by Bruce Belfield on December 16, 2010
by Casey Jones on August 27, 2010
The Bible of Little Known Facts in American Politics
by Rich Rubino.
To Preview or Buy Please Click Here
The Books Above: In October of 2014 I published my third book: "The Political Bible of Humorous Quotations from American Politics." In March of 2013 I finished writing my second book: "Make Every Vote Equal: What a Novel Idea." The book supports the National Popular Vote movement, whose focus is to modify how state Electors vote in the Electoral College so that the winner of the popular vote is also the winner in the Electoral College. My first book was published in 2011: "The Political Bible of Little Known Facts in American Politics." In April of 2013 I published a Second Edition of the book, which now includes a facts section on the 2012 elections. All of my publications can be found on Amazon.com.
Thank You, Rich Rubino, firstname.lastname@example.org
The Featured Video in the left column: is a sampling of some of my past television interviews.
----- Ponderings -----
Welcome to Politi-Geek: A website devoted to Politics and everything related to Politics
This Day in American Political History
This Date in American Political History:
May 25, 1787 – The Constitutional Convention commences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The meeting is advertised as a vehicle to amend the Articles of Confederation, but the result is that the delegates scrap the Articles and supplant them with the Constitution of the United States.
A Johnson/Weld Ticket Could Make the Libertarian Party Viable
Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who unsuccessfully sought the 2016 Republican Party’s Presidential nomination, reluctantly endorsed presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Donald Trump, averring that the race between Trump and likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a “binary choice.” This is the mentality the Libertarian Party faces in presidential election cycles. Although the party has the political dexterity to get its Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees on the ballot in all or almost all fifty states and the District of Columbia, many voters either are not cognizant that the party has a nominee on the ballot, or immediately eliminate the candidate from consideration, believing that a vote for a non-major party nominee is a wasted vote.
The Democratic-Republican duopoly employs rhetorical brainwashing to maintain their electoral hegemony by using the hypnotic technique of “repetition,” continuing to repeat the message that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, inculcating this notion in the minds of American voters until the vox populi eschew their conscience and select a nominee from one of the two major parties.
The Libertarian Party has been in an electoral steady-state in the Presidential sphere since it began nominating candidates in 1972. Only twice, in 1980 and in 2012, did the party garner at or near 1% of the national popular vote. Their Presidential nominees have often been non-politicians who appear to be in the race to wave the party’s flag rather than to be serious contenders. In addition, the candidates have sometimes been doctrinaire Libertarian ideologues who view any attempt to mainstream their message as apostasy.
This year, the applecart could be upset. The frontrunner for the nomination is former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. Former Republican Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld has agreed to run as Johnson’s Vice Presidential runningmate. Both candidates are serious political players with redoubtable experience as Chief Executives. This is coupled with a political climate where neither of the likely nominees from the two major parties are favored by a majority of voters.
The Libertarian Party preaches a mantra of “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” The party is generally thought of as a non-interventionist party. Libertarian devotees support limited government intervention in the economy, limited involvement in the affairs of other nations, and limited intervention in personal behavior. The Libertarian Party is often ideologically identified as the fiscally conservative, socially liberal party.
Though the party barely registers in the polls, a recent Gallop survey revealed that 27% of the American electorate are ideologically Libertarians. This finding illustrates that the party should work to consolidate the voters who actually support the candidate closest to their values.
Part of the reason why so many American voters identify as Libertarians but do not vote for the Libertarian Party nominee might be that voters who know of the party’s existence are more moderate Libertarians. While they support the idea of limited government, they would not eradicate the Social Safety Net. They might agree that the U.S. should stay out of foreign entanglements, but would not egress from all international organizations. They may support abortion rights, but favor restrictions on late-term abortions. In addition, voters could be turned off by Libertarian nominees who preach the Libertarian gospel but who have never actually run anything substantial.
Both Johnson and Weld are moderate Libertarians with both electoral and executive prowess. While Johnson is a more libertarian than Weld, neither is a rigid Libertarian ideologue. Both were elected twice as Governor with support from both Democrats and Republicans.
Johnson was elected in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1. Weld was elected in a state where GOP registration was only about 13%. Johnson was first elected in 1994, defeating three-term incumbent Democratic Governor Bruce King.
Johnson won the New Mexico Governorship not by proposing a radical reconstruction of the role of government but by bringing a “commonsense approach” and applying business principles to state government. He amalgamated traditional center-right conservatism. Johnson reduced the growth of the state budget, cut taxes, and advocated a school voucher program. Johnson entered the national political stage in 1999 by becoming the highest elected official to explicitly call for the legalization of marijuana, an issue which now strikes a resonate chord with the electorate.
Weld, a former U.S. Attorney, won the GOP nomination for Governor in 1990 by defeating the House Minority Leader Steve Pierce, a full spectrum conservative. In the General Election, Weld won over Democratic voters by highlighting his support for abortion rights, tax reduction, and taking a hard line on crime. He waxed sentimental about the days when prisoners experienced: “the joys of breaking rocks.”
Weld ran to the left of Democratic nominee John Silber on the environment. During a debate, Weld exploited a claim by the Democratic nominee, John Silber Ph.D., that beavers created so much wetland that preserving wetlands should not be of concern. Weld quipped: “Would you tell us doctor, what plans, if any, you have for the preservation of open spaces in Massachusetts, other than leave it to beavers?”
Weld was re-elected in 1994, pocketing a record 71% of the vote. Despite a modicum of Republicans in the state, Weld won 346 of the Commonwealth’s 351 municipalities.
While Weld often garners the Libertarian label, his record as Governor shows him to be a very watered-downed version. Weld supported the 1994 Federal ban on some semi-automatic firearms, Affirmative Action, and later in his term proposed and signed budgets which increased state spending. In his 1993 State of the State Address, Weld proposed more state spending and avowed: “We’re not against government spending. We don’t wish to dismantle government.”
When Weld ran unsuccefully for a U.S. Senate seat in 1996, he ran as a technocratic pragmatist, emphasizing his bi-partisan bone fides, exclaiming: “I have worked with Democrats, Republicans and Independents . . . Since I’ve been Governor, we practice good management in Massachusetts, not partisan finger-pointing.”
That year Nathaniel Palmer, an unpaid field operative for the Weld Senate campaign, approached the state chairman of the Libertarian party asking if the party would endorse Weld. Palmer recounts: “His response was indignant and incredulous - the way most Libertarian react, which I had naively forgotten. He said there was no way that would ever happen and that Weld was the furthest thing from a Libertarian.”
With a broad cross-section of voters across the political spectrum disaffected with the likely major party nominees, the Johnson/Weld ticket has a real electoral opportunity. The first step is to prove to the general electorate that the ticket is center-right fiscally and center-left on social issues, not a rarified Libertarian ticket. The ticket must support a retrenchment from foreign entanglements, and make the case that U.S. intervention effectuates blowback, ironically making the U.S. less safe. However, the ticket must emphasize that the U.S. will defend the homeland and will not enfeeble its military apparatus.
The ticket must create a master narrative of two outsiders with executive experience with a moderate Libertarian worldview. The ticket must also communicate that it is not confined to a Libertarian straight-jacket, and is willing to work with members of the two major parties.
A recent poll showed Johnson registering at 11% nationally. This is a number no Libertarian ticket has ever remotely reached. If the ticket registers at 15% in five national polls, Johnson would be allowed to participate in the Presidential debates. This would afford voters the opportunity to see Johnson on the same stage as the two major candidates, giving him nearly universal name recognition, and evidencing the fact that the American electorate has more than a simple “binary choice” between Clinton and Trump.
Some unadulterated Libertarians would be disconsolate at the ticket’s effort to broaden its appeal, but as Palmer points out, with the inclusion on the ticket of the more mainstream Weld: “I’m sure the anti-Johnson faction of the party now will point to further evidence that Johnson himself is not Libertarian, just an opportunist who couldn’t get the Republican nomination. And that generally sums up why the Libertarians do so poorly to advance candidates.”
A Johnson/Weld ticket must ignore this view, and present itself as an alternative to the two major parties. The campaign should repeat a quote by former U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (1959-1971) in 1978: “Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.”
This is a once in a political lifetime chance for the Libertarians to present themselves as a viable and credible alternative to the electoral hegemony the Democrats and Republicans currently enjoy. A Johnson/Weld ticket will not likely win the election, but it could serve as a wellspring for qualified moderate Libertarians to run for down-ballot offices in the future, making the Party a “third force” in American politics, and making the party an electoral threat in future Presidential elections.
Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL
In GOP Vice Presidential Sweepstakes, Donald Trump may want to vet John Duncan, Walter Jones, and Gene Taylor
Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump is in the inchoate stages of vetting possible Vice Presidential runningmates. Much media focus is centering on Ohio Governor John Kasich. Electorally, it would make sense to select a popular Governor of a critically important showdown state. No Republican has ever won the Presidency without carrying the Buckeye state. However, it would be unlikely that Kasich would accept the offer. It would not be in Kasich’s best political interests to be associated with the Trump brand.
Current polls show Trump well behind Democratic Frontrunner Hillary Clinton. However, Kasich is currently ahead of Clinton in the polls. Should Trump lose in the General election, GOP voters would regret that they nominated Trump rather than Kasich in 2016. This would put Kasich in the electoral catbird seat for 2020. He could spend 2018 on the campaign hustings, stumping for Republican Congressional Candidates, collecting chits and ingratiating himself with GOP benefactors. This could put him in a position as the early frontrunner for the nomination in 2020. Kasich’s odds of winning the General Election in 2020 would be good, as Republicans would be galvanized to nominate an electable candidate, having been shut out of the White House for twelve years, and the electoral pendulum would likely swing back to the Republicans, as Americans would have fatigue at the same party occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for so long.
Beyond those considerations, Trump is not presenting himself as a traditional milquetoast Republican. Trump emphasizes an “America First” policy, which includes economic nationalism, opposing most trade agreements that the U.S. has negotiated in recent years. Trump labels NAFTA (signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993): “The worst economic development deal ever signed in the history of our Country.” Kasich voted for NAFTA and other trade agreements when he served in the U.S. Congress. Trump’s America First Policy also dictates opposition to most recent U.S. foreign interventions. With respect to this issue, Kasich is wedded to the interventionist bloodline of the party. In addition, Trump often bemoans the influence of large financial institutions on the political process. Ironically, Kasich is a former senior executive at Lehman brothers. Finally, Trump advocates closed borders and deporting the estimated 11-12 million illegal immigrants currently in the nation. Alternatively, Kasich favors a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, including a path to earned legalization for undocumented immigrants.
It is quite common for a candidate of one wing of a party to be paired up with a candidate from a competing wing to harness party unity. In 1880, Republican James Garfield, who emphasized Civil Service Reform, was paired with Chester A. Arthur, who had made a career as a beneficiary of the corrupt civil service system and opposed reforms. In 1904, the progressive Theodore Roosevelt was paired with the conservative Charles Fairbanks, and in 1976, the moderate Democrat Jimmy Carter was paired with the liberal stalwart Walter Mondale.
For Trump, selecting a runningmate with a different vision would likely be a non-starter. The media would focus with laser-beam precision on the differences between the ticket mates. Accordingly, Trump’s runningmate would need to be an individual who sings from Donald’s hymnbook on almost all of the major issues.
Trump averred he wants to select someone “who is friends with the Senators and Congressmen” (Senators are actually also Congressmen). This would imply that Trump would focus on either a sitting member who has relations with members on both sides of the aisle, or a former member. The former member would likely be someone without lobbyist ties, as Trump has emphasized his independence from members of the unpopular profession.
Trump would have a huge problem persuading a sitting member of Congress to agree to be his runningmate. Few members of the U.S. Congress who are up for re-election would sacrifice his/her political career for what could be a hapless Vice Presidential run. While it is possible to seek re-election to the House or Senate while concomitantly running for Vice President (as Lloyd Bentsen did in 1988, Joe Lieberman did in 2000, and Paul Ryan did in 2012), only a candidate from a reliably Republican state or district facing token opposition would take this risk. Most Representatives and Senators in at least nominally competitive races would not want to be tethered to Trump.
Of the sitting Senators, Trump’s biggest booster is U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). While Sessions is charismatic and is simpatico with Trump on illegal immigration, the two have irreconcilable differences on other issues. Sessions has voted for many of the Trade treaties Trump condemns. In addition, Sessions supports proposals to privatize Social Security. Contrariwise, Trump opposes any changes to the Social Security system, pledging to: “do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is.”
Trump showcases his opposition to the Iraq War, charging that the U.S-led invasion “destabilized the Middle East.” It would not likely be a litmus test for a Vice Presidential candidate to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning, but the candidate would have to have displayed fierce opposition in the attendant years.
There are two sitting Republican members of the House who fit Trumps brand of Republicanism almost to a tee and who would complement his message on the campaign trail as Vice Presidential running mates. They are both Southern accented less bombastic versions of Trump. The first is Walter Jones of North Carolina. While Jones was an early supporter of the Iraq war, he has since become a vociferous critic. Jones now maintains: “I just feel that the reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that’s all been proven that it was never there.” In 2007, Jones was one of just three Republicans to vote for a bill ordering Bush to bring combat troops home by 2008.
Like Trump, Jones is an economic nationalist. He has voted against virtually every proposed free trade agreement since he entered Congress. He has co-sponsored legislation to repeal NAFTA and is a leader in the effort to stop the Transpacific Partnership. Jones avers: “free-trade agreements like NAFTA have pushed millions of good paying jobs outside our borders.” Jones is also a steadfast opponent of illegal immigration, averring: “It is imperative that we secure our borders and not reward those who have broken our laws with amnesty.”
The other member who fits this description is U.S. Representative John Duncan (R-TN). Duncan, a self-professed “non-interventionist,” was against the Iraq War from the beginning, despite support for the War from the preponderance of his constituents. In fact, after his vote, Duncan was slated to deliver an address at a Baptist Church in his District. However, inflamed church benefactors and a Church Deacon threatened to leave the Church if Duncan were allowed to address the congregation. In response, Duncan agreed not to show up.
Furthermore, Duncan is an economic nationalist and an adversary of illegal immigration. He recently endorsed Trump, praising Trump for his views on these three issues.
Finally, an interesting choice would be former U.S Representative Gene Taylor of Mississippi. Taylor represented that state’s Gulf Coast as a Conservative Democrat. Though popular in the District, he could not withstand the 2010 floodtide against Democrats and barely lost his seat. He has since become a Republican. Taylor was one of the most charismatic members of Congress, excoriating federal Budget deficits, advocating for a balanced Budget Amendment, and disparaging free trade agreements. Taylor introduced a resolution in 2010, “to provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.” While Taylor voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, he came to question the futility of the war effort. In 2006, Taylor averred: “How do you win a counterinsurgency when 80% of the people don’t want you there?” He wanted the President to call for a plebiscite among Iraqi citizens to see if they want U.S. troops to stay. A two-thirds majority vote would be required. If the referendum did not muster that number, Taylor harshly intoned: “then I’m at the point of saying to heck with them.”
Part of the reason why Taylor survived in what was a Congressional District where Republican John McCain garnered 69% of the vote in 2008, was his advocacy for his constituents. This was highlighted in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the district, destroying his home. He became a critic of the manner in which his constituents were being treated by the insurance companies, bemoaning: “Private insurance companies leverage our dollars to find ways to deny us the protection for which we pay good American money.” Taylor also lambasted FEMA Director Michael Brown at a House hearing, telling him: “You get an F- in my book.”
The road to a Vice Presidential pick will be a narrow one for Donald Trump. Many elected officials would not want to risk their political careers to be tethered to the real estate magnet. Moreover, a candidate would have to be ideologically simpatico with Trump. His “America First” brand of conservative is a minority ideological viewpoint among Republican elected officials. Trump says he wants someone who can work with Congress. All three of the aforementioned possibilities have worked with members of both parties quite often in co-sponsoring proposed bipartisan legislation. Vetting Jones, Duncan, and Taylor would be a good starting point for Trump.
Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL
I’m From Massachusetts: My Vote Doesn’t Count
This primary election cycle is showcasing the fundamental unfairness of the way political parties select their nominees. Republicans are aghast that some states choose their nominees at state conventions rather than letting voters choose. Democrats are becoming cognizant that their vote is subservient to the vote of their Governors and members of the U.S. Congress, who in their role as a Superdelegate can vote at the Democratic National Convention for a candidate their constituents rejected. In many respects, political parties are similar to private yacht clubs, country clubs, and polo clubs. The parties decide how they will select their candidates, and the candidate who wins the popular vote can be purged at the convention.
