>This sounds right. On the whole _all_ campaigns focus on bringing out
>their vote rather than on persuading anyone to change. I would add that
>the small town talk was NOT aimed at small towns; it was aimed at
>suburban voters. "Small town" is an icon, a fantssy, not a geographical
>area. Such talk makes suburban voters feel good about their candidate.
i agree with that on both counts. there's this fascinating chapter in Bellah et al's _Habits of the Heart_ about the rhetoric of small towns in the u.s. thing is, as the authors point out, these people championining the way of life of small towns didn't even live in a small town -- and wouldn't. they lived in suburbs, near where their jobs were. it reminded me of the way second generation immigrants (or is it third?) from Ireland (and elsewhere) would become way more Irish than their forebears. some kind of misplaced nostalgia.
one thought, though: the democrats, supposedly, _do_ try to appeal to republicans, don't they? that seems to have been their strategy with the constant appeal to the middle, attempts to steal away repubs. similarly, wasn't it Reagan who got some democrats to vote repub?
one other thought: whether it's the only thing they do, we at least know it's one thing parties do: try to bring out the base, rally them to come out and vote. as such, a lot of what goes on, with attacks on Republicans, is precisely the kind of red meat thrown at the democratic base that's intended to bring out the vote. the relentless focus on how horrible the republicans, etc. etc. if that's the case, and i think it is, then you can hardly help that kind of conversation from happening in years divisible by four.
shag