The "Toughness" Factor

Looking at some numbers from the latest Pew poll - specifically, that 43 percent of Americans think that Obama's foreign policy approach is "not tough enough," compared to just sixteen percent who say the same of John McCain's - Matt writes:

They don't, on the face of things, seem like very good news for Obama. But they come in the context of a poll that shows Obama beating McCain by a large 50-43 margin. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the best argument McCain has available to him is to try to persuade voters that Obama isn't tough enough on national security issues. Conversely, Obama's people will try to argue that McCain is too much of a warmonger. Given that a lot of what McCain is going to be looking to accomplish has been done already and he's still losing, this looks like trouble to me.

Maybe so. But it still seems possible for McCain to gain ground on this front even if the underlying "toughness" numbers don't change that much: He just needs to raise the salience of the public's already-existing perception that Obama isn't sufficiently tough/seasoned/etc. on foreign affairs, to the point where it becomes an issue that determines which way people vote. I think this will be a difficult thing to do in the current foreign-policy landscape, but it's way to soon to say it's impossible. Obama has yet to face off against a candidate (unless you count Joe Biden) who can attack him for his foreign-policy inexperience without it seeming like at least something of a stretch - and that "red phone" ad would be an awfully lot more effective if it ended with John McCain picking up the receiver.

Basically, McCain isn't going to win this election without 1) making the race turn on foreign policy to a greater extent than it looks like it will right now, and 2) persuading a large chunk of the American public that his instincts about Iraq might be better than theirs. If he can't pull this twofer off, he doesn't have a chance; if he can, though, then those "toughness" numbers will end up mattering a lot more than Matt hopes.

Comments

I agree that it's too early for people's impressions of the contrast between McCain and Obama to be set in stone. (That's the point many people made in your "Obama's Democrat Problem" thread).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on whether or not McCain persuading Americans to come over to his side on Iraq policy would be a good thing.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | March 3, 2008 8:51 AM

Matt's post was pretty unpersuasive. In a nutshell: people who "should" be voting Obama will come home. What about people who "should" be voting McCain? Historically, he has won significant support among independents. Why is Matt convinced that older, white, working-class Democrats will come home to Obama, but that feckless independents won't come home to McCain?

And I don't even agree that McCain needs to convince people that his policy instincts are right. If he convinces people that he really loves America, and Obama is a post-national flibbertyjibbet, McCain will win, because they'd rather be wrong with him than right with Obama.

The one thing that is abundantly clear from the Pew poll, though, is that Obama needs to pick James Webb as his running mate. I cannot think of a pick that would do more to answer the weaknesses he demonstrates in this poll and in the primaries generally, and I can't think of a better way to shape the narrative for the general election than picking the right Veep.

Posted by Noah Millman | March 3, 2008 9:15 AM

The election is eight months away! You can't say yet of any candidate "He has to do x, y, and z, or else he's toast." The mood of the electorate can change dramatically before then.

Also, we've seen this cycle how voters don't need to agree with the candidates for whom they vote. All those polls showing McCain doing the best among anti-war GOP voters (like my two senators and McCain backers, Collins and Snowe), and waffling Romney doing the best among the strongest war supporters. It seems like personality is more important than policy.

I do think that Obama is more likable and exciting than McCain generally, so I do give Obama the edge at this point. But if the race turns into Maverick versus Big Lefty, that would be good ground for the GOP.

In short, let's hear eight months of gaffs from candidates who pride themselves on being frank truth-tellers before we crown the victor!

Posted by Gyrd | March 3, 2008 9:34 AM

To paraphrase an old homily, toughness is overrated.

We've had 8 years of toughness. Look where that's taken the world. I surmise the mood of the electorate is, "enough of this pre-nuclear BS".

Something new (Change) means if Obama can sound tough enough, his other and manifest appeals to the mobilized electorate, assuming they stay mobilized and it seems likely they will, should carry the day.

Clinton sounds tough. It's not doing her a lot of good right now either.

