The Right Word
Jeremy GayedMark Twain once said, “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” Throughout the history of American presidential elections, a pattern often repeats. At some point prior to election day, one candidate finds “the right word”–the powerful combination of idea and expression that strikes a resonating note with America, and carries the candidate to victory.
In 1980, weeks before the election, underdog Ronald Reagan asked Americans, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The question was the “right word”–it struck the American consciousness like lightning, encapsulating their frustration with the Carter presidency and turning the tide of the election.
In 1988, Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, seeking to overcome public perception that he was weak on defense issues, had himself photographed riding in a tank. In the picture he publicized, he looked ill-at-ease and out of place in the vehicle. His demeanor raised a spectre of pomp and incompetence. The image was the right (or wrong) word, capturing perfectly the essence of the Republican argument that Dukakis was an unsuitable commander-in-chief. George H.W. Bush went on to win in a landslide.
As the 2008 general election moves into full swing, one candidate may have found the “right word.” Remarkably, that candidate is not the gifted orator Barack Obama, but the crodgedy, wooden, teleprompter-reader John McCain.
That word is not about the war in Iraq. It is not about NAFTA. It is not about the invidious identity politics the Obama campaign seeks to benefit from even as it disclaims. It is, instead, about the most fundamental economic issue of this century: energy.
The primacy of cheap portable energy to the American economy is the subject of another essay. For the purposes of this essay, suffice to say that cheap, portable energy is absolutely essential to American life. Without it, America’s incredible standard of living, such that even the poorest are not truly destitute, will collapse. Even Americans who don’t study the relationship between energy and the economy understand the importance of the issue–they feel the connection in their wallets and in their bones. As the price of oil rises, the price of the American lifestyle rises, many Americans feel intuitively that their very way of life is, for the first time in memory, threatened.
And it is on this most critical of issues that Obama and McCain most clearly diverge in their positions. Obama has, with his typical oratorical skill, made a series of proclomations on the issue. He has accused oil companies of reaping “indecent” profits. He has advocated greater investments in renewable energy. He has even suggested a communistic redistribution of wealth from oil companies to individuals. But he has remained opposed to opening up America’s coastal shelf and Alaskan wilderness to drilling. Obama claims that more drilling is a chimera that won’t help anyone for five to ten years.
McCain has responded with a simple message: “Drill here, drill now.” The public response has been overwhelmingly positive. This is the “right word.” It makes intuitive sense–no matter what the long-term answer to our energy problems, the short-term answer ought to include taking advantage of whatever resources we have. If significant amounts of oil exist in the coastal shelf, most Americans don’t see any good reason why we shouldn’t drill for it. Even if it takes five to ten years to start extracting this oil, better to have help in five years than none at all. McCain’s support for drilling has perched him securely atop a tidal wave of popular approval. People both undertand his position, and understand the importance of the issue.
The effect of McCain’s “right word” has been dramatic. Only a week after Obama’s triumphant European tour, he has lost approximately ten points against McCain in every major election poll. For the first time in the election, McCain leads in the polls. McCain specifically leads in battleground states such as Florda, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
At first blush, it seems nearly incomprehensible that a man associated with George W. Bush, one of the most unpopular presidents in history, from the currently demonized Republican party, could be running ahead of a young, handsome, popular, charismatic, talented, messianic, media-favored Democratic candidate. But that is the power of the right word.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Can you show me some evidence that energy is the make-or-break issue in the swing states?
When you say…
‘The effect of McCain’s “right word” has been dramatic. Only a week after Obama’s triumphant European tour, he has lost approximately ten points against McCain in every major election poll. For the first time in the election, McCain leads in the polls. McCain specifically leads in battleground states such as Florda, Ohio, and Pennsylvania’
…my spurious-relationship-dar goes flying off without some cold hard data.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Great call, Tom. You caught me–I’m speculating, not concluding. But I’m willing to wager that next 3 months will bear me out.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Jeremy
Thank god liberals are wedded to such stupid ideas as nominating liberal senators for the presidency or they might actually obtain the office that the Republicans have tried so hard to give them. However, I’m not ready to attribute McCain’s recent rise in the polls to his drill here, drill now philosophy.
Obama’s cavorting around in Europe only to be treated to a decline in the polls brings back fond memories of the 2004 elections. As you remember, in that election, the UK paper, the Manchester Guardian, had the brilliant idea for its readers to send letters to citizens of Clark County, Ohio, where Gore had won a narrow victory in 2004. In liberal-world, this was a foolproof plan with no apparent flaws (it must be quite something to live in that world). The end result, for those of us from Planet Sane, was all too predictable. Kerry won every county in Ohio that Gore had won, even increasing Gore’s vote totals in some, EXCEPT Clark County. The rest, as they say, is history.
The Republicans have won the last three Presidential candidates (Bush 41, Bush 43(2)), not because they had a Ronald Reagan type candidate, but because the Democrats insist upon shooting themselves in the foot, and then using that foot to step on their own you know whats. And I think I’d take either Bush (as for W, that’s 2000 Bush or 2004 Bush, not 2008 Bush) as a candidate over McCain.
To conclude, I hope you’re right that people are listening to McCain. My speculation is that the people who are impressed by the effusive praise of France, the world’s [censored by admin], are already voting for Obama. For the rest of the population, people are already wary of Obama and it going to Europe in the middle of an election year to somehow obtain their blessing is not helping his cause.
That being said, I hope I’m wrong and that people are listening to McCain, rather than the Democrats screwing up again.