Obama Cannot Be Conventional

I am one of those squealing liberals about whom Earl Ofari Hutchins is complaining. No, I'm not threatening to vote for McCain, withhold my vote or my money because Obama is shifting towards the middle. I am however both disappointed and scared.

In a regular election between two generic candidates--one generally liberal and the other generally conservative, Earl's analysis is exactly correct. This, however, is not one of those years, and Barack Obama is not a generic candidate. He is sui generis--one of a kind. To the extent that he does the conventional and expected, to the extent he adheres to the conventional wisdom, he risks losing his raison d'etre.

In regular years, we know that 45% of the electorate will automatically vote for the Republican, no matter how bad. Another 45% will toe the Democratic party line and vote for their nominee no matter how charismatically challenged. The election is normally determined by the 10% in the middle, the independents and uncommitted. It usually makes good political sense for the candidates to run their primary campaigns at the edges to attract the activists and then to migrate to the center to get the 10% in play.

So, why is this year different from all other years? Barack Obama has lit up a portion of the electorate that is not normally involved, not to mention enthusiastic. Young people are showing up at rallies and showing up at the polls. Minorities, and not only Blacks, are involved and passionate. People who have not voted are registering. People who have never contributed to a political campaign are sending in money. The energy and enthusiasm are amazing. These are the people who must not only vote but also contribute their time and money in order for Obama to win. These are the people, not the middle 10%, who must remain emotionally involved. Obama risks losing their passion by becoming ordinary.

He has been running on an image of change: Change we can believe in. He has been representing himself as not just another, "I'll say anything to get elected," politician. But now that he has the nomination, he is trending towards the conventional. This is common wisdom but in an uncommon year. Yes, he can survive any one of his recent migrations towards the center. He can defend taking private money. He can defend capital punishment for people who rape children. He can wear the flag on his lapel. He can side with the reasoning of Scalia in finding the DC ban on handguns unconstitutional. Each is individually defensible, but the pattern is disturbing--disturbing in its familiarity. It is just what we expect from a regular politician.

America is not traditionally an ideology-driven country. We tend to vote for the chemistry. W seemed more fun to have a beer with than Gore. He seemed "comfortable in his skin and genuine, while Gore seemed a product market from way too many focus groups. People who disagreed with Reagan voted for him because they liked him and thought he was real. People voted for JFK because he was young and vigorous and excited something in them. All this has been true for those energized by Obama--so far. He risks throwing away his uniqueness. If he becomes just another pandering pol, the energy will seep out. If he wants it so bad that he appears willing to say anything, he will not win.

This election is his to lose and he can if he goes to the middle for the uncommitted and forgets--not the hard left activists--but the enthusiastic hoard that craves real change and a sense of the authenticity of the candidate and his values.