Over the past few days, pundits and analysts have been furiously studying Obama's victory in Iowa, as well as Huckabee's, and trying to determine how it happened and what it means.
Huckabee's victory is chalked up to populist rhetoric and evangelical ground troops. He is not ahead in New Hampshire, however, so populists and evangelicals must be in short supply in the granite state – or perhaps there is another explanation for why Huckabee may not repeat his victory.
As for Obama, the conventional wisdom is that he is the "candidate of change," and that people want change more than they want experience. He is likely to win in New Hampshire, with polls showing him anywhere from two to fifteen points ahead of Hillary Clinton. Since John Edwards also seems like a good candidate for change, and in fact since every democratic candidate would be an enormous change from the current administration, I'm not sure "change" is the key factor in Obama's amazing momentum.
At this moment, momentum is definitely something Obama has and Huckabee doesn't. Why is that? Why has Hillary dropped to second or third place, while Edwards can't get traction? Why, on the other hand, is the momentum less strong with Huckabee?
I believe the explanation for Obama's success in this election season lies in his perfect assessment of the psychological mood of the American people. I'm not talking about their intellectual preference for change vs. experience. While preferences are certainly significant, I'm talking about emotions rather than intellect. Obama seems not only to understand the emotional mood of the people, but also how to respond to it. Huckabee, on the other hand, understands the mood and the concerns of the evangelicals, but not the predominant mood of the country.
When it comes to factoring in the mood of the electorate, a successful politician has to do one of two things. He either has to accurately reflect the mood of the people, so that they feel he is in tune with them, or if the mood is negative and painful, he has to provide an antidote to that mood, so that they can move past it.
Let's think about the shifting mood of the electorate over the last twelve years or so. During Bill Clinton's second term, much of the electorate was angry. The elected officials and visible and invisible hate-mongers on the right had managed to fire up many in the Republican Party to feel anger towards Bill Clinton. At the same time, many on the left responded with anger to the Republicans' endless investigations, ultimate entrapment and finally impeachment of the president for an issue that had nothing to do with his presidency. The anger was widespread, but about equal in both parties, so the candidates in 2000 did not talk much about it. Neither side tapped into the anger, both sides wanting to move past it, and so the vote was split nearly equally. There was no clear winner.
After the terrorist attacks in 2001, the predominant mood in the country, especially among Republicans, was fear. George W. Bush recognized that fear and then deliberately fueled it prior to the 2004 election. He also tapped into anger towards the terrorists, and a desire for revenge, especially within his base. Thus, his Iraq War, though based on lies and deceptions, was popular with Republicans and enough Independents to assure him a second term. His mood and rhetoric matched the mood of enough voters to keep him in the White House, though just barely.
There was another mood in the country before the 2004 election, however, and that was among Democrats. That mood was intense anger - towards George W. Bush and his entire administration – for Iraq, for pandering to corporations and the wealthy, for the stolen 2000 election, for lies and secrecy and blatant defiance of the Congress - and Democrats needed a candidate who would both reflect their mood and empower them to stand up and fight against this man who should never have been president. John Kerry simply didn't have the personality or the platform to do that. The one who did, the one who captured the imagination of many Democrats, was Howard Dean, who spoke openly of the abuses of George W. Bush and vigorously opposed the Iraq War.
Huckabee's victory is chalked up to populist rhetoric and evangelical ground troops. He is not ahead in New Hampshire, however, so populists and evangelicals must be in short supply in the granite state – or perhaps there is another explanation for why Huckabee may not repeat his victory.
As for Obama, the conventional wisdom is that he is the "candidate of change," and that people want change more than they want experience. He is likely to win in New Hampshire, with polls showing him anywhere from two to fifteen points ahead of Hillary Clinton. Since John Edwards also seems like a good candidate for change, and in fact since every democratic candidate would be an enormous change from the current administration, I'm not sure "change" is the key factor in Obama's amazing momentum.
At this moment, momentum is definitely something Obama has and Huckabee doesn't. Why is that? Why has Hillary dropped to second or third place, while Edwards can't get traction? Why, on the other hand, is the momentum less strong with Huckabee?
I believe the explanation for Obama's success in this election season lies in his perfect assessment of the psychological mood of the American people. I'm not talking about their intellectual preference for change vs. experience. While preferences are certainly significant, I'm talking about emotions rather than intellect. Obama seems not only to understand the emotional mood of the people, but also how to respond to it. Huckabee, on the other hand, understands the mood and the concerns of the evangelicals, but not the predominant mood of the country.
