We probably all have some personal anecdotes about conservative friends or family members who don’t usually like Democratic candidates, but they kind of like that Obama guy. The “trend,” if there is such a thing, first became apparent to me last summer, when Mark McKinnon, the former chief media adviser to George W. Bush, and now a top aide to John McCain’s presidential campaign, admitted that he liked Obama so much, he wouldn’t create negative ads against him if the Illinois senator became the Democratic nominee.
It led Newsweek to do an item the other day about “prominent Republicans” who have “caught Obama fever.” The candidate calls them “Obamacans.”
Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike’s granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican party. But in Eisenhower’s view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her–energy, global warming, an aging population and America’s standing in the world.
“Barack Obama will really be in a singular position to attract moderate Republicans,” she told Newsweek. “I wanted to do what many people did for my grandfather in 1952. He was hugely aided in his quest for the presidency by Democrats for Eisenhower. There’s a long and fine tradition of crossover voters.”
Eisenhower is one of a small but symbolically powerful group of what Obama recently called “Obamacans” — disaffected Republicans who have drifted away from their party just as Eisenhower Democrats did and, more recently, Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. They include lifelong Republican Tricia Moseley, a former staffer for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, the one-time segregationist from South Carolina. Now a high-school teacher, Moseley says she was attracted to Obama’s positions on education and the economy.
I’m also reminded of an Obama endorsement from Jeffrey Hart, a speechwriter for Nixon and Reagan, probably best known for his work as a writer for the conservative National Review, who also announced his support for Obama the other day.
Is this indicative of a progressive Dem with cross-over appeal, or is this just a mirage that would disappear once the general election begins in earnest?
Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to George W. Bush, tackled the subject today in a WaPo op-ed.
Barack Obama is not only popular among Democrats, he’s also an appealing figure to many Republicans. Former GOP House member Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC, reports that after every important Obama speech, he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech — with most of them coming from Republicans. William Bennett, an influential conservative intellectual, has said favorable things about Obama. So have Rich Lowry of National Review and Peggy Noonan. And so have I.
A number of prominent Republicans I know, who would wage a pitched battle against Hillary Clinton, like Obama and would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm in opposing him.
Wehner argues, relatively persuasively, that the right feels comfortable gravitating towards Obama, at least for now, for three main reasons: 1) Obama is a charming, inspirational figure with an “unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics”; 2) Republicans hate the Clintons; and 3) Obama’s message emphasizes “unity and hope rather than division and resentment,” rather than the “politics of rage.”
It all sounds quite nice until Wehner argues that Obama may not be able to actually get these conservative votes come November because, “on almost every issue, [Obama is] a conventional liberal.” Wehner argues that Obama would have even broader appeal if he demonstrated some “independence from liberal orthodoxy” by embracing a right-wing policy idea or two, such privatization of public schools through vouchers.
Now, Wehner is a conservative Republican, so it stands to reason he’d encourage liberal Democrats to be more like him. It’s not going to work, of course, but this at least makes sense. That said, I think Wehner is missing the point — the conservatives who’ve already moved towards Obama know about his positions on the issues, and don’t seem to care. (It seems irrational, but a lot of voters don’t consider issues when making candidate judgments.)
The question is straightforward enough: can Obama maintain liberal positions on issues and continue to garner support from disaffected Republicans, dejected after eight years of Bush failure? Even after the right-wing smear machine cranks up? I don’t know, but I thought I’d open it up to a little discussion.
I’d just add one thing, though. I’ve heard some Obama detractors on the left argue, “See? He’s drawing support from the right? Therefore, he must be bad and Dems shouldn’t nominate him.”
As arguments go, I think this one’s a little silly. In 1980, Reagan was drawing all kinds of support from Dems (you’ve probably heard about “Reagan Democrats” once or twice). At no point did the Republican Party say, “Wait, if Dems like Reagan, we ought to reject him.” Indeed, they argued the opposite — they wanted a conservative candidate with broad appeal who could frame issues in a way that appealed to members of the other party.
Maybe Obama can do the same thing, maybe not, but I have a hard time buying the notion that Obama should be rejected necessarily because of his apparent cross-over appeal.