Policies or Personalities?

In recent elections, the character of the candidates has generally been more important than the policies of those candidates. This is for a number of reasons. Mainly, however, there haven't been enough policy differences that matter to swing voters for candidates to focus on. The upshot of this is that both sides have focused on the character of their candidate, and on smearing the character of the opponent. Thus, in 2000, the Democrats portrayed George Bush as being stupid, while the Republicans retaliated with a campaign questioning Al Gore's honesty. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign aimed to undermine John Kerry's credentials as a war hero.

In the 2008 election, however, this may not be so. On the one hand, both characters are hugely charismatic, with genuinely American backgrounds. One is the child of a Kenyan father and an American mother, who grew up trying to deal with the fact that he didn't fit in anywhere. The other is a man who volunteered for an unpopular war, and spent five years being tortured for it. On the other hand, there are now significant policy differences that resonate with swing voters.

There are of course, the usual ones, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc. However, the people for whom these are important issues generally vote on strict party lines anyway, and as both candidates toe the party line on these issues, there is not going to be much bickering about these particular issues.

The issues that will resonate hugely, however, are very much policy rather than politics. There is the question of the best way out of Iraq, the best way to fix the economy, provision of universal healthcare, and the best way to reduce America's dependence on foreign energy. In the first area, it looks like John McCain has the edge. While both candidate's plans for withdrawal have merged to be nearly identical, McCain is both perceived as a better judge of foreign policy, and now, with the surge going well, Americans may be more willing to slow down the pace of withdrawal from Iraq.

On the economy, Barack Obama has consistently shown a better grasp, at least in the eyes of the voting public. While McCain has announced that his idea of rich is earning more than $5,000,000 a year, and plans further tax cuts without any corresponding spending cuts, Obama at least plans to roll back the most egregious of the tax cuts of the Bush years. Most Americans, quite obviously, don't earn $5,000,000 a year, and McCain's tax cuts look set to benefit only those at the top. Again, in healthcare, the issue may be moving Obama's way. His plans are both more realistic, and sound fairer than McCain's.

Finally, the price of gas may play a crucial role in the election. On the one hand, McCain has come out in favour of increased drilling. This smacks of populism, given that, as Obama pointed out, it would take years for any benefits to come onstream, and the amount of gas gained would roughly approximate the amount that Americans would save if they pressurised their tyres properly. However, Obama is not without his own populist streak, blaming much of the problem on Big Oil.

While there are undoubted policy differences, this election may yet hinge on the personalities of the candidates. Obama has traded heavily on the "Change" card, which McCain seems belatedly to be trying to appropriate. Whether he can do this will play a major factor in influencing the outcome. At the same, time, if he cannot prove that his policies will improve the lives of ordinary Americans, it will be an uphill struggle