When it comes to factoring in the mood of the electorate, a successful politician has to do one of two things. He either has to accurately reflect the mood of the people, so that they feel he is in tune with them, or if the mood is negative and painful, he has to provide an antidote to that mood, so that they can move past it.
Let's think about the shifting mood of the electorate over the last twelve years or so. During Bill Clinton's second term, much of the electorate was angry. The elected officials and visible and invisible hate-mongers on the right had managed to fire up many in the Republican Party to feel anger towards Bill Clinton. At the same time, many on the left responded with anger to the Republicans' endless investigations, ultimate entrapment and finally impeachment of the president for an issue that had nothing to do with his presidency. The anger was widespread, but about equal in both parties, so the candidates in 2000 did not talk much about it. Neither side tapped into the anger, both sides wanting to move past it, and so the vote was split nearly equally. There was no clear winner.
After the terrorist attacks in 2001, the predominant mood in the country, especially among Republicans, was fear. George W. Bush recognized that fear and then deliberately fueled it prior to the 2004 election. He also tapped into anger towards the terrorists, and a desire for revenge, especially within his base. Thus, his Iraq War, though based on lies and deceptions, was popular with Republicans and enough Independents to assure him a second term. His mood and rhetoric matched the mood of enough voters to keep him in the White House, though just barely.
There was another mood in the country before the 2004 election, however, and that was among Democrats. That mood was intense anger - towards George W. Bush and his entire administration – for Iraq, for pandering to corporations and the wealthy, for the stolen 2000 election, for lies and secrecy and blatant defiance of the Congress - and Democrats needed a candidate who would both reflect their mood and empower them to stand up and fight against this man who should never have been president. John Kerry simply didn't have the personality or the platform to do that. The one who did, the one who captured the imagination of many Democrats, was Howard Dean, who spoke openly of the abuses of George W. Bush and vigorously opposed the Iraq War.
Once Dean's campaign imploded and the charismatically challenged John Kerry became the nominee, however, all hope of responding to the mood of Democrats was lost. Kerry couldn't decide if he was for or against the war because he was trying to appeal to the moods of both parties. So he paraded his military experience out to prove he could be as tough as Bush, and continue the Iraq War, while also hinting to Democrats that he would stop the war, eventually. Kerry's inability to really reflect the mood of the Democrats, and show them how he could solve the problems that made them so angry, along with his focus on his military bona fides which gave the Swift Boat slime machine its opening, assured his defeat.
Today, the country is beyond both fear and anger. Witness the lack of strength of Giuliani's campaign, which is a repeat of George W. Bush's appeal to fear. Over the past couple of years, as memories of 9/11 faded, and the people saw ongoing abuses of the Constitution, executive power, and international law, and as they witnessed the impotence of the Democratic Congress they elected to stop the Bush administration, and finally as a recession loomed on the horizon, the electorate has fallen into despair. Democrats and Independents are despondent over the direction this country is going and Republicans are despondent over the disintegration of their party.
There is a lot of evidence to support this descent into despair on both sides. The Republicans are in disarray, confused about whom to nominate. No one on their side seems to have a mandate, and while Huckabee has picked up steam with evangelicals, he is hated by the kingmakers in the party. Economic conservatives, neoconservatives, and traditional conservatives are frightened by his history of taxation, his attacks on Bush's foreign policy, and his concerns for the poor. Giuiliani's fearmongering isn't working, and McCain may be gaining in popularity, but he is not setting the country on fire. Romney, too, has lost his glow. It's as if Republican voters have decided to go out with a lot of different suitors, but find too many flaws and so break up with each one of them after a few dates.
Today, the country is beyond both fear and anger. Witness the lack of strength of Giuliani's campaign, which is a repeat of George W. Bush's appeal to fear. Over the past couple of years, as memories of 9/11 faded, and the people saw ongoing abuses of the Constitution, executive power, and international law, and as they witnessed the impotence of the Democratic Congress they elected to stop the Bush administration, and finally as a recession loomed on the horizon, the electorate has fallen into despair. Democrats and Independents are despondent over the direction this country is going and Republicans are despondent over the disintegration of their party.