While the blatant electoral inequities of the primary have recently been exposed, it is also time to expose the incongruities of the General Election process. Only about 10 states are showdown states (states which can swing to either party in an election) where an individual’s vote actually matters. The voters in the other 40 or so states (including Massachusetts), which constitute about 80% of the electorate, are ignominiously relegated to the electoral sidelines, watching the candidates from their television sets delivering hortatory speeches in those few electorally critical states. Although it seems surreal, in 2012, about two-thirds of General Election campaign events took place in just four states.
Interestingly, there is a state-by-state movement which would ameliorate this situation by making every vote equal throughout the nation. It is called “The National Popular Vote Plan.” Formulated by Computer Scientist John Koza, the proposal is an interstate compact where participating states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement would take effect once enough states, constituting the requisite 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election, agree to participate in the compact. The compact has already been agreed to in 11 states and in the District of Columbia, comprising a total of 165 electoral votes. It would be actuated only if enough states representing the other 105 electoral votes signed on to the compact.
The plan guarantees that the winner of the National Popular Vote actually wins the General Election and that every vote will in fact be coveted by political campaigns. A vote in Jamestown Rhode Island would be as important as a vote in Jamestown, Virginia. A vote in Marblehead, Ohio, would muster as much weight as a vote in Marblehead, Massachusetts. A vote in Stillwell, Wisconsin would be equal to a vote in Stillwell, Oklahoma.
Under the current electoral regime, 48 states award literally all of their electoral votes to the person who wins their state. The District of Columbia does the same. The two exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, allocate two at-large votes to the winner of the state, and the rest by Congressional District. This means that in the 2012 election, the 4,839,958 votes for Mitt Romney in California were obliterated from the pages of electoral time, as Barack Obama collected all 55 Electoral votes from the state. Contrariwise, the 3,308,124 voters who selected Barack Obama in Texas saw their votes disappear, as Mitt Romney mustered all 38 electoral votes from the Loan Star State.
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where the Constitution was drafted and debated, there was an impasse as to how to select a President. One proposal had the U.S. Congress select the President. Another mandated that State Legislators choose the President. Still another called for a direct popular vote.
Arriving at no clear resolution, the conventioneers bequeathed to the states plenary authority to choose how they want to elect the President. Article ll, Section l, Clause ll of the Constitution states: “Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors.” How they do that is their prerogative. In fact, in the first Presidential election, only three states instituted winner-take-all statutes.
Contrary to the prevailing contemporary belief, the winner-take-all system is not a creature of the U.S. Constitution, but of partisan politics. In most cases, the political party which enjoyed a majority in the respective State Legislatures was likely to vote for the Presidential candidate of that party. Accordingly, in a partisan scheme, states began to adopt winner-take-all rules for selecting their Presidential candidate in order to maximize the number of votes for the party’s Presidential candidate. U.S. Senator Thomas Heart Benton of Missouri, in discussing the winner-take-all system, averred in 1824: “It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the state.”
The greatest danger under the winner-take-all regime is that a Presidential candidate could win the Presidency having pocketed less popular votes than another candidate. This situation occurred in 1824, 1876, 1888, and in 2000. In addition, this result became perilously close to occurring in 1880, 1916, 1960, 1968, and in 2004.
The current electoral system disenfranchises both large and small states. Of the four largest states: California, Texas, New York, and Florida, candidates only target Florida. The other three are “safe,” non-competitive states. In fact, party nominees use the three non-showdown states merely as electoral ATM’s. A candidate will parachute into Los Angeles, Houston, or New York City, speak at a private fundraiser, beseech opulent benefactors to donate to their campaigns, and then immediately egress from these states to spend that money in the states that matter, showdown states such as Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio.
The disproportionate influence of Ohio is patently obvious. During Barack Obama’s first term in office, either Obama or Vice President Joe Biden appeared in the electoral goldmine state about once every three weeks. During the 2012 General Election cycle, an astonishing 73 of the 253 campaign events occurred in the Buckeye state. Six days prior to Halloween, Obama joked that “trick or treaters” should come to the White House. He added: “If anybody comes from Ohio, they can expect a Hershey bar ‘this big’ [moving his hands outward].”
The practical application of this is that candidates are forced to address issues important to voters in only these few showdown states, like the economic embargo on Cuba in Florida, ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ohio, while ignoring water rights issues in the Central Valley region of California, property rights issues in the Texas panhandle, and the needs of the Upstate New York economy.
Alternatively, small states are also ignored in the present system. Of the 13 smallest states, only New Hampshire is remotely competitive in a General Election. The other 12 states are “safe states” where the electoral outcome is a foregone conclusion. For example, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming have not supported a Democrat for President since Lyndon B. Johnson won the nation in a landslide victory in 1964. Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Vermont all gave Obama more than 60% of the vote in 2012, and are politically immutable states for the Democrats. In fact, no Presidential candidate has made a formal campaign stop in Rhode Island since Richard M. Nixon in 1960. Nixon had made an injudicious campaign promise to campaign in all 50 states.
Voters in showdown states may conclude that the current system works to their geopolitical advantage, but they must be advised that the current winner-take-all system of voting is like an electoral roulette wheel: It stops on a state for consecutive election cycles and then moves on to other states. While today the needs of the Cuban-American community in South Florida, the steel manufacturer in Pennsylvania and the grain farmer in Virginia may muster an abundance of attention from presidential candidates, they must remember that they will not have this status in perpetuity. They could soon join the ranks of the Long Island fisherman, the Texas rancher, and the chicken farmer in Sussex County, Delaware, as constituencies that are ignored by presidential nominees.
Americans have now been exposed to the injustices of the American primary system, including the influence of Superdelagates, close primaries, and conventions choosing delegate slates rather than the voters. It is also important for voters to be conscious of the inequities in the General Election process. Every vote is not given equal consideration: far from it. The Presidential nominees disregard the preponderance of American voters. Worse, they have no electoral incentive to cultivate support from the preponderance of the nation. As former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (1991-1999) reminds us, this has a direct effect on how the winner conducts his/her Presidency. “People who are elected to office remember what they learned when they were campaigning. It’s important that these candidates campaign in all states.” The National Popular Vote Compact would transmogrify the way Presidents are elected, forcing the party nominees to be attentive to voters in all states, not just voters in states where the electoral roulette wheel lands in a particular election cycle.
Massachusetts voters, like voters in all “safe states,” should have votes of equal weight as those voters who are fortunate enough to reside in “showdown states.” The present Presidential voting system is riddled with inequities. Sadly, “I’m from Massachusetts: My Vote Doesn’t Count.”
Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL
Political Parties are Under No Obligation to Operate Democratically
Supporters of Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are flocking to local town hall meetings asking why their U.S. Representative or Senator is a Superdelagate for Hillary Clinton when their district or state supported Sanders. They ask, “Shouldn’t they represent the will of the people?” Contrariwise, on the Republican side, supporters of Donald Trump are incensed that his rival Ted Cruz secured 34 of 37 delegates in Colorado. The delegates were selected not by the voters but at the state convention. Trump excoriated the system as “corrupt” and bemoaned: “We’re supposed to be a Democracy.”
There is an inherent misunderstanding on the part of many voters that political parties are Democratic institutions. While they are regulated, political parties have plenary authority to select their nominees in any way they choose. They are under no obligation to allow the voters to select their nominees. In fact, voters in most states and territories vote in the primary and caucus system not for a specific candidate, but for a slate of delegates pledged to support a candidate. Surprisingly, they do not vote directly for individual candidates.
Ken Rudin, the host of NPR’s Ken Rudin’s Political Junkie maintains: “People don’t know - or they forgot - that party leaders can still have their way if voters fail to make a clear choice. That’s why we have superdelagates (on the Democratic side) as well as state party conventions. They are the last chance for the establishment to display the power they once routinely had. In the rare times when the voters and the party don’t see eye to eye (i.e., Republicans 2016), the party will do what it can do to have its way.”
The term “political party” is not embedded in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, many of the nation’s founders opposed their formation. In fact, in his 1796 Farewell address, George Washington warned about the “baneful effects of the spirit of party.” Thomas Jefferson declared: “If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
However, the founders realized that the establishment of political parties was inevitable. James Madison begrudgingly concluded: “In every political society, parties are unavoidable.” He said they “must always be expected in a government as free as ours.”
Madison proved correct. During the early years of the Republic, supporters of a centralized federal government, led by U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, formed the Federalist Party, while the exponents of a decentralized federal government led by U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, formed the Democratic-Republican Party.
Contrary to conventional belief, the current practice of selecting Presidential nominees is far more Democratic than it has been for most of American history. Originally, members of Congress would caucus to decide their party’s nominee. Then political conventions were established wherein delegates to the convention choose the nominee. The delegates are not always representative of the vox populi, but are often hand-selected by the party’s high command.
The Presidential primary process was first utilized in 1912, and it was far from Democratic. Only fourteen states held primaries and they proved functionally impotent. Former President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, became disillusioned with the more conservative policies of his Republican, handpicked successor, William Howard Taft. He challenged Taft in the primaries, telling news reporters, “My hat’s in the ring. The fight is on, and I’m stripped to the buff.” Roosevelt mustered 284 delegates in the primaries, compared to just 125 for Taft. However, Taft secured the nomination because of the support of “pledged delegates” (individual Republicans who had a vote at the convention). Roosevelt subsequently formed the Progressive Party and ran as their nominee. Democrat Woodrow Wilson defeated both Taft and Roosevelt.
In 1952, U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) won 12 of the 15 Democratic primaries. He had even defeated Incumbent President Harry S. Truman in the New Hampshire Primary, forcing Truman to announce that he would not seek re-election. Kefauver was a folk hero of sorts for his role as Chairman of a Special Senate Committee on Organized Crime. At the time, television was an inchoate medium; many stores placed the new gadget in their windows so that spectators could watch the hearings.
However, the choice of primary voters had little impact. The convention chose Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who had not entered any primaries and who was not even a Presidential candidate. In fact, Stevenson was actively seeking re-election as Governor. A Draft Stevenson movement emerged, and his name was placed in nomination. Stevenson reluctantly accepted the Democratic nomination.
In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered only one primary, South Dakota, which he lost. Humphrey supported the Vietnam policy of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Many members of the Democrat establishment supported the war, while rank-and-file Democrats did not. Instead, they supported U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN). Humphrey forces placed “favorite son” candidates as substitutes for Humphrey in some states. They then transferred their delegates to Humphrey. Though Humphrey had not won any primaries himself, the convention chose Humphrey. Reflecting on the way the Democratic Party worked against his nomination, McCarthy asserted that he “set out to prove...that the people of this country could be educated and make a decent judgment...but evidently this is something the politicians were afraid to face up to.” Eventually McCarthy reluctantly endorsed Humphrey, telling his supporters: “I’m voting for Humphrey, and I think you should suffer with me.” Humphrey lost the General Election to Republican President Richard M. Nixon.
In many respects, the political parties today take the will of the voter under advisement, but party officials are not legally bound to ratify them. Even recently, there are examples of candidates who were out of the party’s mainstream who actually won delegates, but who were not seated. In 2000, perennial Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon Larouche pocketed 22% of the vote in the Arkansas primary. Under state party rules, he was eligible to be awarded seven to ten of the state’s 48 delegates to the National Convention.
However, Democratic Party Co-Chairman Joe Andrew had ordered all state party chairs to “disregard any votes that might be cast for Larouche.” Andrew alleged LaRouche: “fails to show commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair.”
A lawsuit was filed on behalf of Larouche and his delegate slate asking the judge to order that they be seated at the state and National Convention. However, Judge John Ward denied the request. He ruled that the state had the right to “refuse to . . . seat delegates for Lyndon La Rouche,” and ruled that the state could instead award those seats to delegates supporting Vice President Al Gore.
Many voters believe political parties are mandated to award their nomination to the candidate who garners the most votes. Actually, there have been examples where a candidate garners fewer votes, but still musters his party’s nomination. In 1972, U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey (running again for the nomination) actually won 67,921 more popular votes than the party’s nominee, U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD). However, California had a winner-take-all rule, meaning that despite the fact that McGovern won the Golden State by only about five percentage points, he secured all of the state’s 271 delegates.
As Richard Winger, the Editor of Ballot Access News emphasizes, political parties are independent from the government. “All over the world that is true, except in highly authoritarian countries.” In fact, the Helsinki Accords, signed by the U.S. and thirty-four other countries in 1975 calls for: “a clear separation between the State and political parties; in particular, political parties will not be merged with the State.”
The bottom line is that political parties are under no obligation to act Democratically in selecting their Presidential nominees. Curly Haugland, a North Dakota delegate, accurately summed up the process when he told CNBC: “Political parties choose their nominee, not the general public, contrary to popular belief.”
Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL
Anybody But Trump, Anybody But Carter, Anybody But McGovern
The party establishment is aghast. An insurrectionist candidate is close to securing the party’s nomination. Fears arise on the part of the party establishment that this candidate will get clobbered in the General Election. Party chieftains and financial benefactors panic because the insurrectionist candidate is not beholden to them. A cacophony of voices emerges to try to stop this runaway train from garnering the nomination.
This may sound like the current landscape within the Republican Party as real estate mogul Donald Trump is holding a commanding lead for the Presidential nomination, and the GOP establishmentarians are moving full throttle to stop him. Some are even endorsing his chief rival, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), recently the bugbear of the party.
This political scenario played out twice in the 1970’s, not in the GOP, but in the Democratic Party. Both times, the effort by the establishment to squelch the insurgency failed.
In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered just one Democratic Primary, South Dakota, which he lost. Humphrey supported the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson in prosecuting the War in Vietnam. This led many in the party to support anti-war candidates rather than Humphrey. Humphrey’s campaign dispatched favorite son candidates like Governor Roger D. Branigin in Indiana to appear on the ballot in his place. These candidates then released their delegates to Humphrey at the Democratic Convention.
Humphrey collected the support of delegates in those states which did not hold primaries. In these states the party elite controlled the delegates. As the result of this somewhat undemocratic process, riots ensued in front of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and anti-war liberals embarrassed Humphrey on the campaign trail, sometimes heckling him at his rallies. Humphrey lost the election, in part because he failed to coalesce the support of the party base.
In response to the discontent within the party, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was established to make the selection process more democratic. One of the reforms it established was that delegates be positioned based upon the state or territory population. Many states conformed to the new rule by awarding delegates at primaries rather than force the candidate to genuflect to the high command of the state party. Consequently, grassroots Democrats were empowered to select the nominee.
Interestingly, one of the Chairmen of this commission, U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD), ran himself for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972, appealing directly to the ascendant anti-war liberal bloodline of the Party.
While many elected officials took a more nuanced approach toward ending the Vietnam War, McGovern sang from the same hymnbook as the “new left.” He stated that as President he would: “announce a definite early date for withdrawal of every American Soldier.” In addition, McGovern called for a major truncation of the U.S. military budget over three years and a $1,000 income supplement for every American.
As McGovern racked up formidable primary victories, party regulars formed an “Anybody But McGovern” coalition. Former President Lyndon B. Johnson and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley strategized behind the scenes to stop McGovern at the Convention. The ringleader of the Anybody But McGovern movement was an obscure moderate Governor from Georgia named Jimmy Carter. At the Party’s National Convention, there was a last ditch effort to save the party from a McGovern nomination. Carter nominated one of McGovern’s vanquished rivals for the nomination, U.S. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA). Jackson, a traditional Democrat, had performed poorly in his bid for the nomination, only winning his home state caucuses. However, he did not officially drop out of the race. Carter’s effort to promote Jackson failed and McGovern pocketing the nomination.
During the General Election campaign, many down-ballot Democratic candidates joined “Democrats for Nixon” (Republican President Richard M. Nixon) in an effort to inoculate themselves from being tethered to McGovern. Some party loyalists reluctantly supported McGovern, but did little campaigning for him. Former Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson was dismayed by the McGovern nomination, offering him merely a tepid endorsement. Johnson simply stated: “I’ve always supported the Democratic Party and I’m going to support you.” Johnson privately said to his former aide Bobby Baker: “George McGovern? Why, he couldn’t carry Texas even if they caught Dick Nixon fu*** ng a Fort Worth sow.” Johnson was correct, McGovern lost 49 states and won just 33.24% of the vote in the Loan Star state.
Witnessing how McGovern had won the nomination by taking full advantage of the new state of play in the party, Carter began orchestrating his own candidacy. Carter used his remoteness from the Democratic establishment as an electoral asset. Carter had served just one term as Governor of Georgia. A 1974 Harris Interactive Poll of choices for the 1976 Democratic nomination registered 35 names. Carter did not even make the list.
