in medias res

I’ve hesitated in writing this. Not because I feel I shouldn’t speak a word against McCain, but because I knew this thing was going to be a whopper. I haven’t much free time these days, and I wasn’t sure I wanted to invest a few hours in this topic right now. Typically, my more lengthy pieces have been small comments I knew I wanted to make that grew as I wrote them. Having mulled over and discussed the following for some time now, I knew this was not going to be a perfunctory post. However, I’ve promised this to several of you, and it’s high time. You can think of this as the I am not a Republican counterpart to my previous I am not a Democrat.

Ask any conservative and most Republicans if they’re excited about John McCain, and you’ll most likely hear a response that includes the name Sarah Palin. Ignoring the liberal smears, it seems picking Palin as his running mate was the most conservative thing he’s done in a while. He certainly is a maverick, but it’s not reason enough for conservatives to love him. The forced appreciation so many of us feel is really because he’s not the other guy, and the other guy is a really bad option. Like so many elections before it, this one’s come down to the lesser of two evils.

First off, McCain wasn’t selected as nominee because conservatism is dead in America or in the Republican Party. To the contrary, McCain was the only moderate running for the Republican ticket, and the other candidates got to slice up the conservative vote. Not that most of the other candidates were shining examples of conservatism, but in the end there was no single group of conservatives that backed one candidate more than the moderates backed McCain.

Now McCain is the only viable option to heading off an Obama Presidency. (I’m really not interested in discussing the virtues of Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, or Ron Paul.) The problem we’ve got is that McCain isn’t nearly as good at pretending he’s a conservative as Obama is at pretending he’s a centrist. He’ll preach about reducing the size of government, and in the same speech talk about the need for the government to buy up a load of bad mortgages from banks and let people renegotiate their principle. That. Is. Asinine. It’s about as Big Government as you’re going to get, and even those less adept at economic theory can feel how wrong that sounds. Obama is a socialist — no doubt about it — but McCain flirts with it far too much for my comfort. Then during the final debate, there’s this beaut: ”I would fight for a line item veto.” Hmm. More presidential power, sounds like a fantastic idea. That lines right up with the core tenants of conservatism.

Not only is it disheartening to dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, the tension that necessarily flows from his inconsistent message drives away the undecided voter. Let’s be honest, anyone who is undecided at this point is just now tuning in. They don’t study politics or follow the happenings of this political cycle, and they’re probably not too interested in details or policy. Their decisions are based on impressions, feeling, and emotion. I’ll be honest, if I turn off the logical center of my brain and just watch Obama speak, he makes me feel good, too. There are YouTube clips of Obama really biting it on stage at a rally here or there, but those just beginning to pay attention haven’t seen and won’t see that kind of thing. The Obama they see is the one from the debates — the cool, relaxed Teflon Obama who could calmly explain away a nasty habit of choking puppies if he had to, much to the satisfaction of his audience. McCain, on the other hand, certainly appears nervous in the debates. He shakes. And to the undecided voter who knows not of his injuries from torture, this looks like a confidence issue. It killed Nixon’s chances against Kennedy, and we’re seeing the same effect here in HD.

Perhaps McCain has some good, conservative ideas in there somewhere, but between his brain and his mouth things seem to get really mixed up. It’s hard to hear the message when words are constantly being mangled. ”Bresh of freth air… breath of fresh air.” And did I just hear him say that Palin’s son Trig has autism? Damn it, John.

Obama’s associations? I think they’re supremely important because they speak to his judgement and blind ambition. Pointing this out should not be McCain’s responsibility, but if he’s going to do it then he needs to get to the point and move on. McCain said he’d take it to Obama like his supporters have been begging him to do. Yet when Schaefer lobbed him a slow pitch, he said he wasn’t concerned about a washed-up terrorist. Fine McCain, we’re not either. We’re concerned about Obama’s judgement. That’s the point. Ultimately though, it doesn’t do a politician any good to run a campaign that repeats, “Look how bad that guy is.” If the point is to be made, it should be made by surrogates and supporters. A politician needs to be able to remain above the fray and focus positively on him or herself. When something potentially out of bounds is said about Obama, his surrogates respond vigorously. When the same occurs with McCain, he responds. It allows Obama to remain above board and appear to be tackling the issues. I’m-better-than-him lost John Kerry the 2004 election, and McCain is writing himself the same story on a different day.

To look at it more broadly, the Democrats and Obama are far more skilled in packaging their message into something understandable and excitable to the average, fairly uninformed voter in the specific given field. I think the Democrats’ short sighted plans and goals are fraught with disaster, a la the Community Reinvestment Act. I have come to this decision through careful study and investment in time spent educating myself. Most people are not political nerds, and most people will not invest such an inordinate amount of their time. In terms of public relations, the Democrats operate much more like a successful business by making it easy for the end user to understand and accept what they offer. They promise benefits. Great! Who doesn’t want that? What do I need to know to participate? Don’t you worry about that, we’ll take care of it. And you know those rich people you’re jealous of? They’ll be paying for it.

So while personal responsibility is a great core truth to conservative ideology, it doesn’t translate well for a political party vying for election. Your policies may be very good and your beliefs chock full of truth, but you can’t expect the public to simply take note, understand it, and vote accordingly. You have to sell your policies, and Republicans have mistakenly believed they are self-evident to the buyer.

Certainly there is considerable bias in the Democrat’s favor with the mainstream media, but Republicans need to learn that the media loves those that love the media. When disaster strikes and we look to the government, who are the first ones we see at the media podium? Always Democrats. The irony is that even if Republicans are still inside working to solve the problems, the first ones out the door and on TV are the Democrats, and the impression is that they are the ones working to solve the problem at hand. Perception is reality, and the Republicans’ PR wing has been asleep at the wheel. Republicans are far too slow to point out the failures of Democrat initiatives and almost never proclaim the successes of their own plans. The result? Again, perception is reality, and apparently we have the Democrats to thank for all things good, Republicans to blame for all things evil.

While I’m not sure the impetus for the invasion of Iraq was justified, the biggest failure of the War in Iraq hasn’t been anything that happened overseas. While focusing so intently on the war itself, the Republicans and George W. Bush forgot there was a capricious public back home that must be constantly reminded of the positives, progress, and righteous reasoning for us being there. A reminder during the State of the Union speech once a year just doesn’t cut it. If the Republicans weren’t up to the task of constantly speaking to the American people and the media regarding the war, the Democrats would gladly fill the timeslot. And they did.

Is this why I’m not a Republican? Not really. I’m not a Republican because the party only gives lip-service to conservatism these days. Sure, I wasn’t around for the golden ages, but I know enough history to understand the difference between now and then. In the last 8 years, the hope for small government and fiscal conservatism has gone out the window. I’m not interested in toeing the line for a political party or defending to the death any politician. I do not project my hopes and dreams on any government or its representative, for that would only be the request of a man for despair to take up residence in his home. Parties are only useful so far as they faithfully represent the will of their members and the desire for the good of the republic. It seems, unfortunately, that we must apply the words of Benjamin Franklin to political parties as well as politicians: “Politicians are a lot like diapers — they should be changed frequently and for the same reason.”