The conventional wisdom was that McCain needed to “take it to Obama.” McCain even signaled that he’d take the gloves off. But Obama swung first and was, in many ways, the more aggressive of the two. I’m not sure what to make of that.
1) I’m hearing a lot of people saying that McCain was more aggressive. I don’t think that’s true. I think his demeanor was more aggressive, and his attacks (with one exception) more personal, and that’s an important difference. It hurt McCain last time.
2) The McCain campaign’s attempt at a “game changer” was clearly the proposal to have the government refinance mortgages. Stop and think about that for a moment, and what it says about the “Republican Revolution.”
3) I thought that McCain narrowly won the last debate, and I turned out to be in the minority. My sense this time is that Obama did better than McCain, and that this is how the public at large will react as well. I’m a former debater and debate coach, but I can’t really put my finger on why I think this debate may turn out to be very bad for McCain. Obviously, comments like “that one” are going to hurt him. But something about the whole tenor of the debate played into the existing narratives about the two: that Obama is steady and articulate, and that McCain is struggling and, well, losing.
…. On further reflection, I’m still stuck on the second point. So, let me get this straight: the candidate of the Republican party just tried to “change the game” by proposing to socialize mortgages?
The Republican Revolution might not be dead, but it’s definitely on life support.
Image source: KDRV
Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.
He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.
He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.
0 Comments