In all of politics there are two universal constants—incumbents and challengers. During the lead up to an election each has his or her advantages unique to their position.
An incumbent has the power of incumbency. Incumbents can appear to do things that attract press attention just by doing the job they were elected to do. They can show up at business openings, hold press conferences, initiate new legislation, propose some new programs, give out awards and appear at ceremonies, or do any of the countless things that will naturally get their doings in the news and their faces on TV.
Consider George Bush’s appearance at ground zero shortly after the attacks of 9.11. President Bush had failed to protect the country from attack and his security apparatus had failed to respond to direct and obvious communications from al Qaeda about an imminent attack and yet his appearance at the debris that was once the World Trade Center and his subsequent “presidential” comments on the “war on terror” enabled him to win a second term.
A challenger has much less ability to make news except as part of his or her campaign itself (unless they already hold some public office, and even this has limited value compared to the higher office they are running for—which the incumbent currently controls). BUT, an incumbent has one thing in the office up for election that the challenger does not have: a record. And here is where the challenger has an inevitable advantage. No matter how praiseworthy an office holder’s record of achievement, no matter how many things that person has done and no matter how many people that person has helped, no one ever achieves everything that everyone wants done. And this gives an opening for criticism to the challenger. (Irony alert:) Short of accusing one’s opponent of failure to cure lyme disease, anything goes.
Consider Ronald Reagan’s criticism of President Carter for the handling of the disastrous hostage situation in Iran and the failed rescue attempt highlighted by the crash of a Sikorsky helicopter. The President had no control over those events, nor was he responsible for the rampant inflation that accompanied his presidency, yet a former movie actor and affable governor of California was able to turn criticism of the President into an electoral victory for himself in 1980.
A challenger can always find something that the incumbent did that was not perfect. And a challenger can always find something that the incumbent did not do at all. This is what will become the basis of any challenger’s attack.
As the presidential debates approach, consider these two challenges each of the two candidates faces. Look to President Obama and watch to see if he seems to be appearing at events in which he looks “presidential.” Of course he can’t help it; he IS the President. But is he taking unfair advantage of his incumbency?
And look at the criticisms of Mitt Romney. Is he finding fault in everything President Obama has done? Is he portraying the President as a total failure, with not a single accomplishment to his credit? In an imperfect world, where compromise is the way anything in politics gets done, is Romney criticizing Obama for compromising? It is easy to do. It is the only way for him to get elected.
But will the public be convinced?
