More on the Election
The NYT travels to Indiana to report that voters there rejected Republicans because they thought the incumbents were too much Washington insiders, and they didn't respond to the GOP scare-tactics of gay-baiting, liberal-caricaturing, racism, and...gay-baiting.
As he campaigned for re-election, the Republican who lost his seat in the House of Representatives here on Tuesday threw several incendiary barbs suggesting that the opposition was beyond the mainstream of these placid southern Indiana environs: “Homosexual agenda”; “San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi”; “New York liberal Charlie Rangel”; “Detroit liberal John Conyers.” The attack backfired....
Let's just decode those anti-Democrat slogans from Republican John Hostettler, shall we? "Homosexual agenda," well, that's pretty straightforward. "San Francisco liberal"—well, we all know what that means. Charlie Rangel and John Conyers are both African-American.
“Eighth District voters are concerned about the homosexual agenda,” Mr. Hostettler was quoted as saying. Ms. Pelosi was certain to “put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda,” a Hostettler radio advertisement said.
The great thing about this election: Such tactics didn't work. Indiana voters had no idea who Nancy Pelosi is, Mr. Hostettler has revealed himself as a bigot, and the GOP has smeared itself for some time to come.
I truly wonder when George Bush forgot the idea that politics is about inclusion rather than exclusion, about building coalitions rather than splitting apart constituencies. In 2000, he seemed to understand that, and I think since then his sensitivity to issues relating to Latin Americans has been one of his most appealing (and, politically, smartest) sides.
But somewhere along the way, Bush, once the "compassionate conservative," allowed his party—hell,
instructed his party—to run on campaigns of fear and hatred. I can see why a congressional candidate in Indiana might think that would work—not many blacks there, probably, not many openly gay people. But nationally? Gays are, what, ten percent of the population? Blacks, another ten? Women, 51%?
The math starts to cut against you.
What would Ronald Reagan have said? Perhaps that such tactics are the last resort of a man who, even after six years, is not up to the job of president.
I wonder if Ronald Reagan would ever have allowed Lee Atwater to run his campaign? Even as we talk about how George W. is finally returning to his father's more moderate camp and reaching out to his father's inner circle for aid, it's worth remembering that George H.W. Bush did hire Atwater, did run a vicious negative campaign (Willie Horton, flag-burning, etc.), and won that way once—which is usually about as many times in American politics as you can win preaching negativity .
Is there somewhere in the vaunted Bush self-confidence a deeper insecurity that pushes the Bush politicians to rely on sleazy hatchet men like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove?