Carter spent an inordinate amount of time in Iowa, which held the first caucus. Carter correctly predicted that an Iowa victory (he actually came in second to “uncommitted”) would put him on the map, giving him the momentum and positive media attention to win New Hampshire, which he did. To the mortification of the party hierarchy, Carter became the frontrunner, forging a coalition of disaffected Democratic voters, African-Americans, Southern Whites, and new voters inspired by Carter’s clarion call for “A government that is honest and competent.”
In 1972, the Democratic establishment had feared McGovern was too liberal to win the Presidency. In 1976, the Democratic High Command thought Carter was too conservative to rally the party’s base in the General Election campaign. Neither candidate was beholden to the party establishment.
Carter’s flagship accomplishment as Governor had not been to increase government spending on social services, but to streamline government, reducing the number of government agencies from 300 to just 22. In addition, many Democratic liberals would be reluctant to support a White Southerner. Some associated White Southern politicians with segregation. However, Carter was actually in favor of desegregation and had declared in his 1971 Inauguration address as Governor: “The time for racial discrimination is over.” Still, Carter rattled some liberals by telling The New York Daily News that he saw: “Nothing wrong with ethnic purity in urban neighborhoods” and would not “force racial integration of a neighborhood by government action.” Carter apologized for the remarks four days later. In addition, some secular liberals were uncomfortable that Carter was a born-again Christian who openly sported his faith.
Shortly after the ethnic purity fiasco, Establishment Democrats rallied around the man Carter had nominated for President in 1972, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, in the critical Pennsylvania primary. Many in the establishment actually favored U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN). However, he had not entered the race. Consequently, the inchoate “Anybody But Carter” movement rallied behind Jackson who led in most polls in Pennsylvania. Yet Carter campaigned indefatigably for eleven days in the Keystone State. To the chagrin of the Democratic establishment, Carter soundly defeated Jackson in Pennsylvania. The Anybody But Carter movement, believing Humphrey was the only person who could halt the Carter groundswell, beseeched him to enter the race, but Humphrey declined.
Two late entrants, U.S. Senator Frank Church (D-ID) and California Governor Jerry Brown, racked up late primary wins, but Carter’s delegate lead was immutable. He soundly secured the nomination.
Ultimately, the Democratic base rallied around Carter, allowing him to eke out a victory over Ford. However, President Carter had problems ingratiating himself with his fellow Democrats. Many were dismayed that he worked to balance the federal budget and to streamline the federal government rather than implementing a major social stimulus program to strengthen the nation’s economy. In 1980, Carter barely won the renomination by his party, but lost the General Election in an electoral landslide.
Similar to the Democratic leaders who tried to derail the insurrectionist candidacies of McGovern and Carter, Republican sachems are currently working feverishly to deny Trump the GOP nomination. But as the aforementioned examples demonstrate, the party high command is often feckless in immobilizing a grassroots insurgency. In both 1972 and 1976 the establishment failed badly to enfeeble the insurrectionist candidates. When Republican President Gerald R. Ford was asked about the possibility of the Democrats stopping Carter in 1976, he aptly replied: “The only way I can see that they could stop him now is to have a smoke-filled room brokered convention, and I think the public would object to that.” Ironically, Ford’s insightful comment could apply to the Democratic party’s predicament in 1972 with McGovern as well as to the Republican Party’s predicament today with Trump.
Could Democratic Party History Repeat Itself in the Republican Party in 2016?
An insurrectionist presidential candidate stuns his party's establishment by pocketing the party's nomination. His views do not line up with mainstream figures in his party. He is charismatic and taps into the undercurrent of populist indignation against the corporate and political elite from rank-and-file party members. Many elected members of the party bolt and form a third party or transfer their support to the nominee of the other major party in protest. The result: the candidate alters the façade of his political party.
Although this scenario occurred in 1896 in the Democratic Party, it now seems plausible that this scenario could repeat itself in 2016 within the Republican Party.
The Democratic Party was founded on the principles of state sovereignty, free markets, a decentralized federal government, and an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, during the Economic Panic of 1837, Democratic President Martin Van Buren refused to use the power of the Federal Government to stimulate economic activity. He actually sold the federal government's tool supply so that the government could not use the tools for public works projects.
A Democratic descendent of Van Buren, President Grover Cleveland was a true disciple of the laissez faire school of limited government action even with respect to sending government aid after natural disasters. Cleveland maintained that providing federal government assistance "encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." During Cleveland's Second term in office (1893-1897) (he was the only President elected to two non consecutive terms), the nation was mired in an economic depression. The unemployment rate reached 18% just one year into his second term in office.
Unemployed workers marched from the Midwest to Washington D.C. to highlight their plight and demand that Cleveland support public works programs. In addition, a populist revolt was percolating within the party against its continued support for the Gold Standard. Grassroots Democrats advocated a policy of bimetallism, where both gold and silver would be certified as legal tender. They believed that with more money in circulation, the Depression would end. Cleveland supported the Gold Standard and was a steadfast opponent of bimetallism. Cleveland would not budge, sticking to his support of restricted federal government.
In a scathing electoral indictment unleashed both against the Cleveland Administration and against the Democratically-controlled Congress, the Democrats lost a startling 127 U.S. House seats in the 1894 mid-term elections. No party before or since has ever lost that many seats in any House election.
At the 1896 Democratic National Convention (Presidential primaries were not yet instituted), insurrectionists, disaffected with the continued ideology of their party, flocked to 36-year-old firebrand William Jennings Bryan. Nicknamed "The Great Commoner," Bryan's views were recreant to Party orthodoxy. The Bryan nomination was a repudiation of Cleveland's policies of fiscal austerity and the continuation of the Gold Standard. Bryan favored dramatic action by the federal government to stimulate the nation's economy, favored the U.S. leaving the Gold Standard and instituting a graduated federal income tax.
Bryan's nomination sparked outrage among party sachems. Some defected to Republican nominee William McKinley because he supported the Gold Standard. Consequently, the old guard establishment of the party, including Cleveland himself (who did not seek a third term as President), refused to support their own party's nominee. Instead, they hastily formed the National Democratic Party, and nominated 79-year-old U.S. Senator John M. Palmer of Illinois for President.
Speaking at the National Democratic Party Convention, U.S. Senator Bourke Cockran (D-NY) averred: "We must raise our hands against the nominee of our party, and we must do it to preserve the future of that party itself." Accordingly, the National Democratic Party was not meant to be a long-term vehicle for disenchanted Democrats. Old-line Democrats expected to flock back to the party and wrest back control. The platform supported: "sound money; and it is opposed to paternalism and all class legislation."
Palmer earned the coveted endorsement of The New York Times, which urged Democrats to "show that the division within their ranks does not mean the abandonment of their party and a conversion to the party which they have always opposed." The newspaper excoriated Bryan and the new party's platform as "a radical departure from Democratic doctrines."
Perhaps no candidate with the support of a litany of elected officials, including the incumbent President, and the endorsement of The New York Times, fared so poorly in the General Election. Palmer mustered less than 1% of the popular vote. The National Democratic Party became a footnote in the pages of American political history.
This series of events caused the Democratic Party to become a two-headed donkey. An internecine struggle between the old guard conservative bloodline and the newly formed populist wing permeated the party. Essentially, two countervailing ideologies were domiciled in one party.
Bryan won the nomination again in 1900, but the old guard wrested back control in 1904, nominating the staunch conservative New York Appeals Court Judge Alton B. Parker, who had the support of Cleveland. Bryan was incensed by this development, declaring: "No self-respecting Democrat would vote for him."
This conservative/populist chasm in the party remained for much of the Twentieth Century.
This brings us to the contemporary electoral environment. The preponderant frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination is Real Estate mogul Donald Trump. The last Republican President, George W. Bush, spent much of his second term calling for comprehensive immigration reform, contending: "It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border." Contrariwise, Trump calls for the construction of a "great and beautiful wall" along the U.S-Mexican border, and pledges to "round up" illegal immigrants and deport them back to their country of origin. Furthermore, Trump calls for a temporary "shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." This position is unpalatable to the party poobahs and had been roundly condemned by Republican elected officials, including U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
In addition, Bush was a steadfast exponent of free trade. He supported NAFTA and pledged as President to: "end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom." In sharp contrast, Trump calls for the elimination of NAFTA and favors a 45-percent tariff on Chinese imports to the U.S.
Moreover, Bush, with near unanimous support from Republicans in the U.S. Congress, ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He believed the U.S. should promote Democratic governments in the Middle East, ambitiously declaring: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Trump maintains the invasion was "one of the worst decisions ever made," and bemoans that it "destabilized the Middle East."
Should Trump garner the GOP nomination, a similar situation could develop as happened with Bryan in 1896. Some Republicans, like former New Jersey Governor Christy Todd Whitman, have stated they will support likely Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton over Trump. Citing irreconcilable differences with Trump, some Republican leaders could flea the party and form their own political party or support the nominee of the Libertarian or Constitution Party. We are already seeing murmurs of this. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) tweeted: "If Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I'll look for some third candidate - a conservative option, a Constitutionalist." Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, asked followers to "name the new party we'll have to start if Trump wins the nomination." U.S. Representative Reid Ribble (R-WI) and Massachusetts Republican Governor Charlie Baker have both proclaimed they will not support Trump if he is the GOP nominee.
If Trump should muster his party's Presidential nomination, we may be witness to a mirror image of 1896, where a schism will spawn within the Republican Party between the Old Guard who support what had been the prevailing views in the Party and a new populist insurrectionist bloodline seeking to remake the party in its own image. Like the Bryan nomination in 1896, a Trump nomination could effectuate an internecine ideological clash in the party that could manifest itself for decades. As author Mark Twain opined: "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." In this case, Democratic Party history could be the rhyme in the Republican Party.
Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL
Dirty Political Tricks From American Politics Done Dirt Cheap
Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is taking heat for dirty tricks allegedly orchestrated by his campaign. The tricks range from photoshopping an image to make it appear that one of his opponents, Marco Rubio, is gleefully shaking hands with President Barack Obama, to allegedly creating a counterfeit Facebook profile for conservative U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), where Gowdy disavows his past support for Rubio and announces he now backs Cruz. It is also alleged that Cruz's campaign tried to fool supporters of opponent Ben Carson by informing them that the retired neurosurgeon had dropped out of the race.
Political skullduggery is not a novelty in American Politics. Sometimes the tricks are quite juvenile. In 1970, 19-year-old Republican political operative Karl Rove, who later became the chief campaign strategist for George W. Bush, broke into the campaign office of Allan J. Dixon, the Democratic nominee for State Treasurer of Illinois. He then pilfered Dixon's campaign stationery. Learning when Dixon had scheduled a rally, Rove proceeded to advertise: "Free beer, free food, girls, and a good time for nothing" on Dixon's stationery. Rove then distributed the homemade flyers at rock concerts and homeless shelters, inviting these people to the rally. Dixon won the election and Rove eventually apologized for his actions.
Dirty tricks can sometimes backfire on the trickster. In 2010, Florida Republican State Legislative candidate Greg Brown, along with his bride, stole his opponents campaign signs from lawns. His opponent, Doug Bronson, caught the couple on video camera stealing the signs.
In 1950, Time magazine reported that U.S. Representative George Smathers (D-FL) made the following charge about U.S. Senator Claude Pepper (D-FL) while campaigning to defeat him in the 1950 Democratic Primary:
Are you aware that the candidate is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to have practiced nepotism with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a wicked thespian in New York. He matriculated with co-eds at the University, and it is an established fact that before his marriage he habitually practiced celibacy.
Smathers denied making this statement and offered $10,000 to anyone who could prove he made it. No one could prove it. Smathers won the election.
The alleged tactics used by the Cruz campaign are reminiscent of those used in previous political campaigns, sometimes without even the knowledge of the candidate. In 1888, after his razor-thin victory (winning the Electoral Vote but not the national popular vote), President-Elect Benjamin Harrison said to Republican National Committee Chairman Matthew Stanley Quay: "Providence has given us victory." Quay later opined to a newspaper reporter: He ought to know that Providence didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Harrison will never know how many men were compelled to approach the penitentiary to make him President."
Incumbent President Grover Cleveland was locked in a whisker-close battle with Harrison. A Harrison supporter, George Osgooby wrote a letter using the alias "Charles F. Murchishon." He claimed to be a naturalized citizen born in Britain. Osgooby mailed the letter to the British ambassador to the U.S., Lionel Sackville West, requesting advice regarding whom he should vote for. West wrote back, suggesting he should vote for Cleveland. President Cleveland was held in high esteem by the British for his support for reducing the protective tariff on British goods imported into the U.S. When the letters were published, some Irish-Americans, indignant at the British for their treatment of the Irish, turned against Cleveland and helped put Harrison over the top.
The Kennedy family is notorious for the use of political legerdemain. In 1946, after entering a race for an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, future President John F. Kennedy used a clever tactic to muster an electoral advantage. A popular candidate in the race was Boston City Councilor Joe Russo. To siphon support from Russo, the Kennedy campaign persuaded and bankrolled a custodian domiciled in the district, who had no political experience or political aspirations, to enter the race. His name was also Joe Russo. The City Councilor Joe Russo complained that someone had "seen fit to buy out a man who has the same name as mine." But the city councilor had no recourse, and John F. Kennedy won the race.
When John F. Kennedy (a Roman Catholic) sought the Presidency in 1960, his campaign, led by campaign manager and brother Robert F. Kennedy, won plaudits for their victory in West Virginia, which was about 95% Protestant. This stunning victory was not only the result of indefatigable campaigning, but also the result of implying that Humphrey had sought draft deferments because he was "a political organizer whose services were needed (as a civilian) during WWll." The Kennedy campaign dispatched surrogate Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr., whose father's name reached near demi-god status in the state, to suggest that Humphrey had been a draft dodger during World War ll. The accusations were mendacious. In actuality, Humphrey failed his medical examination because of a hernia.
John F. Kennedy denounced the charge, averring that the allegations were "done without my knowledge and consent and I disapprove of the injection of this issue into the campaign." Roosevelt later withdrew his charge against Humphrey, but the damage was done. Humphrey was running a shoestring campaign against Kennedy's unlimited resources. In fact, Humphrey allocated funds he had saved for his daughter's college education to pay for his last television advertisement. In addition to failing to inoculate himself from the draft dodging charges, Humphrey could not overcome Kennedy's infinite campaign spending.
In the General Election that year, Kennedy employed the services of Dick Tuck, a noted dirty trickster. After Kennedy debated Republican nominee Richard M. Nixon, Tuck paid a senior citizen to wear a "Nixon for President" button and to approach Nixon after the debate in the presence of the media and tell Nixon: "Don't worry son! He beat you last night, but you'll get him next time." Kennedy eked out a victory over Nixon.
After winning the Presidency himself in 1968, Nixon became the perpetrator of, and accomplice to, numerous dirty tricks. His Presidency was toppled as a result of the Watergate Affair, where he tried to cover-up his re-election campaign's role in a break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters. But that was just the tip of the iceberg for dirty tricks in that administration.
Nixon and his coefficients were obsessed with enfeebling their potentially formidable opponents for re-election. Former Alabama Governor George Wallace had run for President in 1968 as the nominee of the American Independence Party. Nixon wanted to purloin and monopolize the populist blue-collar conservative message that Wallace had preached in 1968. He feared Wallace would become either the Democratic nominee or would again be the American Independence Party nominee, and would once again become the tribune of the message.
To stop Wallace, the Nixon forces subversively tried to have him defeated in his 1970 bid to recapture the Alabama Governorship. Accordingly, Nixon ordered his lawyer, Herbert Kalmbach, to clandestinely funnel $100,000 to Wallace's opponent, incumbent Democrat Albert Brewer. Brewer defeated Wallace in the primary, but did not garner the requisite majority of the vote to avoid a runoff with Wallace. In the Runoff election, Kalmbach secretly sent a $330,000 donation to Brewer. However, the scheme proved feckless as Wallace won the General Election comfortably. Wallace then ran for President two years later, but his campaign came to a halt when he was shot and paralyzed at a campaign rally in Laurel, Maryland.
In 1972, much of the Democratic establishment was aligned with U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME). The Nixon campaign feared Muskie would muster the nomination. To prevent this possibility, they tried to derail his candidacy before the New Hampshire Presidential Primary. They wanted to run against the insurrectionist candidate George McGovern who was well to Muskie's left. Shannanagators in the Nixon campaign penned a letter written to the Editor of the influential Manchester Union Leader. It was published just two weeks prior to the New Hampshire Primary. The letter-writer alleged in the missive to have asked Muskie how he could represent African-Americans as President when there were so few African-Americans in Muskie's home state of Maine. This letter went on to state that Muskie had responded: "No Blacks, but we have Canucks." (A derogatory term for French Canadians who have a large representation in Maine).
