"Above politics"
(the apolitical nature of non-partisan political endorsements)

In my long discussion of the Michael Smerconish endorsement yesterday, I should have made it more clear that in terms of the big picture, Michael Smerconish is what film gangster Hyman Roth would call "small potatoes."

Most ordinary middle class people -- especially the undecideds who don't read newspaper pundits (much less blogs) -- have no idea who Michael Smerconish or Chistopher Buckley are is, nor do they care one bit about whether these to-them obscure figures are "betraying their conservative principles." And even if by chance they happened upon a discussion of them somewhere, they wouldn't be persuaded of anything one way or another. The antics of the partisan political punditry mean very little to that 51% of the country who don't know that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

This is not to say that the undecideds and the uninformed are necessarily members of the same class; only that the defections of people like Buckley and Smerconish can't be expected to change many minds in a way that will have much effect on the election.

However, the last minute endorsements of Barack Obama by Colin Powell and Ben Bernanke might. The timing resembles a one-two punch, and while I can't prove that this was deliberately orchestrated, these men share a reputation of being "above politics."

That Powell's endorsement appears to be a crassly political, finger-to-the-wind move on close analysis is beside the point. So is the fact that the Federal Reserve is supposed to be non-political.

As a move, the Powell-Bernanke one-two combination is brilliant. It fits perfectly with David Axelrod's strategy (characterized by TNR's Jason Zengerle) of "third-party authentication." Moreover, there's no hard evidence that this was deliberately orchestrated, and it might not have been. After all, the poll numbers are there, and the election is so close that the victory of Obama appears to be a certainty. So endorsing him is seen as a relatively safe no-brainer.

Above all, the endorsements of Powell and Bernanke are likely to be seen as reassuring. Because these men are respected. And above politics.

Call me a cynical contrarian, but life has taught me to be suspicious about anything that's supposed to be reassuring. It smacks of salesmanship, and I'm always suspicious of salesmen. Especially when they seem anxious to close a deal.

The problem with this particular "close" is that the reassuring message is rooted in the ethos of these two guys as being "above politics." Yet the fact of their last minute political endorsement demonstrates just the opposite.

If these guys were really above politics, they'd stay above politics.

Isn't partisanship bad enough? Must we be subjected to non-partisan partisanship?

posted by Eric on 10.22.08 at 10:08 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7522






Comments

Powell's endorsement seemed more to me to be the end of a very long political journey on the part of Powell than a sign of an impartial person stepping down from the mount to give a sign from on high.

But Bernanke? Is Ben Bernanke out of his friggin' mind? It is entirely possible that the Fed Chairman is the single most powerful person in the world when it comes to the world's economy--having Ben Bernanke appear to play favorites (regardless of who) seriously undermines the web of trust that makes up our economy. Because if the single most powerful person on the economy is taking political sides, how can we trust anything the man has to say about the economy moving forward?

If I were Barack Obama and I took the Presidency, I'd think Bernanke for his support--and seriously shop around for a more neutral replacement in 2010.

William Woody   ·  October 22, 2008 12:49 PM

Bernanke?

According to a lot of people he just got permission to use 700 bn of their money to prop up bankers and stock brokers. Not exactly the most popular people in America these days.

M. Simon   ·  October 22, 2008 01:46 PM

It would be interesting if one could see the investment portfolios of some of these "Uncle Daves" (as I call them, after David Brooks) and see if they have put their money where there mouths are. If they're investing in precious metals, Swiss francs, and the usual protect-yourself-from-socialism things, they're hypocrites. Christopher Buckley will be safely in Gstaad when the socialist chickens come home to roost.

Bilwick   ·  October 22, 2008 05:01 PM

I always assumed some of these crossover endorsements were just bought. Either directly with cash or with the promise of a neat job for the endorser or a relative.

The Obama campaign is apparently spending nearly a billion dollars and McCain is certainly spending what he can get.

So why wouldn't there be money to keep a stream of endorsements in the news. Two or three a week at the end of the campaign?

Yet in five decades of watching the political news I have never seen a single allegation about buying endorsements. I can't recall a word on the topic. It proves nothing but seems curious.

K   ·  October 23, 2008 12:21 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



October 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits