The long game

As you may have noticed, I have a keen interest in US politics. National politics that is. Couldn't give a f*** about local stuff. Only the big ones: President and the houses. Anyhow, you may also know that my key source of information is Andrew Sullivan from the Sunday Times. He is the guy who foresaw Obama's rise and explained it in one simple sentence: Obama is a long term strategist, his opponents are short term tacticians.

He was proven right with Hilary in the primaries and McCain in the Presidential elections. Both of them went for the short term ratings boost. Obama set out a clear strategic path of reasoned moderation. And on his path he stayed whether what he said stroked potential voters' egos or not. At first, it was considered bad politics. Gradually, however, it started paying dividends. Obama did not have to explain himself at every step of the way, because voters got to know what he stood for. In contrast, Hilary and McCain, seeking popularity, ended up supporting contradicting policies. And, if there is one thing American voters like more than populism in a potential President it is the ability to make decisions and stick by them - a backbone. Sullivan was absolutely right, and McCain's and Hilary's campaigns imploded.

Last Sunday Sullivan continued with his theme - why drop a winning formula. The closing paragraph was 'cut-and-paste' from previous articles: "Obama thinks strategically; his opponents keep thinking tactically." The title was a bit more eye catching: "Obama's right where he wants to be - losing big."

In essence, Sullivan's argument is: if the Republicans win the House and the Senate they will have control of legislation. As a consequence, rather than just poo-pooing anything Obama does; they will have to make decisions. And once they do, Obama will call their bluffs on taxes and Medicare and will win the next Presidential election.

Does this argument stick? Think of Napoleon. As he invaded Russia, Napoleon kept on winning the battles. The Russians were losing big. However, as a consequence Napoleon found himself being drawn deeper and deeper into Russia, thereby cutting his supply routes and facing the Russian winter which eventually lost him the war. Moving from a French (Corsican for those of you who really care) to an Italian General - Ancelotti. He was rather happy losing to Newcastle at home in the Carling Cup, assuming that will allow his team to concentrate and hence win the Champions League. We'll see in May.

And yet, I am not convinced. The Senate is not the Carling Cup. Obama is not losing big to lure his opponents into a false sense of confidence. Even if they win both houses the Republicans will not think they can wing the Presidential elections. I cannot imagine Obama saying to himself: "we are losing anyhow, so let's go all the way". It is bad politics (and I am not going to pretend Obama does not do bad politics, he even admitted as much recently) - no one will vote for a loser. If you are going down, you got to go down fighting. And if you don't, it is much worse than bad politics, it's un-American. And that is the one thing Obama will never knowingly allow himself to be considered.

So, I am afraid I am not with you on this one Sullivan - and I am sure you care. Maybe next time.

PS 855km down. 145km to go.