Monday, June 23, 2008

Is Charlie Black Right?

The television in my office is broken, which means that I can't gauge the pundit insta-reaction to Charlie Black's comments to Fortune magazine about a terrorist attack being a "big advantage" for John McCain. Frankly, I am probably a better analyst without television than with it, but that is a discussion for another day.

When Americans are thinking about of acts of terror, they naturally think back to 9/11. Although it's hard to be absolutely sure, it would certainly seem that another 9/11-scale on America would (quite understandably) scare the living bejebus out of the electorate, and an electorate that has the living bejebus scared out of it will probably not be inclined to vote for a "change" candidate, especially one with limited national security experience.

But what if instead there were something more analogous to the bombing of the USS Cole: an attack on US interests on foreign soil? Or some kind of incident on domestic soil that goes off half-cocked? Say, for instance, a Muslim exchange student with vague connections to Al-Qaeda attempts to detonate a parking garage in Seattle, Washington. There is a complete failure of intelligence in envisioning the attack, but the bombs are poorly constructed and most do not detonate; five people are injured but none are killed. Or, there is some kind of incident at the Beijing Olympics comparable to the Centennial Park bombing in Atlanta, but this time with more connection to international terrorist organizations? Or, a fairly serious incident on U.S. soil, but one perpetuated by a domestic terror group?

Attacks like these are more likely, perhaps by several orders of magnitude, than another 9/11. The electoral implications would depend heavily on the particular facts and circumstances, as well as the timing the incident and the reaction of the candidates.

It seems to me, however, that there is perhaps some margin where the attack is significant enough to represent a serious failure of the Bush Administration's intelligence policy, but not serious enough to really scare people. If that is the case, the electoral implications are vaguer, and could possibly -- possibly -- even work against John McCain, particularly if the incident occurs at some point over the summer where there is still plenty of breathing space for each candidate to frame the narrative. In that eventuality, Black's comments would surely be played on continuous loop, which might make things more difficult for his candidate.

43 comments

Anonymous said...

Another effect is that an attack that is somehow clearly linked to or originating from Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan could very well bolster the public's disgust with Iraq and serve as further indictment of the Bush Administrations misplaced priorities leading to DECREASED national security.

Dave S said...

In this case, there is definitely an opening for Obama to pull a "told ya so" -- He says, all the time, that the current national security posture has made us less safe.

newfa said...

I have to agree with the other posters, personally I would be fairly PO'd. The Republicans had 8 years to do something about terrorism and instead we are in this god-awful war in Iraq. If Obama can make his case, I think this would actually help him.

However, I also agree with Nate that the less serious the attack the more likely it is to help Obama. A serious attack is a bit of a wild-card and could go either way.

JC said...

I don't know. I think that it wouldn't really help either candidate because the McCain group could say that they know how to handle things, but Obama could say that this is exactly why McCain shouldn't be elected because terrorists are more likely to come after someone more similar to Bush in foreign policy. Anyways I would still have to pray to Jebus.

Insult Comic Dog said...

You know those conspiracy theorists about 9/11? They are considered kooks, and I would say rightfully so.

But an attack *after* McCain's own campaign manager say that an attack would be an advantage to him?

Followed by an actual attack?

You could no longer easily dismiss a conspiracy theorist in that case.

Anonymous said...

Black just revealed the GOP's october surprise, nothing unexpected, they'll just say it was caused by iran

Anonymous said...

Let's see: (1) If we're not attacked, we should thank the Republicans because we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. (2) If we are attacked, that helps the Republicans because they're stronger on terror.

Something's wrong with this picture.

Anonymous said...

OMG

Sensible Person said...

Black's comments change a lot... one thing, though... do they actually have a video clip of this to play over and over, or just the transcript? That'll effect the degree to which this changes things.

hosertohoosier said...

You clearly need to read the public opinion literature. Attacks - even those ostensibly linked to the incompetence of the administration - have historically resulted in short-term up-ticks in approval for the president, which would at least partly translate to John McCain. Of course if these attacks were too far away from the election they would have little impact.

Secondly, were Obama (or his surrogates) to explicitly blame the president for terrorist attacks he would be widely booed, a la Bill Maher (that doesn't mean he wouldn't be correct).

Moreover, such an event would heighten the profile of national security issues - which helps McCain (since they are better for him relative to the economy).

Now you may be thinking, but what about Spain? There a last minute terrorist attack may well have made the difference between victory and defeat for Aznar's center-right government. Different kettle of fish. Aznar's cooperation with Bush was already tremendously unpopular, and the immediate link many people drew was Aznar's relationship with America -> terrorist attacks (or some may have thought it was Basque separatists, and I don't really know the politics of Spain's domestic terrorism problems).

By contrast, most Americans believe "they hate us because we're free", and have long refused to accept a foreign policy that is driven primarily by American interests for very long. The limp wrist American press would cast blame only at its peril. A terrorist attack would be a godsend for McCain.

Anonymous said...

of course it would, which is why the Bushies are planning one as we speak, kill two birds with one stone, Obama and the dems, plus Iran, giving them a reason to launch their panned attacks

I am a Fractal said...

united technologies lobbyist charlie black?

military contractor charlie black?

the same charlie black who worked for the military contractor that tried to buy diebold?

what did he say? that if you vote for democrats we'd all die?

yes. that old tired scary-point has been used by republicans ever since they tried to cover up that their own incompetence (or worse) allowed 9/11 to happen.

yet another glass house problem for the GOP.

Anonymous said...

An attack would result in a Republican landslide and we all know it. To paraphrase that Shakespeare classic, Men in Black, people are dumb stupid animals and you know it. An attack would have every pundit screaming about the need to nuke anything darker than the white on my computer screen and latent anti-muslim sentiment would give Obama a solid 10% total vote in November. He'd win DC and HI and probably even lose IL.

Never underestimate the American people's penchant for stupidity.

C.S.Strowbridge said...

"In that eventuality, Black's comments would surely be played on continuous loop, which might make things more difficult for his candidate."

I think the Democrats should do that now. This comment represents the worst side of politics, and it goes against McCain's maverick label.

Anonymous said...

He shouldn't be right, but is.

If there is another attack, enough people that otherwise would have voted for Obama will switch to McCain that the election would turn on it.

Halfdan said...

Eh. If there is another attack of any sort, it's very likely that even the lightest scrutiny will reveal yet another bumbling agency rendered incompetent through petty political mismanagement. So no, I don't think that would help John McCain at all.

Anonymous said...

nate-

do you have any comment on CNN's electoral prediction map so far?

they place New Mexico is leaning mccain! That makes no sense
It also has Maine as only leaning obama...
and then of course, it has alaska as solid McCain, but new jersey as only leaning obama?

it doesn't make much sense to me at all

care to comment?

Anonymous said...

Poll: Obama leads in South Florida

Seth said...

regarding the comment at 9:18.

It is most likely so CNN can create an artificial news story along the lines of "XYZ candidate has increased/decreased their odds of winning XYZ state. As a result, CNN now projects the state as a toss-up/lean/solid."

Anonymous said...

The American response to attack post 9/11 (and other terrorist events to date) has been to dig in the heels and lash out. Up to this point in time, I would have predicted that a pre-election attack would have caused such a response--which would work well for John McCain. And, perhaps I'm paranoid, but I've had concerns about the current administration engineering such an attack.
However, it was interesting to note that the attack on the train in Spain prior to their election did not work at all for the incumbent. That may be because the Spanish populace was already opposed to the war. So what would happen if there were a terrorist attack launched against a U.S. populace who wa