote in the Atlantic that Obama's real strength lies simply in the symbolism he, and his face, represents as leader of the free world. By electing him, the American people will show the world they are turning their backs on George Bush and all that he respresented.
Brent, Nova Scotia, Canada
Of all the candidates in the presidentail race it does not matter which of them wins, as long a the existing internal political process of the old administration is broken. The behind the scenes staff supporting the new president, and the enlightened thinkers there in, are the people who America should be voting for. The president is the mouthpiece and the best president will be the one who has the most knowledgeable, honest, creative and rational thinkers in its ranks, who work together as a team, to make the correct decision for its people and not just for one isolated money powerful group.
Jim Wills, Brisbane, Australia
The notion of fear is particularly apropos as bereft of ideas and concrete plans following the Tora Bora debacle, the Bush 43 administration and Karly Rove leveraged fear into a second term...along with the woodeness of John Kerry.
John McCain and Barack Obama each have a special tether with a land of hope. Hope and fortitude somehow carried McCain through those long nights and days in the Hanoi Hilton, and have allowed him to perservier as a maverick in the GOP party.
Obama grew up realizing that the US remains a beacon of hope and opportunity for its citizens and the world. He became the first African-American to be selected President of the Harvard Law Review.
As for experience, Hillary and Obama and Edwards are/were marginal junior Senators, pushing through only 1 or 2 pieces of legislation of their own. First lady provides little more experience that W received as son of the VP and POTUS for 12 years.
John Lawler, College Station, USA/Texas
Your assessment of Mike Huckabee is a fair one although I don't see him as clueless on foreign policy as his comments this past week might indicate, evidenced by his foreign policy speech last September. His foreign policy experience is no lesser than Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton when they took office, and I believe he would assemble a very capable team of diplomatic and military professionals.
What has struck me about Mike Huckabee and has secured my vote for him is not only his steadfastness on socially conservative issues like abortion and traditional marriage, but his populist policies on education, healthcare and the "fair tax" proposal. Governor Huckabee has a proven record of his concern for lower and middle-class Americans.
I see him as a decent man, a gifted communicator and someone who would truly work with congress in a bipartisan way as America faces its challenges, foreign and domestic....something that is long overdue.
Paul, Palmdale, California
So the must likely GOP ticket looks like McCain-Huckabee.
On the Dem side it would be Edwards-Obama, but by the dynamics of the Dem race, probably a Clinton-X ticket with X being someone who Clinton handpicks--not a competitor.
PaulD, Dallas,
Hope without experience is simply naivete. Fear without strength is simply defeatism.
Obama displays hope without experience and is too naive for the presidency. Republicans like him because he will be easier to beat without any real response to the charge of "inexperience".
In the paradigm between hope and fear, Clinton is the best choice among democrats showing the experience and the strength to lead while at the same time demonstrating through actions and not just words the kind of hope and progressivism that the country needs.
Ralph, LA, California
Lord Andrew step away from the bong. Give yourself a few days to clear your head and look around. "Hoping" the Islamofascists leave us alone is not only simplistic and illogical, it's dangerous. And while I'd vote for McCain, I'm conservative, he's not, it'd be holding my nose.
The dems are hopeless, all of them. And Edwards "uplifting message" of 2004??? Are you nuts? It was class envy played out in spades. To this day, they continue to say the overthrow of Saddam was a mistake. Hopeless.
On my side the one man that gets everything is Fred Thompson. Maybe you like to live in a world where your candidates speak in nothing but vacuous platitudes, I don't. You may call it the politics of fear, I call it realism when Fred is speaking.
Obama says SS only needs a little tweaking, that we should invade Pakistan, raise taxes, kill vouchers. He screams lightweight.
McCain might do well in NH but there's a lot of conservatives with long memories. He hasn't got a prayer
Michael Mattei, Golden, CO/USA
I too would be most happy with a McCain - Obama general election race. But then, in 2000, I eagerly longed for a McCain - Bradley race and got neither, so I know that vision and substance don't rule the day with many primary voters. But maybe, just maybe, 2008 will be different. Let's hope so. If not, then 2008 needs to be the year of the credible 3rd party candidate.
Zooter, Maryville, USA / Tennessee
Sullivan's take on the American political scene is, as usual, a hoot. We are still in the run up to Iowa, and not a single primary has taken place, and yet he has the likely nominees figured out? He and other Europeans should calm down. However, I tend to agree with him when he implies that the American political contest discourages hope in those who look to the US for leadership.
His Obama take, in particular, is quite wrong and strongly suggests that he has been listening to too many liberals here of the kind that fall for Obama-style idealism every time. If Mr. bama were not sounding like the Good Humor Man coming down the street he would not even have a place in this contest. Mr. Sullivan and his fellow European journalists should open their collective minds to to the possibility that they have a great deal more to learn about the American politics, not to mention everything else American.
