The other night a friend of mine was texting me while on his evening commute. Why do I think we’re being duped?, he asked. How is Obama going to be any different from Clinton when he’s appointing Clinton’s thugs to the White House? I can’t say that I didn’t think the same thing myself when they announced Rahm Emanuel as the next Chief of Staff, nor that I was surprised in the least. Still, we would be remiss to write off the election of Barack Obama as just another election, or even just by limiting its significance to the fact that America elected its first Black president. My take on it is that the Obama victory represents how the playbook of presidential races has been rewritten. Put another way: if you are still looking for what “change” will come with an Obama administration, you have already missed it. 

A little background. The Republicans have had an edge in running political campaigns ever since the 1960s. It began with the cultural revolution that was rejected by a substantial segment of American society and politicized by Republican nominee Barry Goldwater. The movement of breaking down barriers and cultural relativism that was a threat to many conservatives inspired a counter-movement (reactionary).  Struggling to adapt to the changing times and widen its political base, the Democratic Party largely accepted the new set of liberal values and created a coalition which included the anti-war movement, feminists, civil rights and environmental groups. By the time of Roe v. Wade some years later, the lines between conservative and liberal values had be drawn and a political playbook was developed that would remain the guide for Republicans for the next 30 years.

The effects of this coalition on the Democratic platform – and the public perception of those effects – were significant and far reaching. Though Jimmy Carter was very much a traditional conservative when it came to “family values,” his nuanced positions on Cold War dynamics, diplomacy and defense policy furthered the perception that liberals – in particular, Democrats – were weak on defense. The perception was that the Dems were hippies, representing a generation of a care-free, unaccountable culture that was naive in its view of foreign policy and forceful in its challenge of the country’s traditional values. That perception proved to be invaluable to Republicans for decades to come, as Nixon-era pols perfected their image marketing of the Republicans as strong and Democrats as weak when it came to representing the country’s values and protecting them from foreign and domestic threats. Carter’s passive personality and his uninspiring demeanor cemented that perception in place.  Reagan’s victory in 1980 was the natural result, and could not have come at any other time. 

From Reagan on, the lines between the two camps were being refined by the Republicans and the conservative interests that made up their base. Taking an aggressive tone, the debate was set on the conservatives’ terms. Jolted by Roe v. Wade, the Religious Right joined a powerful coalition of small government libertarians, defense hawks and pro-business interests. The Republicans were in a very strong position and used their enormous leverage to further perfect the marketing of Republican versus Democratic values. From that vantage point, they largely set the frame of debate for next 25 years and controlled the White House for all but eight of those years. And those eight years were presided over by the centrist Clinton who enacted welfare reform, NAFTA and several other conservative victories with a Republican Congress. 

Fast forward to the 2004 election. George W. Bush is an increasingly unpopular president. The country is unhappy with the state of the economy, and disapproves of both the Iraq War and executive overstepping in the so-called War on Terror. To most people, it seemed a no-brainer that Bush’s days were numbered. But not fully appreciating the larger context, Democratic primary voters chose John Kerry to be their nominee, thinking that this Vietnam Vet status and foreign policy credentials would catapult him into the White House. What they didn’t appreciate was that Kerry was the opponent preferred by the Republicans. To them, Kerry’s anti-war activities (complete with throwing back his Purple Hearts) made him the perfect poster boy for the hippie-era. Despite Kerry’s record as a war hero, he was repackaged as a limp-wristed liberal who represented 60s era radical politics and weak national defense. Because of that, America’s attention was drawn away from Bush’s current performance to Kerry’s past and Bush won with a three point margin, breaking the 51% threshold. 

Four years later, though Republicans were fearful of Hillary Clinton, it did not shake them up all that much. Though she was recognized to be a tough opponent who could actually win, like Kerry she represented 60s era politics and values. A loss to Clinton would be a temporary loss and not the end of the world for Republicans because the framework preferred by conservatives would still be in place.

With Obama, however, that was not the case.

Obama shook things up because he is not just a great communicator, he redefined the Dems in pre-60s terms. He reminded voters of John and Robert Kennedy, and the time before Democrats became the “weak” party.  He was able to do that effectively because he was not of the 60s era. He was commonly referred to as “post-partisan,” and recognized as the first Democratic candidate that could not be tied to the 60s. Add onto the ticket Joe Biden, who to many people represents the bare-knuckled Truman-era Democrat, and you have a fresh, highly marketable image of a “new” Democratic Party that was both pre- and post- 60s.

With Obama-Biden, the frame of debate would be reestablished and the Republicans would lose the messaging advantage they had for 30 years. Its is safe to say that had they expected the unlikely success of the Obama campaign over Clinton early on, they would have set out to destroy him on day one. 

Once it became clear the Obama was going to win the nomination, Republicans found themselves up against a wall. As a post-60s candidate, he could not be defined as they had wished to define him. So if Obama could not be directly defined in the preferred terms, they thought, maybe it could be accomplished indirectly by pushing his associations with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, the perfect poster children of 60s radicalism and anti-Americanism. Though the emphasis on Wright and Ayers seemed to be an act of desperation, it was actually part of a calculated and significant strategy. The hard-pipe hitters on the right hammered on this point right up until Election Day because they understood that it was their only hope not only of holding onto the White House but of retaining their ability to cast the Democrats in 60s terms. As it turned out, the economic conditions and poorly-run campaign of John McCain numbed the public to these concerns and, coupled with Obama’s approach and impressive campaign organization, Obama led the Democrats to sweep the elections. 

So despite the fact that an Obama administration and the new Democratic majorities in Congress will bring about minimal change when it comes to the fundamentals of how America works, a major change has already taken place. After 30 years, the debate has finally changed. The advantage that conservatives had in framing that debate has been destroyed. Sure, there are other factors – the economy, Sarah Palin, the national debt, corruption – that played a major role in bringing Obama a victory. But the subsequent change is a lot more than just having a Democrat in the White House again.

Aside from the Republicans trying to figure out how to recuperate, the only thing that remains to be determined is how effectively the Democrats and liberal interests can maintain the debate long-term. The fact that months ago the Obama campaign announced its initiative to train thousands of progressive community organizers for 2009 and beyond illustrates the fact that they understand the opportunity they have. Only time is going to tell how successful they are.  

Tags: election, obama