The letter proved effective in that Muskie challenged the letter-writer and the newspaper by standing outside its headquarters and branding the paper's editor, William Loeb, "A gutless coward." It was reported in the media the next day that Muskie cried, though some observers maintain that the water on Muskie's face was from snowflakes. However, after the incident some New Hampshire voters began questioning if Muskie had the temperament to be President.
Consequently, many Muskie supporters defected to McGovern. While Muskie won the primary, he garnered an underwhelming 46.4% of the vote. Muskie never reclaimed his early electoral momentum. He dropped out of the race in late April, telling news reporters: "I do not have the money to continue." McGovern eventually pocketed the nomination.
The Cruz campaign is under fire for its use of dirty tricks. Dirty tricks, however, are ingrained in American politics, and this year is certainly no exception. In 1973, Nixon advisor Patrick J. Buchanan told the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee: "To me, there's room in American politics for pranksters and hecklers and the like but they can get to where they cross the line."
Follow Rich Rubino on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichRubinoPOL
A Bernie Sanders Presidency Could Revolutionize Bipartisanship
Conventional wisdom dictates that should Bernie Sanders overcome all electoral hindrances and assume the presidency, much of his agenda would not get through the U.S. Congress. Since Sanders comes from the left wing of the political spectrum, it would be nearly impossible for him to persuade moderate Republicans to vote for his proposals.
Traditionally, presidents shepherd legislation through the Congress by consolidating the votes of members from their own party, then by siphoning off the votes of enough moderates from the opposing party to get legislation passed. This is how Lyndon B. Johnson got Medicare through in 1965, how Ronald Reagan pushed his tax cut proposal through in 1981, and how George H.W. Bush won approval for the the Persian Gulf War Resolution in 1991.
Along these lines, many of Sanders's major proposals would have a near impossible chance of passing without major changes to temporize the legislation. The Republicans are likely to maintain control of the House, and while there is an outside chance they could lose the Senate, the chances are de minimus that the Democrats will hold a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.
Sanders's flagship legislative proposal to establish a single-payer health care system would not likely garner a solitary Republican vote in Congress. There are no longer any liberal Republicans in either chamber. The most moderate Republicans, like U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and U.S. Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and would have no incentive to go a step further to support a not-for-profit healthcare system.
Any Republican who defected and supported the Sanders Plan would likely suffer recriminations by losing his/her seat on a prominent committee, by losing funding for a project in his/her state or Congressional District, or by facing a redoubtable primary challenger when he/she is up for re-election.
Even if the Democrats did win supermajorities in both houses, moderate Democrats, especially those with constituents who work in the health insurance industry, would not likely support the Sanders proposal.
That being said, on many other issues, a Sanders administration would have the opportunity to revolutionize bipartisanship. Instead of working through the center, Sanders could effectuate coalitions of the progressive left and the Tea Party Right. The opposition would come from the center-left and from the center-right in both parties. American politics is not a continuum but a circle. There is a point where Ralph Nader's bicycle crashes into Pat Buchanan's Mercedes. This is the point Sanders would have to work from for legislative achievement.
Sanders calls for a truncation of the U.S. military budget. He has voted against the Defense Authorization Act in 2012, 2014, and in 2015. Sanders often highlights the fact that the U.S. spends more on Defense than the next seven countries combined.
Cutting the Defense budget has support on the far left, as well as on the far right. While many establishment Republicans and GOP Presidential candidates continue to call for increases in the military budget, they are often at odds with consistently fiscally conservative Tea Party members who call for across the board cuts in federal spending and they make no exception for the military budget.
U.S. Representative Mike Mulvaney (R-SC) is one of the most conservative members of the Congress. On the issue of military spending, Mulvaney found common ground with one of the Chamber's most liberal members, U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) in 2012 in supporting a freeze in military spending. Mulvaney could be Sanders' pointman in securing GOP votes to freeze or cut military spending. In addition, conservative U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) could be a partner with Sanders. He is a perpetual critic of government waste at the Pentagon. Grassley once complained to Presidential Ronald Reagan: "It's great that you are going after the welfare queens, Mr. President. But when are you going to go after the welfare queens in the Pentagon?"
Another issue where Sanders could consolidate a left-right coalition is on the war on drugs. Sanders, like most Congressional progressives, favors the decriminalization of marijuana and maintains: "Nonviolent offenders should not be incarcerated." Many small government conservatives concur with Sanders that the federal government has no business in punishing non-violent drug offenders.
The legalization of marijuana would not be done as part of an all-encompassing legislative process. It would have to be a gradual process. The first step would be to legalize medical marijuana. A vociferous proponent in this effort is conservative U.S. Representative Scott Perry (R-PA). Perry introduced legislation legalizing medical marijuana to help kids with Epilepsy and seizure disorders. In addition, conservative U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is a cheerleader for marijuana legalization, averring: "The marijuana laws have been used to expand the power of government over people's lives more than just anything else I can think of." When asked if he ever smoked marijuana, Rohrabacher opined that he did: "Everything but drink the bong water." (The fluid used in a water pipe)
Along these same lines, Sanders might be able to get landmark legislation passed which would end mandatory minimum prison sentences and give judges greater discretion over drug-related crimes. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act has earned the support form conservative Republicans like U.S. Senators like Mike Lee of Utah and liberal Democratic like Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
Sanders has galvanized a groundswell of grassroots support for his call to "break up the largest financial institutions in the country." Here again, Sanders could assemble a right-left coalition. Sanders would work to reinstate the parts of the Glass-Steagall Act repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999, which eliminated a wall of separation between commercial and investment banking. One of the most conservative Republican Senators, Mike Lee of Utah, claims that repeal of this part of the law "probably led to our economic meltdown." Lee supports reestablishing the provision.
There are other issues where Sanders could lead a left-right bipartisan coalition as well, letting the charter for the Export-Import Bank expire. The bank gives credit to U.S. exporters and foreign importers. Much of the funds are awarded to opulent corporations. Sanders brands the bank "an outrageous example of corporate welfare." Sanders could also work with Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (assuming Paul wins re-election) on this. Paul labels loans provided by the bank: "crony capitalism."
Finally, Sanders could work with a right-left coalition to retrench the size and scope of federal government surveillance activities. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama supported the National Security Agency Surveillance Program. The program's critics include conservative U.S. Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) and his liberal House colleague John Conyers (D-MI).
While the Sanders single-payer healthcare plan would likely be dead on arrival, a Sanders presidency could revolutionize the concept of bipartisanship on other issues. Sanders would have to consolidate his progressive base, and then reach way across the aisle to the most conservative members of the Congress. They would have to lay their difference aside and work together on the issues where they agree. The opposition to most of these proposals would come from the center-right and center-left establishments of both parties. Nevertheless, A Sanders presidency is reminiscent of the perennial quote by Ninetieth Century novelist Charles Dudley Warner: "Politics makes strange bedfellows."
Brian Schweitzer Would Be a Formidable Independent Presidential Candidate
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering entering the Presidential sweepstakes as a centrist Independent. He will likely enter only if the Democrats nominate Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders and the Republicans select conservative Donald Trump. However, should the Democrats nominate the more centrist leaning Hillary Clinton and should the Republicans nominate Mr. Trump there will be an aperture in the race for a left-leaning anti-Wall Street populist. Former Montana Governor Brain Schweitzer would fit the bill.
Sanders is garnering support from younger voters for his call to "break up the largest financial institutions in the country," for his support for single-payer healthcare, for his opposition to most free trade agreements, and for his aversion toward foreign interventions.
On these issues, Hillary Clinton comes from a divergent perspective. She earned 2.9 million by delivering 12 speeches to major financial institutions. Moreover, Clinton voices opposition to supplanting the Affordable Care Act regime with a single-payer system.
Clinton has backtracked from her previous views on international trade. In 1998, while serving as First Lady, she praised corporations for waging "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." In 2007, however, while running for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Clinton called NAFTA "a mistake." Furthermore, as U.S. Secretary of State, Clinton lauded the Trans-pacific Partnership, which she now opposes. It would be easy for Trump, an avowed economic nationalist, to style Hillary as a mere political opportunist regarding international trade.
Clinton has a record as an interventionist in foreign affairs, having voted for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq while a member of the U.S. Senate. As U.S. Secretary of State, she spearheaded efforts to dislodge Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya, and proposed a surge of 40,000 troops into Afghanistan as part of a counterinsurgency force.
Enter former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer considered a run for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but backed down. He made a verbal gaff after U.S. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) lost his reelection bid, commenting that Cantor "sets off his gaydar" and had "effeminate mannerisms." While this faux pas set back his political career, he has apologized, and it is far from a career-ending flub.
As an Independent candidate, Schweitzer could consolidate many Sanders supporters. He could also bring disaffected non-voters into the voting fold, siphon off some potential Trump supporters, and attract to Libertarian and quasi-Libertarian voters. Moreover, Schweitzer is a political amalgam who could appeal to a broad cross-section of constituencies.
There is a similitude between a Schweitzer candidacy and the candidacy of Businessman Ross Perot in 1992. While conventional wisdom holds that Perot siphoned votes almost exclusively form Republican George H.W. Bush, exit polls show that his appeal was split evenly. The data indicates that 38% would have supported Bush, 38% would have supported Democrat Bill Clinton, and 24% would not have voted.
Perot's populist insurrectionist campaign appealed to fiscal conservatives who had supported former U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas (D-MA) in the Democratic Primary. In fact, a group of his supporters, called TCitizens for Tsongas (playing on the silent 'T' in Tsongas), backed Perot in the General Election campaign. In addition, Perot's Economic Nationalism and opposition to the Persian Gulf War exhibited cross-partisan appeal. Some supporters of the populist anti-establishment candidacies of former California Governor Jerry Brown in the Democratic Primary and Republican activist Pat Buchanan in the Republican Primary that year were drawn to Perot's populist insurrectionist message.
On the issues where Sanders' supporters diverge from Clinton supporters, Schweitzer is more ideologically in-tune with Sanders. Schweitzer brands Washington, DC as "a giant cesspool of special interests." He is simpatico with Sanders in excoriating the influence of "the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the big banks." Schweitzer bemoans: "You go to Wall Street. They're the ones who can write the fat checks." His line of attack on Clinton, tethering her to corporate interests, would be similar to Sanders' strategy. Schweitzer warns, "We need to have a strong middle class again. We can't have a Democratic Party that is corporate-lite."
Like Sanders, Schweitzer is a proponent of establishing a single-payer Healthcare system. As Governor, he inaugurated the first publicly-run medical clinic for retirees and state employees. He praises the Canadian system and bemoans the influence of corporate interests in the drafting of the Affordable Care Act, maintaing the act gives "taxpayer dollars to private insurance companies."
On the issue of international trade, Schweitzer sides with both Sanders and Trump in opposing recently brokered agreements. He is a critic of NAFTA and the TPP. In 2006, Schweitzer rhetorically asked The New York Times: "Why is it that America supposedly creates the best businessmen in the world, but when we go to the table with the Third World, we come away losers?"
If Clinton were the Democratic nominee, Trump might be able to purloin some rustbelt Democrats by highlighting her waffling on trade issues. If he were in the race, Schweitzer might be able to take many of these voters who would be uncomfortable supporting Trump.
As for foreign interventions, Schweitzer, like Sanders, is critical of military interventions, but his opposition is deeply rooted in the fundamental paradigm of U.S. foreign policy. Schweitzer wages opprobrium on the "military industrial complex." He sees the blowback that U.S. foreign policy can effectuate against the U.S. Here, his rhetoric is eerily similar to U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) who galvanized Americans of all political persuasions in his 2008 and 2012 Presidential runs by introducing the concept of blowback into the American political dialogue.
Like Paul, Schweitzer uses the example of Iran to illustrate the deleterious effects of U.S. intervention abroad. Schweitzer points out that the tension between the U.S. and Iran began "because of what we did in 1953, replacing an elected official [Prime Minster Mohammed Mossadegh] with a dictator [Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi]." Schweitzer also points out that the U.S. government supplied chemical weapons to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, which were subsequently used against Iranians. His characterization of the Iraq War as an "oil-well war to protect profits for multinational oil companies and petro-dictators" would strike a resonate chord with both liberal and libertarian non-interventionists.
Furthermore, Schweitzer could appeal to Libertarian-leaning voters with his opposition to the scope of the NSA surveillance program, calling it "un-effenbelievalbe." In addition, he declared the War on Drugs lost and suggests Colorado, in legalizing marijuana: "might have it more right than the rest of us."
Schweitzer could also draw the support of some center-right voters with his opposition to most gun control measures, his support of expanding domestic coal production, and his support for the construction of the Keystone pipeline.
Finally, Schweitzer's shoot-from-the-hip unadulterated style, coupled with his anti-establishment rhetoric, is advantageous in an election where the candidates are trying to present themselves as authentic, and from outside the beltway. His image as a rancher who regularly sports cowboy boots, and his folksy dialect contribute to his image as an outsider.
In a Trump-Clinton matchup, a Schweitzer Independent bid could be a major challenge to the electoral hegemony of the two major parties. He would offer eclectic appeal. Schweitzer's populist message would resonate with those Sanders supporters who are skeptical of Clinton, Libertarian-oriented voters who would find little common ground with the major candidates, and low-propensiity voters who would be disenchanted with the offerings of both parties. Like Perot in 1992, the moment is right for an Independent candidate, and Schweitzer would pocket significant support from across the American political spectrum.
Dale Bumpers: The Man Who Could Have Been Elected President
U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), who served from 1975-1999, recently died. Bumpers had flirted with a bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination three times, but ultimately chose not to seek the nomination. Had he run in 1988, Bumpers would have been a good bet to win the nomination and ultimately the Presidency.
Bumpers was a rare breed in American politics. He was a Southern Progressive who could garner the support of liberals, moderates and conservatives in his party. Elected Governor of Arkansas in 1970, then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974, Bumpers represented a new voice in Southern politics, a voice which opposed racial segregation.
He was also a spellbinding orator, having honed his skills as a lawyer in Charleston, Arkansas. He lost just two cases in his 15-year practice. In 1954, as the only lawyer in Charleston, Bumpers advised the Board of Education to comply with the Supreme Court ruling ordering public schools to desegregate. The Charleston School District became the first district in the entire South to unshackle the chains of segregation.
The longest serving Governor in Arkansas history was Orval Fabus. He had retired in 1967 after serving for twelve years as Governor of the state. Fabus had left an indelible stain on the state by ordering the Arkansas National Guard to halt African-Americans from entering Little Rock Central High School. Fabus defied the Court's order to desegregate. In 1970, Fabus made a bid to get his old job back, but was defeated by Bumpers, who then went on to defeat incumbent Republican Governor Winthrop Rockefeller in the General Election, capturing a whopping 61.7% of the vote.
Bumpers ushered in a more progressive era as Governor. He accrued accomplishments he could have showcased had he been a Presidential candidate, including reforming state government and raising teacher salaries. In addition, Bumpers left the state with a budget surplus. A 1998 survey ranked Bumpers as the best Governor in Arkansas history. His job approval rating reached a stratospheric 91%.
In 1974, the popular Governor Bumpers upended U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright in Fulbright's re-election bid in the Democratic Primary. Fulbright had first been elected to the Senate in 1944. He became nationally known for his role as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. While some in Arkansas came to see Fulbright as abandoning parochial concerns, Bumpers' raw political talent was coming into focus in the state and also within national Democratic circles. Fulbright accused Bumpers of trying to be elected to the Senate as a "stepping stone to the Presidency." Bumpers' resounding defeat of Fulbright gave him the distinction of being the only challenger to defeat an incumbent U.S. Senator in a primary race that year.
For his victory over Fabus, Rockefeller, and Fulbright, The New York Times dubbed Bumpers: "The Giant Killer."
The stars were aligned for Bumpers in 1988. If he had chosen to run for President, Bumpers could have presented himself as a true proponent of fiscal austerity. He inoculated himself from the aeonian charges leveled against Democrats for being tax-and-spend liberals. While Bumpers voted against the tax cuts signed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, he was one of just three Senators to also vote against Reagan's' proposed spending cuts.
