As he looks toward his reelection campaign with terrible poll numbers and a weak economy, President Obama may be stuck with the only strategy for an unpopular incumbent – make his opponent look worse. The predominate media narrative suggests that Texas Gov. Rick Perry would fit perfectly into this strategy because he’s made a number of statements that would be seen as too extreme and jarring to a national electorate. But modern presidential history suggests playing the “crazy card” won’t save Obama.
Incumbents in modern elections have repeatedly tried to make their challengers seem unfit for office. It worked for Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon against Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, but in both those cases the incumbents had stronger approval ratings than Obama. Even President Bush in 2004, while beatable, had more things going for him – higher approval ratings, a stronger economy, and the fact that we were at war with the memory of Sept. 11 still fresh.
Yet when the American people are itching to throw a party out of office, portraying the challenger as too extreme is generally a losing strategy, because the challenger has to meet the lower threshold of merely seeming reasonable. John McCain, while not president, represented an unpopular incumbent party in 2008 and the effort to portray Obama as being too radical and inexperienced failed, because Obama came across as measured, reasonable, and knowledgeable whenever the public saw him – despite past statements and ties to the likes of Bill Ayers. In 1992, the electorate ultimately shrugged off attacks on Bill Clinton’s honesty, draft dodging, and inexperience because of the state of the economy.
The 1980 race is worth closer examination because it may have the most parallels to 2012. With his ratings in the tank, President Carter attempted to raise fears about Ronald Reagan. Check out this video of am ad Carter ran against Reagan, and it isn’t too hard to imagine Obama running something against Perry with a similar message. The ad features “people on the street”-type interviews with residents of Reagan’s California. One man says of Reagan, “I’d hate to see him involved in a Near East peace discussion or Salt Three agreement and come up with one of these ill-informed, shoot-from-the-hip types of comments.” One woman says, “I think (Reagan) would have gotten us into a war, right, by this time.” Another man was pretty blunt, “I think it’s a big risk to have Reagan as President. Reagan, Reagan scares me. He really scares me.”
The attacks on Reagan were actually effective in keeping the race competitive until the very end – and that’s when the two candidates debated, and Reagan came off as reasonable, informed and likeable, which was a contrast with the way he was being portrayed. Everybody who follows politics knows about Reagan’s famous “there you go again” retort to Carter during the debate, but few remember what Reagan was responding to. As it turns out, it was a similar line of attack that we’re now seeing against Perry.
In the exchange leading up to Reagan’s comment, Carter said, “Although Governor Reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making Social Security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it.” Reagan responded by explaining his position as wanting to make changes to correct unfair aspects of the system. Then Carter explained, “Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare,” and described his own support for national health insurance. That’s when Reagan responded, “There you go again” and calmly explained his views on Medicare and Social Security. (Video here, transcript here, though interestingly the transcript doesn’t have the famous “there you go again” line.)
None of this is to say that Perry is the next Reagan. My point is merely that Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think that, should he be the nominee, attacking past statements by Perry, or highlighting controversial positions he has taken, will save Obama from defeat if current economic trends continue. What’s important is how Perry performs as a national candidate once the broader electorate begins to pay attention to him – during the convention, in the debates, and on the trail. If Perry makes lots of irresponsible statements during this time that reinforce the attacks on him, then Obama can win. But if Perry can strike a more measured tone before a national audience, and come off as reasonable enough, attempts by Obama to play the “crazy card” on Perry will fail, just as they have for other beleaguered incumbent presidents.
