Talking About Change

The past two weeks have been among the most exciting and extraordinary in recent American political history. We’ve heard a lot of speeches in the last 14 or so days; and they provide stark contrasts into the strategies that the two parties will be adopting between now and Election Day.

While traditionally in a change election one side plays the change card and the other plays the “risky change” card, 2008 appears to be taking on a different veneer. In this election, both the 47-year-old upstart and the 72-year-old Washington veteran are talking about change. But while one is focusing primarily on economic change, the other is grounding his message of political transformation in the guise of personal character and biography.

If there is a person in America who did not know that John McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, one can be sure that after the Republican National Convention they are now fully aware. In virtually every speech and every video at the R.N.C., Mr. McCain’s sacrifice and suffering were recounted, including by the candidate himself. It is on his practically unrivaled tale of personal heroism and his positive public image that the Republicans will be staking the 2008 race.

While on the surface this may seem like a traditional values-based message, it is in fact more complex, because it focuses directly on the notion that because John McCain has been a maverick in the past -- and puts country first -- he is the person most able to bring real political change to Washington. In this context, the selection of Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, as Mr. McCain’s running mate looks like a short-term work of political genius, further establishing his bonafides as a “maverick” and agent of change. (I say “short-term” because we know so little about Ms. Palin that her long-term value to the ticket is far from clear.)

To be sure, Mr. McCain’s message on some levels stretches credulity, particularly in the context of the generally conservative political positions that he has taken in this campaign. But if one wants to get a clear sense of its potential effectiveness, consider the Obama campaign’s withering push-back yesterday. Clearly, they understand that if Mr. McCain is able to convince enough voters that he, and not Barack Obama, is the agent of change in the 2008 election, Democrats would have real reason for concern.

For Mr. Obama and the Democrats, the speeches in Denver were a reprise of Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 strategy: “it’s the economy stupid.” The effort by Democrats to identify with working-class and middle-class Americans at the Democratic National Convention at times bordered on the comical. Listening to address after address, one might start to believe that to be a Democratic politician you must have a) been born in a small town to a middle-class family, b) been raised by a single mother, c) had a parent who worked in a manufacturing job or had two jobs, and d) suffered through adversity.

One of the more symbolically potent moments at the convention may have come in Invesco Field when a series of “ordinary Americans” spoke to the 80,000 partisans. All were very effective in telling a tale of economic woe. But one speaker stood out. Barney Smith, a former Republican from Indiana who saw his job shipped overseas, struggled his way through his remarks until he came up with this line. America, he said, needs “a president who puts Barney Smith, before Smith Barney.” The stadium erupted with chants of “Barney, Barney.” Welcome to the populist politics of the 2008 race; it’s Wall Street versus Main Street. In a city where Democrats, 100 years earlier, nominated the great populist Democrat and scourge of “the idle holders of idle capital” William Jennings Bryan for president, it was a fitting message.

If the words spoken at both party conventions were any indication Republicans will strive to make this a race between their, maverick war hero and his personal tale of sacrifice versus the fatuous and inexperienced Barack Obama. Democrats will seek to make the campaign one between populist and economically focused Democrats and out of touch, more of the same, third Bush-term Republicans.

From a historical standpoint, in a change election where 80 percent of the voters think the country is on the wrong track, the Democrats have what appears to be the stronger political message. They should win. But ask Thomas Dewey or even Al Gore how their “sure-thing” candidacies worked out.

For all the powerful words to come out of Denver, the Democrats have been unable to seal the deal with undecided voters. That may happen at the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates -- or it may not happen at all. John McCain’s personal story is so powerful and Barack Obama is such an unusual presidential candidate, we may have to throw historical analogies out the window this year. If Denver or St. Paul were any indication the next two months should be fascinating to watch.