While other Southern Democratic Senators like U.S. Senators J. Bennett Johnson (D-LA), Howell Heflin (D-AL), and Sam Nunn (D-GA), sported voting records too conservative for a Democratic electorate, Bumpers was in the mainstream of the party with a center-left voting record. He could appeal to the party's progressive bloodline with his advocacy of arms control, abortion rights, and gun control. In addition, Bumpers could trumpet having been an early Southern advocate for Civil Rights for African-Americans. Bumpers earned the electorally advantageous moniker "the Northerner's favorite Southerner."
Despite being a progressive in a conservative state, Bumpers was a proven electoral vote-getter, having just proved his electoral bone fides and popularity in 1986 by being re-elected in a landslide. U.S. Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), who eventually ran himself that year, called Bumpers "the most electable of Democratic hopefuls. He combines conviction . . . and a good speaking style. He conveys compassion. People want to have a (candidate) with a really visceral belief in things."
While contemplating a run, Bumpers met with many Democratic well-healed benefactors in New York City who came away impressed. Investment banker Bob Schiffer stated at the time: "if competence is going to be the issue of 1988, Dale Bumpers has to be number one when you look at Democrats. We could raise a million dollars for him in New York."
The 1988 Presidential election cycle was one which historically would have favored the Democrats, the out-party. The Republican nominee was Vice President George H.W. Bush. No incumbent Vice President had won the Presidency since Martin Van Buren in 1836. Moreover, the incumbent President Ronald Reagan had seen his job approval ratings sink to 47% in late 1987, but then rise steadily in 1988.
There was a clear hankering within the American electorate for a change, as evinced by that year's Democratic Presidential nominee, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who harbored a 17-point lead over Bush at one point during the summer of 1988. However, Dukakis could not overcome the narrative promoted by the Bush campaign that he was "that liberal Governor from Massachusetts."
Bumpers was an atypical Southern politician. He was popular enough with liberal primary voters to muster his party's nomination. In a General Election, he would have been the worst nightmare for Bush. It would have been nearly impossible to envisage a scenario where Bumpers would have succumbed to the "elitist charge" that was successfully leveled against Dukakis. He was a Marine Veteran who hailed from humble circumstances and once owned a 350-acre Angus cattle ranch. Bumpers was enormously popular in a conservative state where Republican Ronald Reagan had won re-election as President with 60.47% of the vote in 1984. In addition, he was arguably the best speaker and retail campaigner the Democrats could have offered up.
Bumpers seemed to know the political landscape that year. He averred: "There's not any big trick in defining the issues for 1988. Many of the candidates will be saying essentially the same things about how to deal with them. What will be important is trying to demonstrate the kind of aura or personality people want to lead them through the minefields."
Bumpers is the epitome of the candidate who could have been President but who chose not enter the Presidential sweepstakes. He was the best candidate on paper, earning the praises of voters in a conservative state. He would also appeal to voters across the political spectrum, and as was aforementioned, was arguably the best speaker within his party. This oratorical prowess was showcased after he left the Senate in 1999 when President Bill Clinton persuaded him to come back to Washington D.C. to deliver an address to the Senate opposing his potential conviction for his role in the Monica Lewinsky episode.
A Trump-Clinton Matchup Would be a Trip Back to the Future in Foreign Affairs
Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump harbors an aversion to military interventions. This is out-of-step with contemporary mainstream thinking in the Republican Party. Yet non-interventionism in foreign conflicts was once the predominant view in the Republican Party.
Contrariwise, Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton has exhibited support for a muscular foreign policy. Her interventionist proclivities in the foreign sphere were once the preponderant creed of the Democratic Party. Today, the Democratic Party is far less interventionist.
When Russia annexed the Republic of Crimea from the Ukraine, Trump argued: "This is Europe's problem much more than ours." In addition, Trump excoriates the Obama administration for dislodging Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and fears that a successful effort to liquidate Syria's autocratic President, Bashar al-Assad, could result in a successor state, which "could be worse." On the campaign trail, Trump is a harsh critic of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Trump maintains the invasion was: "one of the worst decisions ever made" and bemoans that it "destabilized the Middle East."
In sharp contrast, Hillary Clinton condemned Russia's action in the Crimea. As U.S. Secretary of State, she spearheaded efforts to oust Gaddafi from the reins of power in Libya. Though she now calls her vote on the Iraq War authorization "a mistake," at the time, Clinton admonished that "left unchecked ... he (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." In addition, Clinton supported the Iraq Liberation Act signed by her husband Bill Clinton in 1998, declaring: "that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."
Furthermore, during the Obama administration Clinton sided with the hawks in the administration in supporting a surge of 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as part of a counterinsurgency approach. Other members of the administration, led by Vice President Joe Biden, called for limiting the mission in Afghanistan to training security forces fighting terrorism. Obama ultimately ordered 30,000 troops into Afghanistan.
Ironically, in 2016 it may appear unconventional for a Republican nominee to lean toward the non-interventionist camp and for the Democrat nominee to favor an assertive foreign policy. This represents a trip back to the future, in that the GOP once had a redoubtable non-interventionist wing while the Democrats were known for their activist approach to foreign affairs.
Democratic President Woodrow Wilson flexed American military muscle by invading the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, and Nicaragua, and led the country through WWl. In 1920, the war-weary electorate selected Republican nominee Warren G. Harding, who declared: America "can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority."
Harding's Republican successor, Calvin Coolidge, was a signatory to the Kellogg-Briand Pact which renounced war "as an instrument of national policy." His Secretary of State, Frank B. Kellogg, won a Noble Peace Prize for his role in the writing of this treaty. Coolidge was followed by Republican Herbert Hoover who instituted the "Good Neighbor Policy" of non-intervention in the internal affairs of Latin America, and withdrew U.S. forces stationed in Nicaragua. In 1940 the Republican Party's platform stated: "The Republican Party is firmly opposed to involving this Nation in foreign war."
One of the face cards for the Republican Party in the 1940's and early 1950's was U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH). In fact, his moniker was: "Mr. Republican." The conservative Taft was an unreserved non-interventionist, calling his views "the policy of the free hand." Taft opposed the internationalist Democrat President Harry S. Truman in his effort to institute a peacetime military draft, form NATO, and send U.S. forces to protect South Korea.
Taft lost the Republican Presidential nomination to General Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952. Eisenhower ran for president as a Cold War interventionist. However, while he supported the anti-communist South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Dem, he refused calls to send ground forces into the conflict, exclaiming: "I cannot conceive of a greater tragedy for America than to get heavily involved now in an all-out war in any of those regions."
On exiting the White House, Eisenhower warned of "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." Moreover, he advised his Democratic successor, John F. Kennedy, to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Europe, warning: "America is carrying far more than her share of the free world defense."
Kennedy was an avowed interventionist and Cold Warrior. He did not heed Eisenhower's admonishment. In fact, Kennedy increased U.S. Defense expenditures and sent more than 15,000 military "advisors" into Vietnam. Kennedy's Democratic successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, became enveloped in the conflict, gradually escalating U.S. forces to the point that 543,000 troops were in that nation.
The intervention in Vietnam resulted in an attendant backlash from many younger members of the Democratic Party who were not tethered to the party's interventionist history. "The new left" now challenged the Party regulars. Unlike the party establishmentarians who prided themselves on supporting a munificent social safety net, labor unions, and an interventionist brawny foreign policy, the new left's flagship issue was ending the War in Vietnam. They consolidated around the Presidential candidacy of U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) who branded the war, "morally wrong" and "diplomatically indefensible."
McCarthy lost the Democratic nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Many in the new left refused to vote for Humphrey. McCarthy offered a tepid endorsement of Humphrey, telling his supporters: "I'm voting for Humphrey, and I think you should suffer with me."
By 1972 there was an internecine conflict in the Democratic Party between the ascendant new left and the party establishment. U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA), an interventionist in the mold of past Democratic Presidents and a former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, failed in his bid to capture the nomination. Jackson denounced claims that he was too conservative for the party, claiming: "I am the liberal. The other people have lost their way." Jackson railed against the new left, branding them "an absolute radical left fringe that is attempting to steal the Democratic Party from the people."
However, The Jackson wing was now on the decline in the Democratic Party. The ascendant "new left" succeeded in nominating vociferous anti-Vietnam War opponent U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD), whose campaign slogan was: "Come Home America." Accordingly, the party once known for its bellicosity in foreign affairs was now seen as the party of non-interventionism.
Concomitantly, the Republican Party was becoming more interventionist, as Republican President Richard M. Nixon had been slow to egress U.S. troops from Vietnam. His Republican successor was Gerald R. Ford, who had once been a lonely interventionist voice in a party of non-interventionists. He assured European leaders that the U.S. would not attenuate its foreign commitments and called NATO: "the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy." Ford maintained: "resistance to Soviet expansion by military means must be a fundamental element of U.S. foreign policy."
By 1980, the Republican Party had become associated with a hawkish interventionist foreign policy. The Democratic Party had become associated with a dovish, less interventionist foreign policy. In 1984, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Jean Kirkpatrick, a disillusioned Democrat, accrued rapturous applause at the Republican National Convention by declaring that the Democrats: "treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich -- convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand."
Those Republicans who continued to support a non-interventionist foreign policy became heretics within the GOP. This was showcased during a Republican Presidential debate in 2007, when U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), the only non-interventionist in the GOP field, was roundly booed for suggesting that the 9/11 hijackings were a result of blowback from U.S. interventionist foreign affairs. Paul averred: "They attack us because we've been over there."
A matchup between the non-interventionist Republican Donald Trump and the interventionist Democrat Hillary Clinton would not be a paradigm shift in foreign affairs, as much as it would be a trip back to the future.
Former GOP Frontrunner Jeb Bush's Battle With "Restless Insurrectionist Syndrome"
Jeb Bush, the early Republican frontrunner, is presently polling in the single digits despite an ambitious advertising blitz. Bush was a weak frontrunner from the beginning, winning plaudits from entrenched members of the GOP hierarchy and obtaining support from traditional Republican benefactors at a time when establishmentarians are reviled by the body politic. Conservative insurrectionist candidates like U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Real Estate mogul Donald Trump passed Bush in the polls by galvanizing grassroots conservatives.
Most frontrunners stumble, usually suffering a challenge from a more ideologically unadulterated candidate whose rhetoric energizes the party base. Sometimes the establishment candidate regains his footing. Other times, an insurrectionist candidacy takes off like a run-away train while the establishment candidate has difficulty leaving the station. They are victims of "Restless Insurrectionist Syndrome."
Jeb Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, in 1988, and his brother George W. Bush in 2000, were both early frontrunners with the preponderance of the GOP grand poobahs backing them. However, both candidates faltered, then recovered to pocket the nomination. The elder Bush finished an embarrassing third place in Iowa before coming back to win in New Hampshire. The junior Bush lost New Hampshire by a bone crushing 18 percentage points before reviving his campaign by winning in South Carolina.
The best example of an early frontrunner faltering and then rebounding was U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004. In many respects, Kerry's predicament is a mirror image of Jeb Bush's predicament today. Both candidates have milquetoast personalities, a patrician pedigree, and a cerebral persona.
In 2003, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean took a commanding lead in the polls by spotlighting his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2002. Kerry had voted for the resolution to invade. The resolution gave President George W. Bush the authorization to invade. Just a month prior to the Iowa caucuses, Kerry was mustering just 4% of the vote. However, under the stewardship of campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, union support, and an improved ground game, Kerry became focused like a laser beam on winning in Iowa.
Fortunately for Kerry, many voters came to think Dean as too far left and thus unelectable. In addition, Dean and U.S. Representative Richard Gephardt (D-MO) engaged in mutually assured destruction by assiduously attacking each other on the airwaves. The result is that both candidates fell in the polls. Kerry, as the default choice, rose to the top and won the caucuses. His momentum continued into the New Hampshire primaries and propelled him to the nomination.
Contrariwise, in 1963, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller was the establishment choice for the Republican nomination and was the early frontrunner. At the time, the establishment was comprised of mostly moderate and liberal Republicans. Like Bush and Kerry, he had the backing of his party's high command. However, Rockefeller failed to excite the GOP base. The party had not nominated a bone fide conservative since Calvin Coolidge in 1924, and the party's conservative base, situated mostly in the South and Midwest, launched a mutiny on the establishment in an effort to nominate an indubitably conservative candidate. In response, Rockefeller antagonized conservatives by waging war on what he called "extremist groups."
Riled conservatives who resented the characterization of being branded as extreme, campaigned full-throttle for U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), an unreserved conservative who called for the party to move to the right. Goldwater gave the conservative base the red meat they craved: emphasizing states rights, low taxes, and suggesting that participating in the Social Security system should become voluntary.
In addition, family values became an issue, as many in the party were offended by Rockefeller's divorce and quick remarriage. Rockefeller harbored a formidable 13-point-lead over Goldwater in the critically important California primary. However, the week before the primary, Rockefeller's new wife, Happy Rockefeller, had a child, which reminded voters that Rockefeller had been recreant to his first wife. Goldwater won that primary and steamrolled to the nomination.
Similarly, in the 1972 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME) was the early frontrunner. He had performed well as the party's Vice Presidential nominee in 1968. However, his past support for the War in Vietnam and his equivocal stance on withdrawing troops from Vietnam discontented the party's "new politics" leftist base, which included many younger voters who wanted a candidate who would forcefully call for an end to the war. Muskie ran an overly cautious campaign, refusing to confront hard issues. When he was asked if he would make the Vietnam War a major issue, he responded: "No, I don't think so. It's a divisive issue."
Enter U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD). When he came into the race, the odds against him achieving the Democratic nomination were 200-1. However, McGovern animated the grassroots and became a tribune of the anti-war movement.
McGovern's campaign was inadvertently assisted by Muskie's reaction to a letter forged by shananagators within the campaign of Republican President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon feared facing Muskie in the General Election. The letter, written to the Editor of the influential Manchester Union Leader, was published just two weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary. The letter-writer alleged to have asked Muskie how he could represent African-Americans as President when there were so few African-Americans in his home state of Maine. This letter went on to state that Muskie responded: "No Blacks, but we have Canucks" (A derogatory term for French Canadians who have a large representation in Maine). Moreover, there was an attendant claim in the paper that Muskie's wife was a hard drinker and used off-color language during the campaign.
In a strategic miscalculation for the ages, Muskie chose to take on the letter-writer and the newspaper by standing outside in front of the newspaper building and excoriating the paper and its publisher William Loeb. It was reported in the media the next day that Muskie cried, though some observers maintain the water on Muskie's face was from snowflakes. After the incident, some New Hampshire voters began questioning if Muskie had the temperament to be President. Many defected to the surging McGovern. While Muskie won the primary, he garnered an underwhelming 46.4% of the vote in his neighboring state of New Hampshire. Muskie never reclaimed his early electoral momentum. He dropped out of the race in late April, telling news reporters: "I do not have the money to continue."
Supporting the old adage: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," in 1900 the Democrats had a dream candidate in Admiral George Dewey. He was the party's early frontrunner. On paper, Dewey was a dream candidate to challenge the popular Republican William McKinley. Dewey had become a national icon for his role in defeating the Spanish during the Spanish-American War at the critical Battle of Manila Bay. When Dewey returned home, parades were held in his honor.
However, the early frontrunner made an unforgivable gaffe by asserting that he would be subservient to the U.S. Congress as President. He vowed to: "execute the laws of Congress as faithfully as I have always executed the orders of my superiors." In addition, Dewey came across as supercilious by suggesting that the presidency would not be a difficult job: "I am convinced that the office of the President is not such a very difficult one to fill." Dewey never recovered from these gaffes and consequently abandoned his candidacy. Proving that he was not really much of a Democrat to begin with, Dewey endorsed Republican McKinley over the eventual Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
In 1924, the early frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination was William McAdoo. McAdoo had gained recognition as Treasury Secretary under President Woodrow Wilson and was married to his daughter Eleanor. However, McAdoo's frontrunner status devolved when it was revealed that he had received an annual retainer as a lawyer for oil operative Edward Doheney who was implicated in the Teapot Dome Scandal. The bribery scandal involved the late Republican President Warren G. Harding and many of his coefficients. In addition, Many Democrats were put off by the fact that the Klu Klux Klan supported McAdoo.
That year, the Democratic National Convention in New York City was deadlocked, with McAdoo now just one of many choices for the conventioneers. He was no longer the frontrunner. At the time, the party required 2/3 of the delegates to agree on the nominee (Today a candidate needs a simple majority). The winner of the nomination was the little known former U.S. Solicitor General Johns W. Davis. Davis secured the nomination on the 103rd ballot after 17 grueling days. Humorist Will Rogers quipped: "New York had invited the delegates as visitors, not to live there."