Dave, Katy, Texas
Some countries take their elections very seriously. The unfortunate assassination of Bhutto and the savvy manipulation of the constitution by Putin to keep him in power are examples of the lengths some nations will go in search of power. Kibaki, the incumbent President of Kenya has sensed defeat in the elections and is currently using every tool in his power to frustrate the electorates will.
Unlike US rallies which boast a few hundred attendees, Africans and Asians mob their candidate's rallies by the hundreds of thousands. They are very passionate about their leaders and view elections as personal victories and vendettas; therefore when fraud is detected, they let the officials feel their wrath.
The US electorate should follow suite and fire leaders who don't deliver. The Kenyans voted out more than 20 cabinet ministers who didn’t deliver their promises.
We should vote out our “Do Nothing Congress†for failure to deliver.
www.capitalpoliticking.com
Gapevine Daily, Lagrange, Ohio
Yeah I hope to win the lottery some day, but i wouldn't waste my vote based on a possiblity or a game of chance, not when my country is at war, the middle east is on the brink and the economic situation is bleak. Politics is not a game of chance, not for rational adults.
s.b., agoura hills, calif.
Nonsense. Anyone who thinks addressing the very real problems facing our nation, and offering adult solutions is catering to "fear" needs to grow the heck up.
I am very disappointed in you, Mr. Sullivan. You sound like a child talking about Santa bringing you a winged sparkly pony, as does your candidate, Mr. Obama.
I'd like a grownup in the Whitehouse, please, not a media rockstar. Clinton, Edwards, or Biden are fine with me.
MPul, San Antonio, TX
It is easy to vote for a vision when the specifics are spelled out. It is easy to vote for hope and believing in people, as Obama says, than deal with the specifics. Why wouldn't most people vote for hope and change since those words can encompass so many different and oft time conflicting perspectives.
New? Change? How? Obama speaks rhetorically; Clinton speaks more authoritatively and knowledgably than any of the candidates. Obama speaks poetry; Clinton speaks prose, but are we going to go for style over substance.... again!
If we are serious about change, then we need someone who knows how to implement the changes. If the president is to succeed making changes, then he or she will need to be able to stand up to the inevitable foes. There is nothing in Obama's record, campaign style, or speeches which demonstrates he can do this. As you know, he voted "present" or abstained on many votes.
I would rather see change than continue to hope for it.
Betsy Pugh, New York,
No candidate will get rid of the welfare state so what's the point? Any candidate that calls for the end of welfare and reinstates earned property rights will get my vote.
The working-class Republicans and parasite-class Democrats both want power and money. America will fall as do all Democracies from internal parasitisms.
Mark, Virginia, USA
Mr. Sullivan- I am a great fan of your blog and up till this campaign , your political sensibility;-) I think that characterizing this election as a struggle between hope and fear, optimism and pessimism is completely missing the plot. This is a campaign in which the dominant narrative has been between fantasy and reality.
These notions of John McCain as progressive, Barack Obama as the great revolution, John Edwards as a Populist and Hillary Clinton as the candidate of fear are basically the fantasies of the US media and its self-serving coverage of this extremely important event. As one of its most ardent pundits, I would expect no more from you than a grazing of policy and buffet of banale character assasinations. The fact that you don't even mention the Republican you endorsed, Ron Paul, speaks volumes to your willingness to engage in reporting only on the horse race and not on the substance of the event.
Terence Kiff, London, UK
I certaininly understand your explainations of all the fear candidates. But I didn't see one mention of the one and only true peace and hope candidate...It just seems to be a shame that you of all people failed to mention you earlier endorsement of RON PAUL.
SSG Bernard D Tynan USA ret, Appleton, WI, USA
" Republican party remade by George Bush and Karl Rove as a religious movement"? That's really overstating it -- religious conservatives were as important to the GOP under Regean as they were under Bush. Further, if you read Bill Clinton's speechs, he invoked religion almost as much as Bush did.
Richard Head, Seattle, USA
Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope. His hope is about his candidacy.
MG1220, Spartanburg, SC
Two sent off in Arsenal romp is a bigger story than the tragic passing of Phil O'Donnel yesterday? The Times is apparently alone in this view with The Guardian and BBC both giving the Motherwell story top billing.
Some things are more important than football results.
David Suttie, Hama, South Korea
I would prefer Obama to Hillary tho' I would rather the GOP wins.
Note, we're not afraid of illegal immigrants, just fed up that successive Administrations did nothing to enforce the laws so now we have a nearly insoluble problem unless you think it fair to reward illegality and thus spit in the face of those patiently doing it the lawful way.
Stan_Expat, Texas, USA
Barack Obama never attended a madrasah in Indonesia. He went to a Catholic school and then a Muslim-majority public school.
Trish Anderton, Jakarta, Indonesia
It's always a pleasure to read Andrew Sullivan's pieces as usual. I do look forward to it. I think, Obama will win in Iowa and then go on to take NH and SC. Get used to saying 'President Obama' guys.
Sam Halston, Kansas, USA, Middx