Joining the Chess Club: Post-Obama Campaigning

The purpose of political parties is to allow generally like-minded people to multiply their influence over their government by electing public officials that share their views. Unlike other countries which have a number of parties sustained by coalitions and disciplined participation in parliamentary governments, American politics has traditionally been a contest of two major political parties with floating identification. As much as half the American electorate has no stable party identification.

The '08 election cycle was a disaster for the Republican Party for a number of reasons. It lost the White House, 21 House seats, and perhaps 8 Senate seats.

Where did it go wrong? One can argue about the candidates, or strategy, or campaign execution, or how the party was overwhelmed by superior resources, especially cash, or media bias, or how the economy collapsed. And each aspect has its contribution to the defeat. And the seeds of both victory and defeat were planted long before the national campaign was joined.

The Democrat primary struggle between Clinton and Obama offers a case study between two modern political campaigns. Clinton’s was the more traditional, driven by issues and depending on the power of groups and endorsements backed by a web site to win the vote. Obama’s campaign was less traditional, carried by open concepts and aspirations rather than specific issues, with more innovative applications of simple tech to create and nurture a supporting social network instead of contributor or voter lists.

Ultimately it proved difficult to seal the deal against the Clinton campaign, backed by a legendary traditional-but-innovative machine. Nonetheless, the machine was defeated, and I suggest “social proof” carried Obama over the finish. As hard as Clinton tried to paint him as risky, unproven, or inexperienced, Obama’s social network, the “movement” for hope and change, held together. It was hip, cool and bordering on the historic – redemption for many years of racial discrimination, a final banishment of racial distrust, proof of one’s entry into post-racial America, a cathartic national kumbaya - and one had to believe to belong.

Traditional conservative pols apparently cannot grasp that the world and voting values have morphed over the past several years. Young Americans, those under 40, simply live in a safe, multicultural, politically correct and “green” world, surrounded by technology and comfortably so because it’s their life’s environment, from playthings to personal implement. They wear bike helmets and seatbelts, arrange designated drivers, have minority friends and a vocabulary devoid of ethnic slurs, and recycle. "Rocking the Vote” is what they do, whatever it is. And off-shore oil drilling in the United States has always been prohibited because it endangers the environment – discussion closed. Those may be naïve views, but generally the point of view of voting America.

So, how does conservatism thrive in this environment? More thoughts tomorrow.