The central problem for both
candidates in the race, Republicans state Sen. Neil Riser and newcomer Vance McAllister, is to distinguish
themselves from each other as their announced conservative ideologies create
little policy distance between the pair. As the frontrunner from the start, various
opponents prior to the runoff tried two related strategies to contrast
themselves with Riser.
One was predicated on the
existence of large distaste for elected officials in general, or in practical
terms trying to paint Riser as some part of political establishment. The
problem was that Riser didn’t fit this profile well, having only been in office
a grand total of six years and prior to that and continuing being a successful
businessman. Thus only McAllister, an equally successful businessman who was unlike
the other major candidates who all had elected office experience, could get any
traction out of this strategy.
The other one attempted to strip
legitimacy from Riser’s quest by declaring some kind of cabal of state and
federal officials was steering Riser into the seat, implying Riser wore some
anti-democratic trappings to his politics which rendered him unsuitable for
election. This failed as well, not only because it insulted the electorate’s
intelligence by telling voters without enlightenment they were fools enough to
fall for this presumed conspiracy, but also because only the chattering classes
cared about whether Gov. Bobby
Jindal and others seemed to support Riser when a number of voters really
cared about whether the stars of the reality television show Duck Dynasty backed anybody.
McAllister succeeded here because
he did get assisted by that crew, which helped him raise the only substantial
money besides his own that he would use in the campaign that went into very few
specifics on issues. Thus, his second-place campaign succeeded as a combination
of (1) taking a few vague but widely popular positions such as a declaration of
being a conservative Christian and against big government, (2) declaring he was
a cool guy because he had no political experience and sensible celebrities (not
the Hollywood kind) liked him, and (3) throwing plenty of his own money out
there to get those messages recognized by a sufficient portion of the
electorate that would respond favorably to them.
Note by this course that
McAllister in a way tries to allow himself to square a circle. By presenting
himself as a conservative vessel, he leaves room within that superstructure to fill
it with anything he wants in an attempt to capture more votes even if it
deviates from conservatism. Further, he can attempt to make his audience ignore
inconsistencies in various elements in that vessel to do the same, hoping the
conservative-appearing vessel attracts a certain segment of voters while anything
specifically inconsistent with that inside appeals to a different set of
voters.
For example, a month ago
McAllister declared Congress should mend, not end, the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) in remarks
to an audience of activist Democrats. He then essentially repudiated those
remarks by claiming he was misquoted. Now he’s sliding
back to that initial position. Such equivocating leads to credible charges
that he is unprincipled and goes whichever way the wind blows just to get
elected – presumably the mark of Cain exhibited by all “career politicians” he
has taken pains to tell the world he is not.
But Riser can earn more political
capital than by just pointing out the inconsistency and contrasting it to a
consistent conservatism of his record. He can bring doubt onto the very aura of
conservatism McAllister has tried to project by asking him how exactly
Obamacare should be changed. For example, the crux of the entire law rests on
the individual mandate. Does McAllister’s mend-not-end philosophy therefore
means he accepts the notion that Americans should be taxed for not engaging in
commerce by not buying health insurance? Because you must accept that premise
if you think the law must be followed and must assent to its use as a policy
instrument. Presumably, if you do not, then you must work to repeal it, or else
you acquiesce to the expansion of government power over people’s lives.
It’s in ways like these that
Riser can sink a candidacy that already
has demographics going against it – avenues that exist only because what
McAllister thinks is his strength in his quest, being heretofore outside of the
politicians’ world, is in fact a weakness because his inexperience in the world
of politics and in understanding of political ideas and ideology put himself in
this strategically exposed position. In response, tacking more to the left
would be an even bigger mistake, because few non-conservatives will find him
credible after the general tone of his campaign up to this point has repudiated
that.
No comments:
Post a Comment