Jeb Bush, as the milquetoast establishment candidate, is the victim of Restless Insurrectionist Syndrome, where the party base supports candidates who are anathema to the party establishment. Bush has to hope that the insurgents will implode, and that, like John Kerry in 2004, the establishment will rise again.
Trump Could Be an Albatross for Down-Ballot Republicans
Should Donald Trump garner the Republican nomination, his presence on the ticket could have deleterious effects on Republicans running for office in closely contested races. Democrats would be in political paradise tethering their Republican opponents to Trump. In affect, Trump would likely be an albatross on Republicans nationwide.
There is precedent for an insurrectionist like Trump winning the nomination, forcing vulnerable down-ballot candidates to employ a strategy to distance themselves from the nominee.
While Trump's bombastic rhetoric plays well in the most conservative parts of the country, most contested races are in the more moderate states and Congressional Districts. Senators from states carried by Democrat Barack Obama in 2012, like Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, will be constantly asked if they support their party's nominee. Furthermore, there are 26 Republicans who serve in districts Obama won in 2012. They will be prime targets for the Democrats to tie to Trump.
In addition, some Democrats, while excoriating Trump and his rhetoric, might weave into their campaigns his economic nationalism opposing most U.S. brokered trade deals, including the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Transpacific Partnership. Trump's populist message on international trade fits in more with contemporary Democratic belief than with Republicans. The trade deals are particularly unpopular with blue-collar workers afraid of losing their jobs overseas. The Democrat might be able to actually win some Trump voters by styling their opponents, who likely will support the liberalization of trade laws, as a tribunes of the corporate elites.
With Trump at the top of the ticket, vulnerable Republicans have three options. The most risky and least likely would be to actually embrace Trump, hoping that this will be a watershed election in which disaffected conservatives will come out in droves to support Trump and vote the Republican ticket. This would have to be concomitant with a complete implosion of the Democratic nominee.
Under the second option the endangered Republicans could declare unequivocally that they will not support Trump. They might even endorse the Democratic nominee. This strategy risks the ire of Republican benefactors refusing to donate to their respective campaigns. It also risks losing the conservative voters, who might vote for Trump for President, while leaving the down-ballot race blank as a protest, or vote for a conservative Independent or Third Party opponent. However, it will liberate these Republican candidates from having to hedge when asked if they support Trump.
The third option, which will most likely be employed by a litany of Republicans, is that they will try to ignore Trump. When asked if they support him, the candidate will not mention his name, but robotically aver: "I support my party's nominee." A clever candidate would then send a dog whistle message to moderate voters by saying that they are not running for President and are tired of the partisan vituperation that is permeating American politics. The candidate will then say that they are ready to work with whoever is elected President. With that response, the candidate is signaling that he/she is under duress to say that he/she supports the party nominee, even though this is not the case.
There have been two elections where an insurrectionist like Trump wrested the nomination from the party establishment. In both cases, the nominee was wildly unpopular with the general electorate, rousing uproarious support almost exclusively with their base, while alienating otherwise persuadable moderate voters. Both candidates lost their elections by a landslide.
In 1964, with the support of disenchanted grassroots conservative activists, U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) wrested the nomination from the moderate Republican establishment. Goldwater's rhetoric, like Trump's, was not temporized. When discussing the precision of nuclear missiles, Goldwater quipped: "I don't want to hit the moon. I want to lob one into the men's room of the Kremlin and make sure I hit it." This remark became fodder for Democrats to suggest that Goldwater was trigger-happy and not a rational thinker. The capstone of Goldwater's grandiloquent oratory came before a national audience when Goldwater horrified vulnerable down-ballot Republicans by declaring in his nomination acceptance speech: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." At the time, unlike today, the party was ideologically heterogeneous, including a conservative, moderate, and liberal bloodline. The conservatives mostly represented states and Congressional Districts where Goldwater's message struck a resonate chord. However, in the rest of the nation, Goldwater's blistering rhetoric petrified many voters.
That year, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was seen as a rising star and future GOP Presidential nominee, was in the fight of his political life, trying to win re-election in a state where Goldwater was widely feared. Romney stated that while he "accepted" the nomination, he would not "endorse" Goldwater. Romney was indignant at the Michigan Republican Party for producing a flyer with Goldwater and Romney together. Romney supporters mailed out about 200,000 mock ballots showing voters how to mark their ballots for Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson for President and Romney for Governor. Romney was able to convince enough voters to split their tickets. While Johnson won the state with a resounding 66.70% of the vote, Romney was comfortably elected with 55.9% of the vote.
That year, Charles H. Percy, the candidate for Governor of Illinois, where Goldwater was also exceedingly unpopular, when asked if he supported Goldwater would answer tepidly in the affirmative and then point out: "Please remember that I'm running on my own." However, Percy's refusal to disavow Goldwater became the flagship issue of the campaign. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, which reaches voters in Illinois, endorsed Percy's Democratic opponent, Governor Otto Kerner. The publication admonished Illinoisans not to turn the Governorship "to a Republican Party so completely dominated by the Goldwater forces that Charles H. Percy dares not challenge them." Both Percy and Goldwater lost in Illinois that year.
Eight years later, in 1972, the Democratic establishment was rattled when the insurrectionist candidacy of U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) toppled the establishment candidates, winning the nomination. McGovern, who was a steadfast opponent of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, rode a tsunami of anti-war sentiment with the support of many first-time voters.
While his establishment opponents supported McGovern, many blue collar Democrats would not support their party's nominee. They could not countenance McGovern's proposal to truncate the U.S. military budget by $31 billion a year or to give every American a $1000 income supplement. In addition, McGovern accrued the unfortunate alliterative moniker as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" which stuck to him. McGovern was castigated for suggesting that he would "crawl on my hands and knees to get the POWs back" (from Vietnam).
That year, many Democratic politicians were given carte blanche from the party elite to either not endorse McGovern or to support Republican President Richard M. Nixon. The Teamsters Union, which normally endorsed Democrats, supported Nixon. In addition, many Democrats defected to Nixon and joined the group: "Democrats for Nixon." Former President Lyndon B. Johnson offered a tepid endorsement of McGovern but would not campaign with him. He told former aide Bobby Baker: "George McGovern? Why, he couldn't carry Texas even if they caught Dick Nixon fu*** ng a Fort Worth sow."
However, many Republican Congressional candidates were feckless in their attempts to tie their Democratic opponents to McGovern. While McGovern lost 49 states, many voters split their tickets supporting Democrats in down-ballot races. The Democrats actually picked up two seats in the U.S Senate.
At present, no incumbent Governor or member of the U.S. Congress has endorsed Donald Trump. Democrats are most likely salivating at the prospect of tying down-ballot Republican nominees to him. Republicans fear seeing advertisements with their images transposed alongside Trump. Republicans would be wise to take a crash course in political tightrope waking in order to differentiate themselves from Trump, while not alienating his supporters.
Ted Cruz Misinterprets Ronald Reagan's 1980 Election Victory
U.S Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is running for president as an unreconstructed conservative Republican. Cruz suggests a Republican nominee can win the presidency by waving the conservative banner and galvanizing conservatives rather than by making inroads with centrist persuadable voters.
Cruz's template for this strategy goes back to 1980 when Ronald Reagan won the presidency. Cruz told the Conservative Political Action Conference that he is "convinced 2016 is going to be an election very much like 1980." Cruz often repeats a line Reagan uttered four years prior to his 1980 victory: "Raise a banner of bold colors, not pale pastels."
However, the circumstance in 1980 and 2016 are markedly different. In 1980, Reagan had the propitious fortune of running against an unpopular incumbent Democratic president. Moreover, Reagan won the presidency by mustering not solely the votes of conservatives, but also the votes of liberal and moderate voters.
Unlike Cruz, who sports a pristine conservative voting record in the Senate, Reagan's record as Governor of California, coupled with some of the rhetoric he used in 1980, would be sacrilegious with contemporary conservative voters. In addition, the 1980 election was a referendum on an unpopular Democratic incumbent, and any standard Republican should have defeated Jimmy Carter handily. The Democratic nominee in 2016 will not be an unpopular sitting president.
Reagan did not govern California as an intransigent conservative, but as a technocratic pragmatist. In 1967 Reagan signed what was the largest tax increased in California history. Reagan did this to eliminate the state's gaping budget deficit. When he ran for re-election in 1970, Reagan promised voters his feet were "in concrete" against establishing a withholding system of state income tax. However, as Governor, Reagan reversed course, signing a tax increase to obliterate the state's $200 million deficit. Using humor as opposed to an excuse, Reagan commented: "that sound you hear concrete cracking around my feet." In addition, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, restricting the use of firearms by the citizenry. Reagan also signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, liberalizing state abortion laws, which he later came to regret.
Reagan unsuccessfully ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 against president Gerald Ford. Reagan ran to the right of Ford, particularly on foreign policy. Ford supported a detente (relaxation of tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union). Reagan excoriated Ford for signing the Helsinki Accords, intoning they put a "Stamp of approval on Russia's enslavement of the captive nations." Under the agreement, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and 39 other nations agreed to respect the autonomy of every nation-state in Europe and not encroach on their territory.
The fight for the nomination was whisker close, with neither candidate winning the requisite number of delegates during the primary. The nomination was decided at the Republican National Convention. Reagan announced that if he garnered the nominating, he would select one of the party's most liberal Senators, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, as his vice presidential running mate. This show of pragmatism set off a raging inferno of indignation among conservatives. Cruz, in sharp contrast to Reagan, would never consider picking a liberal Republican as his running mate.
In 1980, unlike 2016, the Republicans had the luxury of running against an unpopular incumbent Democratic president. Americans were beset by stagflation, gas shortages, and a failure to secure the release of 44 American hostages held captive in Iran. President Jimmy Carter was blamed for all three situations and harbored job approval ratings in the low thirties. An AP-NBC poll taken in 1979 showed that 70% of Americans believed Carter could not be re-elected.
Furthermore, there was little enthusiasm for Carter within the Democratic base. They believed he was too conservative for the party and had focused on fiscal austerity rather than on expanding the social safety net. Consequently, Carter barely eked out renomination. The Democrat's liberal bloodline had supported U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and California Governor Jerry Brown. Both men ran against Carter for the nomination. There was also a movement by panicked Democrats (who feared Carter was unelectable in the General Election) to draft U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie for the nomination. Muskie did not accept the draft effort.
In July of 1980, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) met with fifteen of his Senate colleagues, asking them if Carter could win their respective states in the General Election. The only Senator who answered in the affirmative was Sam Nunn from Carter's home state of Georgia.
Accordingly, the 1980 election should have been a slam-dunk for the Republican nominee. However, in part because of his move to the right in the 1976 campaign, Carter was successful in styling Reagan as a conservative extremist. He called Reagan "dangerous "disturbing." This forced Reagan to spend much of the General Election campaign trying to assure the American people that he was in the mainstream of American political thought.
There was just one debate between Carter and Reagan that year. It occurred just one week before the election. Despite Carter's anemic job approval ratings and the hunger from the electorate for change, the election was a dead heat. During that debate, Reagan essentially won the election by proving he was not a right wing ideologue. When Carter accused Reagan of having opposed the establishment of Medicare, Reagan soothingly replied: "There you go again." In his closing statement, Reagan did not delineate a wish-list for conservatives but calmly asked the question: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Thus with enough of the electorate confident Reagan was not a reactionary, the American people got the green light to vote against Carter.
Reagan did not win the General Election by appealing only to conservatives. Astoundingly, he also pocketed 48% of the moderate voters and 27% of the liberal voters. By contrast, in 2012, Republican nominee Mitt Romney won just 41% of the moderates and 11% of the liberals.
The last example of a GOP nominee running as an unreserved conservative occurred in 1964. That year, disaffected conservatives launched a mutiny against the party's moderate establishment by successfully working to nominate U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), a full spectrum conservative.
In his oration accepting the nomination, Goldwater made no effort to counter critics who called him extreme. In fact, he doubled-down, declaring: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me also remind you that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Consequently, Goldwater ceded the political center to his opponent, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson. With only conservative support, Goldwater was trounced, winning just six states.
Cruz uses Reagan as the archetype of a Republican who won the presidency by proudly wearing the conservative label. He fails to mention that Reagan's perceived conservatism was a hindrance that Reagan successfully overcame. In addition, Reagan won an election any Republican should have won handily. Currently less than 40% of the American electorate identify themselves as conservatives. Furthermore, the Democratic nominee will not be an unpopular incumbent president. Accordingly, in this political environment, like in 1980, a successful Republican nominee needs to appeal to more than just conservative voters.
A Legacy of 'Congressional Truancy': From Harding to Kennedy to Obama to Rubio
While waging his Presidential campaign, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is under constant criticism for missing over 30 percent of Senate votes in 2015. Rubio has also has missed Senate committee hearings in order to attend fundraisers. A major newspaper in his state, The Sun Sentinel, has called on Rubio to resign from the Senate, admonishing him for "ripping us off."
The U.S. Senate is a unique vocation in that a person can get elected to the body, then spend as much or a little time actually doing the job of a Senator and still get paid. For example, in 1969, U.S. Senator Karl Mundt (R-SD) suffered a stroke. Mundt served out the remainder of his term, which expired in 1973, but was unable to cast a single vote during his four remaining years in the Senate.
There are two kinds of senators. There are those who see election to the Senate as the high-water mark of their career and see themselves as spoilsmen. They see their legacy as delivering as much largess to their respective state as possible. Their major focus is on issues important to their particular state. These senators largely go unnoticed nationally. They thrive to serve on committees where they can be the most help to their state.
The most coveted prize for these members is the Senate Committee on Appropriations, which controls discretionary spending. Carl Hayden, who served in the body from 1927-1969, and as Chairman of this committee from 1955-1969, accrued the nickname "The Silent Senator" because of his reticence to speak on the Senate Floor. He never sought the Presidency. Hayden instead worked behind the scenes at securing largess for his state. His greatest accomplishment was likely the establishment of the Central Arizona Project, which brings water from the Colorado River into Arizona. Securing this project would bring him little cache for a Presidential bid, but is a lasting legacy for a Senator whose legislative ambition is parochial in nature.
The other type of senator uses the Senate as a way station to the presidency. Every move is calculated toward boosting his/her national profile. These senators have little interest in the day-to-day proceedings of the Senate. They spend much of their time on the campaign hustings, raising money for their colleagues, introducing themselves to party activists in the hopes that they will earn their support in a future Presidential campaign.
The only three members of the Senate to be elected directly from the body to the Presidency are Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama. All three exhibited unspectacular Senate records and missed many votes while participating in political events. Furthermore, they all served on the Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator Rubio is following their playbook.
Rubio, like Warren G. Harding, was elected to the Senate by defeating a well-known Republican. Rubio defeated Governor Charlie Christ, who enjoyed the support of the GOP establishment by running as a grassroots conservative alternative opponent. Harding ran an insurrectionist campaign in the 1914 Republican Senatorial primary against former U.S. Senator Joseph B. Foraker (R-OH). Foraker was a national figure, having run for the Republican Presidential nomination unsuccessfully in 1908.
Also like Rubio, Harding used his Senate seat as a mere steppingstone to the Presidency, and spent much of his time as a Senator barnstorming the country campaigning for Republican candidates, collecting chits, and effectuating a national profile. Like Rubio, Harding served just one term in the U.S. Senate. During that time period Harding missed about two-thirds of Senate votes. Again, like Rubio, Harding served on the Committee on Foreign Relations to sure up his foreign policy bone fides for a Presidential run.
Similar to Rubio, Harding became a noted orator and delivered the coveted keynote address at the Republican National Convention in 1916. In 1920, at the end of his Senate term, Harding won his party's Presidential nomination and won the Presidency.
Like Harding and Rubio, John F. Kennedy had an undistinguished Senate career. Kennedy also secured a seat on the Committee on Foreign Relations from which to showcase his foreign policy bone fides. Kennedy took full advantage of his position. He raised his national profile by appearing on national television discussing international affairs. He also wrote the book Profiles in Courage, which spotlighted U.S. Senators who had taken unpopular stands. However, Kennedy had few substantive Senate accomplishments.
In 1960, Kennedy ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination against four seasoned Senators with more accomplished legislative records: Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Stuart Symington, and Wayne Morse. Interestingly, Johnson unsuccessfully tried to make Kennedy's absenteeism from the Senate a campaign issue. This is similar to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's failed attempt to use Rubio's congressional truancy against him in a recent Presidential debate.
