Both candidates for the U.S. presidency have portrayed themselves as transcending politics as usual, tacitly admitting the venality of the republic. Nonetheless, the actual conduct of their campaigns has shown that Senators McCain and Obama are creatures of the Washington establishment and Chicago political machine, respectively, and will do little to change their parties’ tactics or policies in anything but the superficial.
Sen. Obama began showing his true colors after the primaries against Hillary Clinton. Posturing as an agent of radical change and appealing to pacifists, he had long advocated for withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months. In his debate with Clinton before the Pennsylvania primary, he answered affirmatively to whether he would give a “rock-hard pledge” to withdraw in that time frame, regardless of what military commanders recommended, “Because the commander-in chief sets the mission.” Once the nomination was sealed, however, Obama backtracked, saying in July he would “refine” his policies based on conditions on the ground as reported by commanders. Hedging his bets, he clarified his clarification, with such nuance that no one can confidently claim he would withdraw sooner than McCain, as both make withdrawal contingent on unpredicable security conditions.
Obama is just another establishment imperialist, who merely disagrees with the strategy, but not the goal of U.S. hegemony. He would withdraw from Iraq only to fortify Afghanistan, and would even invade Pakistan without its consent, effectively embracing the Bush doctrine.
Sen. McCain, it may be argued, began his transformation as early as two years ago, voting in closer alignment with the Bush administration, and passing an opportunity to illegalize waterboarding. He increasingly emphasized his pro-life stance in the primaries, while in the general election he calls himself a maverick, an apode better fitting when given by others. His campaign received a jolt when he chose the unheralded governor of Alaska as his running mate, in what seemed a shameless affirmative action choice designed to garner female votes. This perception has not abated, as Gov. Palin has proven astoundingly inept at addressing basic policy questions intelligently, thoroughly undermining the Republican claim of superior judgment and experience.
Obama, for his part, strengthened his ticket but weakened his credibility as an anti-establishment reformer by selecting the well-entrenched, loquacious politico Joe Biden. Sen. Biden, who not long ago championed the partition of Iraq, brings a dubious sort of foreign policy experience to the table. The selection of Biden makes clear that Obama is just another Democrat, not a post-partisan messiah, as should be evident from his voting record and his proposed domestic policies.
The belief that we have entered a new era of politics is based on platitudinous slogans and a literally skin-deep distinction from previous candidates. If Senator Obama were white, how many people would think he is a different sort of Democrat, on the basis of his policies? If Senator Palin were a man, who in their right mind would consider her (him) as a VP candidate? For all the talk of sexism and racism, it is clear that two of the candidates have benefited from their “underrepresented” status, even if they might pay a penalty in the final election. The important point here is that there has been no sea change in party positions or tactics since the Bush-Kerry campaign of 2004. Some say McCain is not fit to lead a 21st-century America – such a criticism presumes that there is anything really different about 21st-century politics, compared with the late 20th century. We have some new gadgets, better computers and telecommunications; our demons are Muslims instead of Communists; but the same old thought processes, allegiances and tactics persist.
N.B.: As an academic point, McCain was correct in his distinction between “strategy” and “tactics” in the first debate, according to military usage. Strategy involves large-scale force movement and campaign planning, while tactics is combat movement on the small-scale, brigade level. Obama followed a common English usage of these terms, using “strategy” to refer to a grand objective, while “tactics” are the means by which an objective is pursued.