Joseph Lane: McCain’s Closing of the “Enthusiasm Gap” (Thanks to Palin)





[Joseph Lane is the Hawthorne Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Emory & Henry.]

“The Enthusiasm Gap” has become a pundit’s watchword in this campaign as two highly motivated camps of Democrats, each thrilled with their standard-bearer, each pouring out to the polls in unexpected numbers expanded the Democrats’ edge in voter identification to 10 points, the highest it has been since Watergate. On the other hand, John McCain struggled to galvanize his own party, and even though it was not widely discussed, continued to lose as much as 25% of the Republican primary vote in states that went to the polls long after his nomination was assured. Fulminators of unrest on the Right spoke of third party candidacies, Christian voter boycotts, and disappointment in the turn that the party had taken.

But all that has changed.

This morning the campaign announced that it planned to keep the McCain-Palin ticket campaigning together, foregoing the normal practice of splitting up to cover more ground. The campaign has all but admitted that they need to keep McCain close to Palin because it is Palin who is bringing out the adoring crowds, Palin who is attracting all the standing ovations, and Palin who is energizing volunteers to join the organization. Governor Sarah Palin, it appears, closed the “Enthusiasm Gap” for good and delivered Senator McCain a real chance at winning the general election. A scant two weeks ago McCain was decrying the idea that “celebrity” should drive presidential elections; now he has a celebrity, and he is going to play it up for all he can get from it.

Now the “Enthusiasm Gap” that we have to explain is the one within the Republican ticket. What does this surge of enthusiasm for Sarah Palin, enthusiasm that John McCain could never tap into alone, tell us about the Republican party? Was Bill Clinton wrong when he claimed that “The Republicans fall in line, but Democrats have to fall in love [with a presidential candidate]”? Are we seeing that Republicans are just as interested in swooning over the new kid in town as the Democrats?

Perhaps, but I think we are seeing something more: In the last several cycles, the Republican party has exhibited a split personality. On the one hand, its biggest trump card, fallback position, and basic raison d’etre has been its commitment to national security in an age of terror. It has beaten Democrats to the median voter by convincing “Security Moms” that its candidates are simply more committed to doing “whatever it takes” to ensure America’s security and that line of argument was advanced repeatedly in the Republican National Convention. As Rudy (who else?!) put it - those Democrats never mention September 11! If they won’t talk about that awful day or utter the words “Islamic terrorism,” they must not be up to the job of “keeping America safe.”

However, if you think that this commitment to a proactive, offensive posture in foreign and anti-terrorism policy is the reason for voting Republican, then John McCain was always the obvious choice. None of the other Republican candidates (sorry, Rudy!) had a longer or more vociferous record in pursuing this policy. Furthermore, McCain plausibly offered the benefits of being for the offensive against terror without the drawbacks of what he has repeatedly called the “mismanagement” of that offensive. Although his record on this score is not as great as he lets on (In 2003, he insisted that Iraq could be transformed by fewer than 100,000 troops and in only a year or two), he was as good as it gets.

And still the Republicans did not love him. Now, it appears, they do love Sarah Palin whose credentials on fighting terrorism and managing an offensive foreign policy are nonexistent. She has no record on these matters and the vain attempts to manufacture some by referring to her leadership of the Alaska National Guard (to which she has issued no orders) or her state’s proximity to Russia (which she has never visited) only draw more attention to how thin her record is. And yet, the most conservative Political Scientist whom I know, a man who is generally a staunch institutionalist, told me, “The best thing that could happen for the Republicans would be if McCain could just make it through a couple of years, show her the ropes, and get her up to the level of competence, and then he could pass away so that she could lead us into 2012 as President.” Apparently some of his fellows would go even farther, and they are openly wishing that it was a Palin-McCain ticket rather than the other way around. Surely Cheney has demonstrated that you can educate and guide a novice president from the second chair!

What all this means.

Ultimately, I think we can draw only one conclusion: Many of the Republicans in the base of the party never cared that much about the national security argument in the first place. It was not really what motivated them at all. The cultural arguments about abortion, obscenity in library books, the role of [Christian] religion in defining America, etc. These issues on which Sarah Palin is clearly right with the Right were the issues right from the start. The security issue is at best their second most earnest concern and at worst a card played to win over voters who are not sufficiently clear-minded about or galvanized by the morality issues. Watching the Republican base forget all of the best reasons to elect McCain in their eager desire to place Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the presidency leaves us with the serious doubts about just what they think about John McCain even now.

There is one other possibility that might be gleaned from the combination of the enthusiasm for Palin and the character of the shrillest, fringe, internet conspiracy attacks on Obama. Maybe, at least for some, the security issues and the cultural issues are actually the exact same issue. They can only conceive of and commit to a “war” between some Islamic terrorists and (mostly) Christian America if they see it as a war between Islam (as a religion) and Christianity (as their religion). In this context, Obama’s father’s religion really does indicate that he may be on the other side, and Sarah Palin’s comment before her old church that her son Track, headed for military deployment in Iraq, will be “on a task from God,” and that they should “pray that there is a plan, and that plan is God’s plan,” takes on such salience. Those who conceive of this “war” as a holy crusade must wonder, for all his military credentials and pro-offensive rhetoric, whether a man as secular as John McCain is a good choice to lead a religious crusade as a woman with no background save the right biblical principles. Do we want a faith-based foreign policy? Maybe the security moms will think twice about that one.


comments powered by Disqus