Both Rubio and Kennedy dexterously turned these attacks against their opponents. Bush exclaimed to Rubio: "Marco, when you signed up for this, this was a six-year term. I mean, literally the Senate, what, is it a French work week where you have three days to show up? You can campaign, or just resign and let someone else take the job." Rubio was quick to retort that Bush was modeling his campaign after U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who won the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. McCain missed the majority of Senate votes in 2007 while campaigning. Rubio averred: "I don't remember you ever complaining about John McCain's voting record. The only reason why you're doing it now is because we're running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you."
Rubio's glib comment effectuated uproarious applause from the mostly Republican audience. Rubio had taken a page from Kennedy's playbook. During a public debate between Kennedy and Johnson, Johnson challenged Kennedy for being on the campaign trail during a six-day Senate debate on Civil Rights legislation. Johnson exclaimed: "It was my considered judgment that my people had sent me to the Senate to perform the duties of a United States Senator for which I was paid $22,500 a year." Kennedy riposted simply: "It is true that Senator Johnson made a wonderful record in answering those quorum calls and I want to commend him for it." The issue died and Kennedy went on to win the nomination and the Presidency.
Senator Rubio is often compared with the current President, Barack Obama. Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004. As a Senator, Rubio, like Obama, won a seat on the Committee on Foreign Relations. Furthermore, like Rubio, Obama came from a State Legislative background, and as soon as he was elected to the Senate, he was mentioned in high profile political circles as a potential Presidential nominee. Obama spent much of the 2006 mid-term election cycle campaigning for Democrats around the country and became a political rock star with grassroots Democratic activists, party benefactors, and even some in the Democratic establishment who feared that the preponderant frontrunner for the nomination, U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), was too divisive a figure to be elected President. By early 2007, Obama launched his Presidential bid, and over the next two years spent much of his time on the campaign trail, returning to the Senate only when the leadership needed him for key votes.
Rubio hopes to be the fourth U.S. Senator to rise directly to the presidency. He appears willing to sacrifice his Senate duties to achieve that objective. Rubio will likely continue to weather the Congressional truancy charge in his quest to join Harding, Kennedy and Obama as unspectacular senators who ascended directly from the Senate to the presidency.
Jim Webb's Next Political Move? Some Historical Context
Former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) has egressed from the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes and is contemplating running for president as an independent candidate.
Webb did not catch on with Democratic voters. His opposition to most forms of gun control, his support for the Keystone Pipeline, and his opposition to the nuclear deal negotiated between the U.S. and Iran are persona non grata within the Democratic base. Faced with the reality that his views are incongruous with the core constituency of the Democratic Party, Webb saw three paths before him.
The first would have him stay in the party and fight for ideas that are unpopular within the party. A second path would be to run for the nomination of a third party ticket that has ideological underpinnings closer to his. A third path would be to run for president as an independent. This last path is the road Webb is contemplating taking.
In 1924, the Republican Party was an ideologically heterogeneous party, which included a conservative and liberal bloodline. Calvin Coolidge, who had succeeded to the Presidency upon the death of President Warren G. Harding, had become the tribune of the conservative wing. Two high-profile progressive Republicans challenged him for the GOP nomination: U.S. Senators Hiram Johnson of California and Robert La Follette Sr. of Wisconsin. Coolidge won the nomination decisively.
La Follette, who had not wavered from advocating a progressive platform in the nomination battle, chose to stay in the Presidential race and won the nomination of the Progressive Party. Interestingly, the Democrats also harbored a conservative and liberal bloodline, and nominated conservative John W. Davis for President. Accordingly, there was a clear vacuum for an unabashed progressive in the race. La Follette also accrued the support of the nation's Socialist Party with his advocacy of nationalizing the railroads and utilities, and by advocating the requirement that a national vote be held prior to entering into a war. While the major party nominees both ran as conservatives, La Follette siphoned off liberal voters from both parties, mustering 16.6 percent of the popular vote.
In 1972, U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA), a domestic progressive and a steadfast environmentalist, was a supporter of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and opposed efforts to truncate the U.S. military budget. Jackson's ideology had been mainstream in the party a decade earlier, but the party had moved to the left on military and foreign policy issues, and Jackson's views were now anathema to the Democratic party's base. Jackson denounced claims that he was too conservative for the party, claiming that: "I am the liberal. The other people have lost their way." Jackson railed against the new left, branding them "an absolute radical left fringe that is attempting to steal the Democratic Party from the people."
Jackson lost in the primaries, but did not abandon his party. Notwithstanding their ideological dissimilarities, Jackson endorsed and actively campaigned for the party's nominee, U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD), who became the facecard of the new left, supporting a decrease in defense spending and the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Vietnam.
The 1980 Presidential election saw two liberal Republican candidates take diverging roads. Both the grassroots and the establishment factions of the party were becoming more conservative, and the liberal wing, still prominent in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest, was no longer formidable at the Presidential level.
U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT), arguably the body's most liberal Republican member, announced his candidacy by excoriating "an antigovernment trend in which Democrats and Republicans alike, in a cheap quest for votes, spit on the word government." Ever the realist, Weicker knew that his views were out of line with the party. He christened his candidacy as "the longest of long shots." Weicker was reminded that the party had moved to the right when his advisor, Tom D'Amore, asked a New Hampshire Newspaper editor about Weicker's chances for the nomination. The Editor bluntly told him: "Mr. D'Amore, let me tell you something. We got Communists here in New Hampshire, and believe me, 'our' Communists don't even like 'your' Communists."
Weicker withdrew form the race just two months after entering it. A poll showed the conservative former California Governor Ronald Reagan defeating Weicker in Weicker's home state. Weicker declared: "I can't go ahead and ask New Hampshire and Vermont and Florida voters to support me if they won't in my own state." Weicker stayed in the GOP fold, and supported the party's eventual nominee, Reagan, despite his ideological divergences with him.
Contrariwise was the road taken by the other Liberal Republican candidate in the race that year, U.S. Representative John Anderson (R-IL). Anderson campaigned on a 50-cent a gallon hike in the federal gas tax. While Anderson also called for a 50 percent reduction in the Social Security tax, most Republicans were unwilling to consider any semblance of a tax increase.
Furthermore, Anderson was also out of step with his party for opposing the funding of the B-1 bomber, and for supporting abortion rights. In addition, Anderson was the only Republican candidate to support Democratic President Jimmy Carter's grain embargo on the Soviet Union as recrimination for their invasion of Afghanistan.
After failing to pocket the GOP nomination, Anderson declared his candidacy as an Independent. Anderson, who called himself an "Independent Republican," was disillusioned that the GOP was likely to select the conservative Regan as its nominee, and felt that Democratic President Jimmy Carter had been a feckless President. He said his announcement to run as an independent was effectuated by the likelihood of "a rather miserable election" between the two men.
Early on, Anderson proved a redoubtable electoral force, mustering 22 percent of the popular vote. However, that was his high watermark. Anderson finished the election with 6.6 percent of the vote.
Should Webb seek an independent bid for the Presidency, he will likely follow the centrist template established by Anderson, not the more liberal one set by La Follette. A Webb candidacy will likely target weak Democrats and Republicans, independent voters, and disaffected non-voters. Those were the same constituencies Anderson appealed to.
Upon withdrawing from the Democratic race, Webb averred: it is "time for a new Declaration of Independence -- not from an outside power but from the paralysis of a federal system that no longer serves the interests of the vast majority of the American people." This sounds eerily similar to Anderson's declaration: "The result is frustration, apathy, and despair. The danger is that a significant portion of the nation may choose not to participate in the political process in November 1980."
Taking a page from the Anderson playbook, Webb might strike a resonate chord with voters who are disenchanted with the hyper-partisanship which has enveloped the nation's body politic. Should he choose to run as an independent or as a third party candidate, Webb might want to call himself "a radical free thinker" and quote American statesman Henry Clay who maintained: "Politics is not about ideological purity or moral self-righteousness, It's about governing."
Seizing the Electoral Moment: Former Allies Bush and Rubio Battle it Out
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was once a benefactor of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). Bush donated to Rubio's first political campaign, and in 2005, when Rubio was sworn in as Florida's House Speaker, Bush gave Rubio a sword, informing Rubio: "I'm going to bestow to you the sword of a great conservative warrior" (referring to the mythical warrior Chang). When he ran in the Republican U.S. Senate primary in 2010, Rubio garnered the support of many of Bush's prominent fundraisers. Though Bush remained officially neutral, his son, Jeb Bush Jr., supported Rubio. The day Rubio won the General Election, Jeb Bush stood at the podium introducing him.
Today, the two Floridians are battling for support in the Republican Presidential primary. Some in the Florida political circuit thought Rubio would not run if Bush did, but in American politics, timing is everything, and Rubio, with his political star on the rise, saw this election as "his time." Now the gloves are coming off, and Bush is comparing Rubio to Barack Obama. Bush recently told CNN: "Look, we had a president who came in and said the same kind of thing -- new and improved, hope and change -- and he didn't have the leadership skills to fix things."
American politics is chock full of examples of former "mentees" running against their mentor, former ticket mates running against each other, employees running against their boss, and even brothers running against brothers.
In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt used his political influence to secure the Republican Presidential nomination for U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft over other Republicans, including Vice President Charles Fairbanks. However, after Taft was elected and assumed the Presidency, Roosevelt became disillusioned with Taft, believing he was too tethered to the conservative bloodline of the party and the moneyed interests. The progressive Roosevelt launched a bid against Taft for the 1912 Republican Presidential nomination. He told news reporters: "My hat's in the ring. The fight is on, and I'm stripped to the buff." Roosevelt was not above ad hominem attacks on Taft, quipping that his former ally is: "dumber than a guinea pig, a fathead." Taft in turn branded Roosevelt's supporters "destructive radicals and neurotics."
After losing the nomination to Taft, Roosevelt did not make amends by supporting his party's nominee. Instead, he bolted from the GOP, running as the nominee of the newly created Progressive Party, a.ka. the Bull Moose Party. This move split the Republican vote and contributed to the victory of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
In 1940, Roosevelt's cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, sought an unprecedented third term as president. Vice President John Nance Garner, a former ally, and James Farley (the Democratic National Committee Chairman and Post Master General) ran against him for the Democratic nomination.
Farley was a longtime Roosevelt loyalist, managing two successful campaigns for Roosevelt for Governor of New York and for President. He was dismayed that Roosevelt sought a third term. The ambitious Farley, who wanted to succeed Roosevelt, had been led to believe that Roosevelt would not seek a third term. Farley held that no President should seek more than two terms.
Gardner, a business-oriented conservative Democrat from Texas, thought that Roosevelt had veered too far to the left ideologically and called some elements of Roosevelt's New Deal (Domestic program) "plain damn foolishness." Roosevelt easily fended off both challenges.
In 1968, the Democratic Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey selected U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME) as his vice presidential running mate. The ticket lost narrowly to Republicans Richard M. Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
Humphrey's presidential ambitions did not end after that election. In 1972, Humphrey again sought the Democratic Presidential nomination. He did this just six days after Muskie announced his intention to seek the nomination. Muskie was the early frontrunner and the choice of many members of the Democratic establishment, but he soon faded after a series of underperformances in the early primaries. Humphrey then became the defacto establishment favorite, but lost to the insurrectionist anti-Vietnam War candidate U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD). McGovern went on to lose badly to Nixon in the General Election.
McGovern won the Democratic primary with the help of the young campaign manager, Gary Hart. After McGovern lost in the General Election, Hart embarked on his own political career. In 1984, he sought the Democratic Presidential nomination as a moderate Democrat. That year, McGovern returned from the political wilderness and sought the nomination as well. He told Hart he did not believe any of the declared candidates were "saying what needs to be said." McGovern thought his message of full employment, curtailing defense spending, and freezing nuclear production was not being addressed adequately in the campaign.
McGovern, unlike Hart, stood little chance of winning the nomination, having lost badly in 1972, and having lost a re-election bid to the U.S. Senate in 1980. Hart ran as a moderate Democrat who was not a tribune of the labor unions and the "special interest government in Washington." McGovern ran as an unreconstructed liberal. The clash was ideological, not personal. McGovern belittled Hart's slogan "new ideas" by averring: "Those are rather attractive slogans, but they really have no intellectual content."
Successful candidates seize the moment even if that means running against a former boss when the boss is in political trouble. There are two recent prominent examples of this phenomenon. These are discussed directly below.
Blanche Lincoln began her career as a receptionist in the office of U.S. Representative Bill Alexander (D-AR). In 1992, eight years after she left Alexander's office, Lincoln challenged her old boss. Alexander was embarrassed when it was revealed that he had run up overdrafts in the House bank of $208,546. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Lincoln maintained: "I'll promise you one thing. I can sure enough balance my checkbook." Alexander could not distance himself from the charges, and Lincoln easily defeated him.
Similarly, U.S. Representative Gary Condit (D-CA), who had been immutable in past elections was engulfed in the national spotlight for the extramarital affair he had engaged in with intern Chandra Levy. Levy died in 2001 in what was later revealed to be a murder by criminal Ingmar Guandique. Condit is not believed to have had any involvement in the murder. Still, some constituents questioned if he was involved at the time.
Then in 2002, with Condit electorally vulnerable, State Assemblyman Dennis Cordoza, who had worked as Condit's Chief of Staff when Condit served as a State Assemblyman, challenged Condit in the Democratic primary. Believing Condit could not win in the General Election, many in the party's high command, led by the state's Democratic Chairman Art Torres, took the unusual step of supporting the challenger against the incumbent.
Cordoza won the nomination. The Condit team was deeply hurt by Cordoza's candidacy, and there was no rapprochement after the election. Condit's son, Chad Condit, protested after his father's loss: "Gary helped Dennis. Dennis backstabbed Gary. He took advantage of a tragedy... He saw an opportunity to win an election and he did it."
In 2004, Bill Murley, a correctional officer in Essex County, Massachusetts was disaffected with the policies of his boss, Sherriff Frank Cousins Jr. In an awkward turn of events, Murley ran against him in Cousin's bid for re-election, while serving under him concomitantly. Murley accused Cousins of "gross mismanagement" and alleged that there was an "unwritten rule" among employees of the Sheriff's Department to donate to the campaign. Cousins handily defeated Murley. After the election, Murley continued to work for the Sherriff's Department.
Perhaps the most historic and bizarre race was when two brothers actually ran against each other. It occurred in 1888. The Democrats nominated former U.S. Representative Robert Taylor (D-TN). The Republicans nominated Robert's older brother, attorney Alfred Taylor. The two brothers remained on good terms and traveled together throughout the campaign. Bob said at one of their debates that the two brothers were "roses from the same garden." Accordingly, the race earned the moniker: "The War of the Roses." Robert later recalled of this peculiar race: "There were lots of old fellows who didn't vote for either of us, because they were friends of both, but I do not know of a single Republican vote that I got nor of a single Democrat vote that he got." Robert won this election by about 16,000 votes. The election was uncommonly civil. Robert went on to serve for four years as governor of the Volunteer State. Alfred eventually captured the Tennessee governorship in 1920.
The internecine battle between Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio is just one in a litany of odd political rivalries in American politics. Despite any affection Rubio may have had for Bush, it did not dissuade him from seeking the nomination against him. As is common in American politics, Rubio simply seized the electoral moment.
Donald Trump Is a Political Aberration: Rather Than Hiding his Wealth and Elite Education, He Flaunts it
Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump unabashedly touts himself as being "really rich." According to Forbes Magazine, Trump even exaggerated his net worth, alleging to be worth almost $9 billion. Forbes pegs the number at just $4.1 billion. Trump brags that he went to a top tier school, the Wharton School of Business, and even sings the praises of an uncle who taught at MIT, John G. Trump. Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump told CNN, "It's in my blood. I'm smart. Great marks. Like really smart." Trump even showcased his private jet at the Iowa State Fair by taking children for a ride.
Trump is the antithesis of the American politician. Most politicians who come from patrician backgrounds try to play down their heritage. They sometimes awkwardly try to play the role of an ordinary citizen. On the flip side, those politicians who hail from more modest circumstances often try to play up their humble origins rather than emphasizing their current financial situation.
For example, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee discusses his modest rearing in Hope, Arkansas, writing: "I think it's home," rather than showcasing his Florida abode assessed at over $3 million. Donald Trump, by boasting of his wealth, family, and his esteemed relative at MIT, is entering into uncharted territory in Presidential politics.
The greatest rouse for a politician from a patrician upbringing effectuating a narrative of being a regular guy from a humble background was perpetuated by William Henry Harrison. Harrison was elected President in 1840 by emphasizing the fact that he once lived in a log cabin. In reality, Harrison lived in a log cabin for just a brief period after leaving government service.
