Come For The Picture Of Fat Huckabee, Stay For The Mostly Unrelated Article.
Barack Obama calls it "the politics of hope".
Mike Huckabee calls it "vertical politics".
But regardless of the exact terminology they may use, both candidates have been going to great lengths to tell the American people that they stand for a fresh, optimistic brand of positive politicking that stands in direct opposition to the vicious, back-stabbing politics that have dominated Washington since its inception. They've even written their own cute little books on the subject -- Huckabee's From Hope to Higher Ground, and Obama's The Audacity of Hope -- each with a cover featuring the author gazing into the reader's eyes as if to say: "I'm too busy buying the world a Coke to level personal attacks at my foes. Hugs for everyone!"
In the rhetorical world of Huckabee and Obama, the tone of the message is equal to the content. They may not offer policies that have never been proposed before, but they'll propose them in such a genial way that the American people (and the opposing party) will be compelled to accept them, as if they were adorable puppies left in a basket on the country's doorstep. If the Huckabee and Obama PR line is to be believed, the power of positive politics will allow compromise without the compromise; Huckabee will stick firmly to his conservative principles, and Obama to his liberal ones, but they'll be able to win over the other side of the political aisle through sheer niceness. As Huckabee has often stated: "I'm a conservative, but I'm not mad at anybody about it".
Naturally, all this talk about conciliatory politics looks great when taken at face value. Just about everyone would like Capital Hill to be a little more Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, and a little less pre-surge Fallujah. Unfortunately, this positive rhetoric just doesn't match up with political reality -- on several different levels.
The first strike? The fact that ideas actually matter to some people. Although there are a few people who may be repulsed by liberalism or conservatism because of the negative attitudes exhibited by liberals or conservatives, it's probably pretty safe to say that a whole lotta' people oppose certain political philosophies because they genuinely disagree with the ideas behind them. Barack Obama can smile all he wants while he proposes a Universal Health Care plan, but a majority of Republicans will still oppose it. And Mike Huckabee can attempt to melt the hearts of the pro-abortion crowd with a volley of endearing catch-phrases that could make a puppy cry, but ultimately, their disagreement is with the substance of his message, not the style.
And even to nice-starved voters, the kinder, gentler candidate isn't necessarily the most compelling one. Until every candidate simultaneously decides to play nice, the odd man out will appear weak at best. It's kind of like nuclear disarmament -- while everyone would love it if nuclear weapons just disappeared off the face of the earth, as long as a single belligerent power possesses such weaponry, we're sure as heck not going to give them up (with all due respect to Mr. & Mrs. Kucinich). If candidate A hurls sticks and stones at candidate B, they may very well break his political bones... unless candidate B responds in kind.
This isn't to say that it's wrong to run a friendly presidential campaign, or to be a friendly president -- it's just that being Mr. (or Mrs.) Sunshine isn't the political wonder-drug Obama and Huckabee make it out to be.
However, none of the stuff I just said really matters. I've been examining the flaws that would be present in an unconventionally nice political strategy, but the Obama and Huckabee campaigns are quite conventional, and not always nice.
In the case of Barack Obama, "The Politics of Hope" are especially illusory. Although he's repeatedly charged Hillary Clinton with running "a textbook campaign", it looks like Obama's been studying the "textbook" pretty hard for the past couple of weeks. Negative tone? Scandal allegations? Bitter attacks? As Staple's might say: yeah, we got that. It's easy enough to talk about positive campaigning when you're flying high in the polls, but when you're floundering at a distant second with about a month left before the first primaries, it becomes a political necessity to frantically claw your way back to the top.
Even Mike "Hug-a-me" Huckabee has proven he can be as abrasive as a stainless-steel porcupine when the occasion arises. During his term as governor, he implied that supporters of a tough immigration bill were bigots -- and called the Christian faith of the bill's primary sponsor into question. On the flip side, he recently leveled a pointed personal attack towards Mitt Romney for hiring allegedly illegal Guatemalans to do yard work. Sure, Huckabee isn't exactly Nixon 2.0, and yes, he's generally a ridiculously nice guy. But he's still a politician; a politician who happens to know that there are times when it's politically expedient to handle your opponent with kid gloves, and times when the gloves have to come off.
In the distant future, there may come a day when politicians beat their swords into plowshares and engage in group-hugs en masse. A time when red states and blue states will melt together into a delightful -- and slightly creepy -- shade of purple. But will that day arrive during this election cycle? Pardon my cynicism, and forgive me for presuming too much about the future, but: it won't.