There is a lot of evidence to support this descent into despair on both sides. The Republicans are in disarray, confused about whom to nominate. No one on their side seems to have a mandate, and while Huckabee has picked up steam with evangelicals, he is hated by the kingmakers in the party. Economic conservatives, neoconservatives, and traditional conservatives are frightened by his history of taxation, his attacks on Bush's foreign policy, and his concerns for the poor. Giuiliani's fearmongering isn't working, and McCain may be gaining in popularity, but he is not setting the country on fire. Romney, too, has lost his glow. It's as if Republican voters have decided to go out with a lot of different suitors, but find too many flaws and so break up with each one of them after a few dates.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are less angry because they know George W. Bush is on his way out. The anger they once felt in 2004 – attached to a desire to defeat him – is not as palpable. However, with the seeming impotence of the newly elected Democratic Congress to stop him, a sort of national depression has replaced some of that anger. At first, Hillary Clinton was the candidate most Democrats decided to support, as she seemed the logical one to fight for them when they had lost the desire to keep fighting. If Republicans called her a "bitch," so much the better. A bitch was what was needed to scratch their eyes out in the fight to get the country back. But while Democrats could intellectually get behind Hillary, her campaign style just didn't match their mood. She was too cerebral. And she didn't lift them out of their depression.
Then along came Barack Obama. His genius is that he assessed the mood of the country - and especially his party - perfectly. He saw the depression, the disillusionment, the despair, and he started talking about hope. It wasn't just that Obama knew the value of the hope message. Almost every candidate who puts hope at the center of their campaign wins. Two examples are Bill Clinton, "the man from Hope," and JFK, whose theme song was "High Hopes." It was also that he spoke with the kind of emotion that lifted the people's mood, that showed them he wasn't just speaking words, he was feeling what he wanted them to feel, and he was going to infuse them with that hope.
His speech was inspiring, the crowds grew, and people began to feel he had the antidote to their despair. He empowered them and told them he would help unite them all as they were once united immediately after 9/11. He called on them to remember their common values, and feel hope. And as the people in New Hampshire saw in person what the people in Iowa saw, they changed their loyalties and moved from supporting one of the other candidates, to supporting Obama whose poll numbers in New Hampshire are now up 10 points.
Should this continue, he will be the Democratic nominee, and his unique qualities will help him overcome the vicious attacks the Republicans will throw at him. Hope can beat fear and prejudice and ignorance and hatred, and Obama, who has faced all those things before by virtue of his unique history, is more than capable of overcoming them. With an army of fired up supporters behind him, he will overcome the Republican slime machine.
The country is tired of slime and dirty campaigns and revisiting the past. The country is tired of being angry and depressed. Obama speaks of a positive vision for the country, of the future, and of hope, which is exactly what this nation needs. Like it or not, mood appears to be the decider in this election, and as long as Obama continues to provide the antidote to the mood of depression and despair, he will be unbeatable, no matter who the Republicans nominate, and no matter what they throw at him. And they know it. As Republican commentator Laura Ingraham said after hearing Obama's victory speech in Iowa: "we're in trouble."
Then along came Barack Obama. His genius is that he assessed the mood of the country - and especially his party - perfectly. He saw the depression, the disillusionment, the despair, and he started talking about hope. It wasn't just that Obama knew the value of the hope message. Almost every candidate who puts hope at the center of their campaign wins. Two examples are Bill Clinton, "the man from Hope," and JFK, whose theme song was "High Hopes." It was also that he spoke with the kind of emotion that lifted the people's mood, that showed them he wasn't just speaking words, he was feeling what he wanted them to feel, and he was going to infuse them with that hope.
His speech was inspiring, the crowds grew, and people began to feel he had the antidote to their despair. He empowered them and told them he would help unite them all as they were once united immediately after 9/11. He called on them to remember their common values, and feel hope. And as the people in New Hampshire saw in person what the people in Iowa saw, they changed their loyalties and moved from supporting one of the other candidates, to supporting Obama whose poll numbers in New Hampshire are now up 10 points.
Should this continue, he will be the Democratic nominee, and his unique qualities will help him overcome the vicious attacks the Republicans will throw at him. Hope can beat fear and prejudice and ignorance and hatred, and Obama, who has faced all those things before by virtue of his unique history, is more than capable of overcoming them. With an army of fired up supporters behind him, he will overcome the Republican slime machine.
The country is tired of slime and dirty campaigns and revisiting the past. The country is tired of being angry and depressed. Obama speaks of a positive vision for the country, of the future, and of hope, which is exactly what this nation needs. Like it or not, mood appears to be the decider in this election, and as long as Obama continues to provide the antidote to the mood of depression and despair, he will be unbeatable, no matter who the Republicans nominate, and no matter what they throw at him. And they know it. As Republican commentator Laura Ingraham said after hearing Obama's victory speech in Iowa: "we're in trouble."
