Metacommentary: Strategy and Tactics

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this primary season is the different ways in which the candidates are making their cases. The overarching narrative of this contest has been experience vs judgment, but there's another contrast that Keith Olberman's biting critique of Hillary's campaigning provides an opening to discuss, namely that between strategy and tactics. 

For the purposes of this discussion, let's agree to define strategy as a systematic approach to a series of contests with the aim of achieving a larger goal. Tactics, in contrast, is understood to be a series of maneuvers with a more immediate aim. In military terms, we would refer to a flanking maneuver as a tactic, while a bombing campaign aimed at destroying an enemy's industrial capabilities would fit under the strategy heading.

Returning to the subject at hand, one of the most illuminating differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that Barack frames his candidacy in strategic terms, while Hillary is much more focused on the tactical issues. 

To wit, Hillary's campaign message of experience and "being a fighter" essentially expresses the idea that "she'll do whatever it takes to win [for you]." However appealing that idea may be in a general election, when she applies that same approach to a candidate from the same party it provokes a negative reaction, especially when the outcome of the contest is still in doubt. In other words, the "you" is very important. If "you" is understood to be the entire Democratic Party, then I don't think there's a problem. However, the content of her tactics--Shaheen, Ferraro, et al--is pretty clearly aimed at those segments of the electorate that she thinks are winnable at the expense of those that she has foreclosed on. 

I think her message is certainly viable in a general election when the objective conditions surrounding a campaign aren't severely tilted in favor of one party or the other. I'll get into why I think her brand of politics is particularly ill-suited to this campaign a little bit later. 

Obama's message is fundamentally a strategic one. His schtick about Reagan and Bill Clinton serves to highlight the strategic successes of the former and the failures of the latter. Briefly, the sense of malaise surrounding the Carter administration allowed Reagan to lock in a group of voters--the much touted "Reagan Democrats"--into a Republican coalition that also tapped the evangelical Christians for votes. In contrast, Clinton's indiscretions shattered the small coalition he had and emboldened (yes, we can use that word too) his opponents while [speculation] the economic boom enabled a dialogue that was more about character and principles than bread and butter issues. 

With that in mind, Obama is making the case that we're in another period of profound national distress. A pervasive sense of malaise has detached people from the Republican coalition and alienated a great many young people who are tired of the results produced by "the same old politics." He thinks that the Democrats can bring these disaffected voters into the party and keep them there, creating the sort of robust coalition that enabled the Republican victories during the 80's and 00's. To reiterate, that's a strategic argument about the way in which the Democrats can best lay the groundwork for future victories, but it may be a bit too "inside baseball" for Democratic voters experiencing acute economic hardship. 

I find Obama's claims both more interesting and worth the gamble. Whatever Ferraro may want to believe, Obama's race negatively impacts his candidacy. Take a look at the difference between the way Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright and Reverend "The US exists to destroy Islam" Hagee were covered in the press. The expectation is that he'll be unable to sway white working class voters in OH and PA in part because of his race and the "trickle up" nature of his candidacy. In other words, the conventional wisdom is that he'll prove the Onion right once again.

Now, returning to Hillary for a moment, I think the real issue with her approach to securing the nomination is that on everything save healthcare, she's committed to attacking Obama from the right. I really wonder how this is going to play out in the weeks to come. If it appears to pay electoral dividends, there's no reason to think she'll abandon it. However, I think the Democratic party is still pretty enraged by the comprehensive idiocy surrounding the Bush administration, so I don't know how much tolerance they'll have for that sort of tactic. On the other hand, that may not matter. If the party is fragmented enough, any backlash will diffuse enough to be irrelevant. It's also unclear whether the voting public will eventually reach a "if it talks like a duck" moment. It's a pretty perilous path she's treading, and I'm not sold on the idea that it will produce the outcomes she wants.