I remember 1988 well–a dismal campaign, which Robin Toner recounts well here. But there is an essential difference between this year and that one–there are huge issues at stake this year. In 1988, Reagan was coming off a period of low poll ratings because of the Iran-Contra scandal, but he was, essentially, a popular President, enjoying a good economy. This year, we have a historically dreadful incumbent President, who has made the most grievous errors overseas of any American President and who is presiding over a bad-to-iffy economy. There will be enormous policy differences between the Democratic nominee and John McCain in the fall.
So why are we getting all this frantic low-information signaling and skeezy character assassination in the Democratic primary? Because that’s what happens in an election where there are no huge policy differences between the combatants–it turns on character, personality and trivia. Whatever you think of them, Clinton and Obama agree on most matters of substance.
My guess the tone will shift as soon as the Democrats get a nominee. Iraq will be a huge issue. Bush’s economic policies–tax cuts for the wealthy, the slavish devotion to the interests of oil companies–will be huge issues. No doubt, there will be trivial pursuits. There always are. But they are more likely to be kept in perspective in an election where Iraq and the economy (and, I hope, the environment) take center stage.
If you’re looking for an electoral analogy, try 1980–a year when lots of Democrats jumped ship, tired of the party’s post-Vietnam ennui. Back then, I saw lots of Dems showing up at Republican meetings…just as I’ve seen lots of Republicans showing up at Democratic meetings this year. The general election that year, between Carter and Reagan, presented real policy choices to the public. This can, and should, be an election like that one.
In sum, just because the primary campaign has been about flag pins and crazy pastors, it doesn’t mean that’s what we’re looking at in the fall.