In the general of course, there are all those fearful types to reckon with, you know, the kind who respond to the "let's blow the crap out of them before they steal into our bedrooms and behead our children" argument for an imperial foreign policy.

My read on Obama is, here is a man who has his male and female sides in good balance.

We need that.

He seems to have a good balance between strength, toughness and unwillingness to be beaten in any arena, coupled with a good natured willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, to dialogue about any issue, with a bias toward achieving peace and understanding.

He seems to eschew our recent disastrous trend toward unilateral bullying, which I believe we've had far too much of for our national sense of well-being.

When the necessities of campaign rhetoric are put aside, and if Obama survives the political wars, we'll see more of his nuanced intellect in full force.

Let's just hope there's not a Bay of Pigs in there. That seems to be the central concern: will his judgment, HRC not withstanding, be solid enough in the White House?

But then, how could we do worse than the Bush leaguer we have in office now?

Posted by James Lawrence | March 3, 2008 10:10 AM

Hillary’s claim of ownership to White House decisions during her husband’s presidency glaringly omitts the infamous ‘Blackhawk Down’ debacle. Why hasn’t anyone mentioned this? Surely this was the most telling ‘red phone’ incident of the Clinton White House years.

A fighter/ yes, a winner .. I hope not.

Posted by Deb King | March 3, 2008 10:29 AM

The fact that 43% of American voters seem to think that "toughness" is the primary prerequisite for foreign policy leadership is directly connected to the disastrous decline of our international credibility. But this also indicates that 57% of voters are open to a change of direction. I know I'm not the only Democrat who wants to see this election fought on these exact issues.

It's not going to be easy. Obama needs to project an image of competence and confidence on all matters related to foreign policy. I don't think most voters care about the length of the candidates' resumes nearly as much as they care about having a steady hand at the wheel. They don't want a Presidential candidate who seems naive and likely to get rolled by foreign leaders. I think Obama can pull that off. But he's going to get pounded for the next 8 months, and a single gaffe could come back to haunt him.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Eight months is a long time from now. Obama has painted himself in a corner with respect to Iraq. McCain won the GOP because Iraq is making progress, although slowly, and McCain has tied himself to it. Americans like a winner more than a preacher and will vote for McCain IF the progress continues in Iraq.

Obama is also going to have a tough time taking the independents after the GOP tears him apart on being so far left. MoveOn loves Obama and Ann Coulter hates McCain, so who owns the center?

Obama goes on and on about reaching across the aisle (although he has zero evidence of being able to do this), he promisses everything, and is more dogmatic than practical. This pretty much described Bush 8 years ago. I'm not sure I'd vote for that. Bush's biggest fault is surrounding himself with yes-men. What would Obama do?

People say Obama is like JFK because Obama speaks well, but JFK also had the wisdom to deal with the Cuban Missle Crisis (after he learned from the Bay of Pigs). I don't know where that comes from. All I know now is that Obama has a big ego and can speak well.

This election has a long way to go.

Posted by MattR | March 3, 2008 12:20 PM

Let's assume that McCain wins the election on the basis of his Iraq policy, and that as a result we continue the Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq for the duration of the McCain administration. Is this a good thing? Is it good for our over-all foreign policy goals, does it help us to fight terrorism, does it help our economy? Russ strikes me as one of the most intelligent of the conservative bloggers. I wish he'd address these questions, and not from the standpoint of short term political considerations.

Posted by Stan | March 3, 2008 1:30 PM

Two-thirds as many people think McCain is "not tough enough" as too tough. What does he do? On the other hand, almost nobody think Obama is too tough.

Posted by Jose Padilla | March 3, 2008 2:52 PM

Your take sounds about right.

I don't the wording of the poll question, though. The word "tough" is unambiguously positive, and describing someone as "too tough" is almost like describing them as "too smart". I think "too aggressive/about right/too passive" would have been better.

Posted by nodakdude | March 3, 2008 3:05 PM