The GOP’s Future and Why McCain Really Lost

After a couple of days to think about it, clarity has set in.

McCain lost because Americans desire security and usually vote for the “steady hand.” In this election, Obama appeared to be the “steady hand.”

I used to put a lot of weight behind the idea that voters are moved primarily by ideology. Just get the ideological message right and the voters will respond. Sometimes they do respond "with their head" to such a message. But Obama’s background suggests that he has a fondness for a kind of radical socialism that is alien to Americans.

The McCain campaign tried to bring this out, but they failed. Why? Did it mean that McCain himself was not moderate enough? Does this mean that the country is really not a “center right” country after all, but a center-left country (as “Jed L” of the Daily Kos argues)?

No. In these uncertain times, Americans more than ever wanted stability and security. This is a very conservative impulse on their part. They looked at the two candidates and chose the steady hand. Obama appeared cool, collected, self-possessed, intelligent, mature, confident, and in every other way reasonable. McCain appeared impulsive, such as when he pledged to buy up all bad mortgages in response to that day’s headline, or when he suspended his campaign and flew back to Washington uninvited.

Americans just want to keep the jobs they have or recover the jobs they lost, and at the wage they have had. They want to keep their house. They want their children to have the same things they had (or have even more, if possible; but these days they would settle for “the same”). Investors want stability so they have no surprises in next year's economy. Everything seemed “ad hoc” with the McCain campaign, as if he were saying, “Let’s throw this against the wall and see if it sticks.” The whole “maverick” theme smacked of frenetic eccentricity, which is just another form of instability.

The public craved stability but voted for a radical. They did so because Obama did not in any way seem to be a radical to the voters. In Saul Alinsky fashion, he wisely avoided alarming anybody.

The voters are also quite accustomed to baseless negative ads and attacks. They discount these attacks as exaggerations, if not outright calumnies, unless they “resonate.” They only resonate when the attack matches what the public itself sees in the candidate. As Groucho Marx said, “Who are you going to believe; me, or your own lying eyes?” McCain could have said that this year. The voters believed their own eyes, and not the attacks. This year, the public SAW A VERY UN-RADICAL OBAMA WITH THEIR OWN EYES. They were not about to believe any discordant attack that labeled him as a radical.

The tragedy is that Obama actually is a radical. But an intellectual radical with a seemingly moderate temperament.

The same thing happened in 1932, as Amity Shlaes describes in her book, The Forgotten Man. In response to the widening depression, Franklin Roosevelt pledged “bold, persistent experimentation,” which turned out to be a recipe for instability. The business community wanted stability. They would not risk precious capital in an atmosphere of uncertainty. Uncertainty is disruptive of the calculations that are needed before capital is risked. But FDR was such a reassuring and reasonable-appearing father figure that he exuded security and stability. “He was good on TV after the crash,” as Joe Biden might say.

The result was a depression that lasted an entire decade, as opposed to a severe but short-lived panic. Herbert Hoover (“Wonderboy” as Calvin Coolidge called him), was also a bold and persistent experimenter, having been a brilliant engineer and administrator. But with his priggish personality he had not reassured the public, nor had his tinkering provided the stability the markets needed, even if that tinkering had been in the right direction (which it had not been).

What the Republican Party needs next time is the same thing the Democratic Party always needs. It’s the same thing every party always needs. The answer is not to run to the center. It is not to throw Sarah Palin under the bus. It is not to purge either the intellectuals or the anti-intellectuals, the conservatives or the moderates, from the party.

The answer is to nominate a strong, mature, reassuring, cool, self-confident, reasonable, candidate. Ideology is important, but it is important as part of the candidate's formation and growth. It comes out but is more in the background during the campaign. What the public wants to see most is a grownup as the White House's next occupant.

FDR was a father figure. Reagan was a father figure. Clinton, despite his faults, came off as a reasonable, regular guy – a “fun dad” – the opposite of nervous and frenetic. Bush was a happy and reassuring Texan, quite likeable at first, and another fun dad. But then his administration became secretive (we don’t like an insecure dad who buries himself in the paper and ignores us). Carter was the regular guy from Georgia. Once in a while we elect a genius – Wilson or Hoover or Nixon -- because of their resume or their apparent cerebral competence (the "smart dad" who can help you with your homework). But the result is not always happy. Usually we want dad to love us and take care of us. This year Obama was dad, despite his youth. When we were little, our dads were young too.

Obama is a radical. The markets will not be reassured. Obama may even desire this instability because he can then more easily implement his ideas to a desperate nation. He can blame the chaos on Bush as FDR blamed Hoover. A guy who looks like he'd be a good dad might turn out to be a deadbeat dad. Just ask a single mom.

Will business risk capital in this atmosphere? If not, where will the recovery come from? Not from government, which gets it’s funding from the private sector. Why are the banks sitting on cash and not lending as they’re supposed to? GM won’t expand; they’re looking for a bailout themselves.

"Brother, can you spare a dime?"