Some of his handlers spread the yarn that he was actually born in a long cabin. In fact, one of Harrison's supporters, whisky distiller E.G. Booze, sold whisky in log cabin-shaped bottles during the campaign to promote this master narrative (This is where the word "booze" came from). Harrison dressed down in public, styling himself as an average American. In actuality, Harrison grew up as a man of means. His father was once the Governor of Virginia. The ploy worked swimmingly. Harrison was elected President in an electoral landslide.
A hundred years later, in 1940, the Republican Presidential nominee, Wendell Willkie, often talked of his roots. Willkie was reared in the small blue-collar town of Elwood, Indiana. He rarely mentioned that both of his parents were lawyers. Willkie presented himself as a barefoot farm boy who made good, becoming a Utilities Executive. Willkie did not mention the connections to Wall Street he developed in that roll. U.S. Interior Secretary Harold Ickies dubbed him: "The barefoot boy from Wall Street." Furthering this joke, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt, averred Willkie has: "grassroots of every country club in America."
There have been more recent examples of politicians downplaying their resumes in the interest of not appearing elitist. Lyndon B. Johnson actually did come from a modest background, but he often exaggerated it for political effect. While he was giving a tour of his birthplace, Johnson City, Texas, Johnson showed his visitors an old cabin and told them it was his birthplace. Johnson's mother, Rebekah Baines Johnson, said to him: "Why Lyndon, you know you were born in a much better house closer to town which has been torn down." Johnson replied: "I know mama, but everybody has to have a birthplace."
Johnson's fellow Texan and political mentor, U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-TX), lived a lavish lifestyle when in the nation's capital. He dawned a posh wardrobe and enjoyed a chauffeured limousine at his disposal. Yet when he was back in his Texas Congressional District, Rayburn played the role of a simple dairy farmer, wore overalls, and drove a pickup truck. Consequently, as Rayburn moved up the leadership ladder in Congress, his constituents continued to see him at community events as a citizen Congressman as content in the North Texas prairie tending to his cattle as positioned behind the President when he delivers his State of the Union Address.
Nelson Rockefeller, an heir to the Rockefeller family fortune, spent much of his political career downplaying the elitist connotations that his background and fortune brought. When he first ran for Governor of New York in 1958, Rockefeller taught himself not to use the term "thanks a million" when a supporter praised him. He supplanted it with "thanks a thousand." In addition, Rockefeller greeted voters with the folksy: "Hiya Fella."
In 1978, Massachusetts Democratic Gubernatorial nominee Ed King called his wealthy Republican opponent Frank Hatch, "A rich incompetent." In the last days of the campaign, the King campaign aired a television advertisement which included an aerial shot of the mansion Hatch lived in, which was situated in a lavish neighborhood. To make a stark contrast, the advertisement included an aerial shot of King's home, which was quite modest and located in a blue-collar neighborhood. The ad is credited with slowing a late electoral surge Hatch had made with working-class voters, and may have won the election for King.
More recently, when running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1988, Al Gore, who spent most of his youth in Washington, D.C. as the son of a U.S. Senator, and attended the prestigious St. Albans School before ascending to Harvard College (the only college he applied to), emphasized his time growing tobacco at his family's Tennessee farm. He told North Carolina voters: "I've raised tobacco...I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it."
While running for the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC), who had amassed millions of dollars as a top tort lawyer, downplayed his wealth, and mentioned that his "father worked in a mill all his life." The younger Edwards would pose in front of the first home he lived in located in Seneca, South Carolina. Edwards did not mention that his father was promoted to a mill supervisor, and then to plant manager. Nor did Edwards mention that after a year the family moved to a much nicer home, and that his upbringing was relatively comfortable.
Donald Trump is a rare political species. Rather than hide his pedigree, wealth, and prestigious education, he is championing it, with no fear of being tattooed as an elitist by his critics. If it works, perhaps we will witness more politicians announcing their candidacies in front of their mansions dressed in expensive suits rather than in front of their modest birthplaces wearing overalls or work clothes. This would be a political sea change from what we are used to seeing.
LINCOLN CHAFEE: THE HEIR APPARENT TO RON PAUL ON FOREIGN POLICY?
During the last two election cycles, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) attracted support from liberals, libertarians, and independents who were drawn to his non-interventionist anti-war message. Paul advocated a truncation of the military budget and called for U.S. troops overseas to come home. He argued that the U.S. presence abroad effectuated enmity toward the U.S. Paul's argument was showcased in a 2007 GOP Presidential debate when Paul, referring to the 9/11 hijackings, averred: "They attack us because we've been over there." Paul was referring to the stated reasons asserted by Osama bin Laden to justify the attacks on the U.S.
In a 1996 Fatwa, bin Laden condemned the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia (he viewed non-Muslim troops in the land of the two Muslim Holy cities, Mecca and Medina, as sacrilege). He also denounced U.S. supported economic sanctions leveled against Iraq, which is widely believed to have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In addition, bin Laden blamed the U.S. and Israel for the plight of the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank.
Ron Paul's son, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), has proven he is not the heir apparent to the Ron Paul non-interventionist foreign policy platform. In his bid for the Republican Presidential nomination, Paul has come out for a $190 billion increase in the U.S military budget. Unlike his father, Rand Paul is opposed to the recently brokered Iranian Nuclear Agreement. Rand Paul has inflamed some of his father's supporters when he told Fox News: "There is a valuable use for drones and as much as I'm seen as an opponent of drones, in military and warfare, they do have some value." In addition, After Russia invaded the Crimea, Rand Paul called for Russian President Vladimir Putin to be punished, and averred: "It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's latest aggression."
Rand Paul is closer to the realist school of foreign policy, with ideological antecedents like Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald R. Ford, rather than the non-interventionist school of his father. As Rand Paul alienates those who supported his father, based largely on his foreign policy beliefs, a vacuum has developed for a candidate with a foreign policy belief system close to Ron Paul's, one who does not merely oppose a particular military action, but one who opposes the entire interventionist premise behind U.S. foreign policy.
Enter former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination. Chafee advertises himself as harboring an "aversion to foreign entanglements." On foreign policy, Chafee is the closest major candidate in the Presidential race to Ron Paul. Chafee, like Ron Paul, is not afraid of being branded a bin Laden sympathizer because he points out the aforementioned three grievances bin Laden used as a recruiting magnet to his cause.
Yet Chafee has not made a direct pitch to those who supported Ron Paul based upon his foreign policy view. Chafee has not asked them to "continue the crusade." Chafee barely registers in the polls. Like Paul, Chafee has an insipid cerebral demeanor. For Paul, it was the uniqueness of his message on the national stage that defined him, not his charisma.
Those voters who were attracted to Ron Paul based predominately on economic issues will see little in common with Chafee, as Paul is much more conservative in that arena.
However, many of Ron Paul's supporters were attracted to his foreign policy ideas. This is where Chafee has a message which, if promoted properly, could strike a resonate chord with libertarians, independents, and blue republicans (Democrats who supported Ron Paul). Chafee is preaching a parallel message.
In 2002, Chafee, while serving in the U.S. Senate as a liberal Republican, was the only member of his party in the Senate to vote against the authorization of the use of force in Iraq. Ron Paul was one of just six Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against the Resolution. In addition, unlike Rand Paul, Chafee calls for an end to the use of predator drone strikes. He refers to them as "extra-judicial assassinations." For example, with respect to Yemen, Chaffee is the only candidate who bewails the use by the U.S. of drones in that nation and the inadvertent civilian deaths they cause.
Moreover, Chafee is a member of the Advisory Council of J Street, which advocates for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which includes the total withdrawal of Israel from the disputed territories.
Chafee, like Paul, advocates a détente between the U.S. and Iran. On the Iranian nuclear deal, Chafee's message eerily echoes that of Ron Paul, who unlike his son Rand Paul, supports the deal. Chafee says: "Of course we should be talking with them. That's what we did right during the Cold War -- talking with China, talking with Russia, ping pong teams going back and forth to China and dealing with Gorbachev -- that's the right way to make peace." In 2011, Ron Paul asserted that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran by "maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn't we talk to the Soviets? Didn't we talk to the Chinese? They had thousands of these weapons."
Chafee's candidacy has garnered little media attention thus far. Many voters who share Chafee and Ron Paul's aversion to foreign entanglements have gravitated to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of Chafee's rivals for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Unlike Chafee, Sanders deemphasizes foreign policy issues, focusing mostly on the domestic sphere. Many of his supporters mendaciously believe that since Sanders is the most liberal candidate on domestic policy, he must concomitantly be a non-interventionist in foreign policy. While Sanders is no hawk, and similar to Chafee favors a reduction of the militarily budget, his foreign policy views are more traditional than conventional belief might dictate.
While Sanders, like Chafee and Ron Paul, opposed the Iraq War, Sanders voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which stated: "It should be the policy of the Untied States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein." Chafee was not a member of the U.S. Senate at the time.
A year later, Sanders favored the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which caused aide Jeremy Brecher to resign in protest. In addition, Sanders took heat from his liberal Vermont constituents for his support of the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014, though he tempered his support, maintaining Israel had "overreacted" by bombing schools used as civilian shelters, which allegedly housed weapons.
For Chafee to be taken seriously and muster earned media attention, he must define his campaign with a similar message as the Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern did in 1972: "Come Home America." He needs to explain the deleterious effects that U.S. interventions have had on the nation.
Chafee needs to emphasize the issue of "blowback." He has a perfect opening when it comes to Iran. Rather than simply explain that he supports the nuclear deal, Chafee should emphasize how U.S. policy led to the adversarial relationship between the two nations, beginning in 1953, when the U.S. sponsored a coup d'état against Mohammad Mosaddeqh, the Democratically elected Prime Minister, after he nationalized the oil fields. This was an example Paul used continuously to make his case against foreign interventions.
There is an opening the size of the Grand Canyon for a candidate to take advantage of. To move out from the bottom of the pack, Chafee must issue a clarion call to those Ron Paul supporters who were attracted to him for his foreign policy platform. He must convince them that he, not Rand Paul, is the rightful heir apparent to Ron Paul's message. There is a niche to be filled. Ron Paul proved that this message can resonate even if the messenger lacks charisma. A call to bring U.S. troops home from abroad and to stop meddling outside of U.S. borders turned the charismatically-challenged Ron Paul into a political cult figure. It could work for Chafee too.
A Biden/Warren Ticket: Announcing a Running Mate Would Be a Risky Endeavor
A recent meeting between Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) set the political punditocracy aflutter with speculation of a Biden/Warren ticket. If Biden were to announce the formation of this ticket prior to the Democratic Presidential primaries, it would effectuate a formidable obstacle for the current front-runner Hillary Clinton. Warren's presence on the ticket could create an aperture in Clinton's advantage with blue-collar Democrats and female voters, while siphoning off liberal voters from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
There are three notable examples in American political history where the Presidential candidate announced his running mate "before" the party nominated its Presidential candidate. In all three cases, the move backfired. All three Presidential candidates who prematurely selected a running mate lost the nomination.
In 1952, U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH), nicknamed "Mr. Republican," was supported for the Republican Presidential nomination by the conservative non-interventionist bloodline of the Republican Party. This included many sitting Republican members of the U.S. Congress. His main challenger for the nomination was the popular interventionist General Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Eisenhower was heralded by Americans of all political persuasions for his role as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII. One of the few Americans who was admired as much as Eisenhower in the party and in the nation as a whole was retired General Douglas MacArthur who had served as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in the Southwest Pacific Theater.
In a political masterstroke, Taft, with the help of former President Herbert Hoover, persuaded MacArthur to publicly agree to be his Vice Presidential running mate should Taft win the nomination. MacArthur was experiencing an upsurge in popularity after being fired for insubordination by the unpopular Democratic President Harry S. Truman in 1951. The General had publicly disparaged Truman for refusing to attack the Peoples Republic of China during the Korean War.
MacArthur returned home from Korea to multiple ticker tape parades. He subsequently received an avalanche of applause when addressing the U.S. Congress. Taft promised that if the ticket were elected, he would "deputize the General to assume responsibility for the national security as a Deputy Commander in Chief in the Armed Forces and give him a voice in the formulation of all foreign policy bearing upon national security."
However, the proposed ticket had the adverse effect of being a "kangaroo ticket" in which the candidate at the bottom of the ticket upstaged the candidate at the top. In fact, a large contingent of Republicans, led by U.S. Senator Francis H. Case of South Dakota, called on the cerebral Taft to withdraw from the race and endorse the charismatic MacArthur for the Presidential nomination instead. Taft refused, but told MacArthur that should the ticket not win on the first ballot, he would entertain the notion of endorsing MacArthur to supplant him at the top of the ticket. However, Taft miscalculated the strength of the Eisenhower forces. Eisenhower defeated Taft on the first ballot and won the nomination. A second ballot might have resulted in an epic electoral bout between the two former generals.
The second example where a President announced his choice of a running mate before the nomination was settled occurred in 1976. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan was locked in a whisker-close battle for the Republican Presidential nomination with President Gerald R. Ford. With the primary season over, and no clear winner, the winner was to be decided at the convention. The moderate Republican establishment supported Ford, while Reagan was the preferred candidate of the party's emerging conservative bloodline.
In a move to wrest enough moderate delegates at the GOP Convention to support his candidacy, Reagan teamed up with one of the party's most liberal Senators, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania. However, this move attracted few moderates to Reagan, as many saw this as a cynical political ploy. Moreover, this action inflamed many conservatives who saw it as a sellout to the ideological agenda Reagan was espousing. The stout conservative U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), whose endorsement of Reagan in the North Carolina primary was instrumental in providing Reagan with his first victory (which helped to keep the campaign afloat), was appalled. He urged the rock rib U.S. Senator James Buckley (R-NY) to enter the race to stop a potential Reagan victory if neither candidate was nominated on the first ballot. However, Ford defeated Reagan on the first ballot and the potential showdown was averted.
The third example occurred In January of 1992. Former California Governor Jerry Brown was losing ground in his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. In a dramatic move to reinvigorate his campaign, the progressive Brown announced that should he win the nomination, he would select the Reverend Jesse Jackson as his running mate. Jackson had been a candidate for the nomination in the last two elections and was popular in the African-American community. Brown was competing directly with Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton for the support of this constituency.
Brown's campaign was picking up steam, and by April, with the crucially important New York primary coming up, Brown and Clinton were the only two major candidates actively campaigning (former U.S. Senator Paul Tsongas (D-MA) had suspended his campaign but had not officially dropped out of the race). After upsetting Clinton in Connecticut and Vermont, Brown was enjoying electoral momentum.
New York has a redoubtable share of Jewish voters. Many in the state's Jewish community were incensed with Jackson for his 1984 characterization of New York City as "Hymietown" (Hymie is a derogatory term for a Jewish person). When Brown addressed about 200 Jewish voters in Manhattan, he was booed for his choice of Jackson. State Assemblyman Dov Hikind heckled him, screaming: "You insult the Jewish community by picking Jackson." Hikind then admonished the crowd: "Don't sit quietly and listen to him."
Empire State Jewish voters coalesced around Clinton. The weekly Jewish Press endorsed Clinton with the front-page headline reading: "We support Gov. Bill Clinton/Brown Will Choose Jesse Jackson as V.P. "
Clinton handily won the primary. Because of the backlash from his selection of Jackson, Brown mustered just 10 percent of the state's Jewish vote. While the Jackson selection helped Brown with the state's African-American population, African-American voter turnout registered less than other Democratic constituencies in the state.
Clinton's decisive win in the Empire State halted Brown's momentum, and Clinton steamrolled to the nomination. Brown did not win a single primary after that, even losing his home state of California.
On paper, a Biden/Warren ticket appears to be a dream ticket in the Democratic primaries. However, history shows that when a Presidential candidate announces his Vice Presidential running mate before the nomination is decided, there is a good chance that deleterious consequences will follow. This is an important factor for Biden to weigh in the event he decides to seek the nomination and chooses Warren as his running mate.
Donald Trump is No 'Good Soldier'
Many in the GOP High Command are distraught that their party's frontrunner for the 2016 Presidential nomination, real estate magnate Donald Trump, will not agree emphatically to support the party's eventual nominee (should Trump himself not be nominated) and will not rule out waging a potential third party bid. Trump exclaimed in an August GOP Presidential debate: "Well I'm a natural negotiator and I like leverage, to be honest with you."
In American politics today, it is expected that all candidates for a party nomination support the eventual nominee, despite the enmity effectuated during the primary. This can be called the "Good Soldier Principle." In 1932, U.S. Senator James Reed (D-MO) was a vociferous supporter of Al Smith for the Democratic Party nomination. Smith had won the nomination in 1928 but lost the General Election to Republican Herbert Hoover. Reed came to despise one of Smith's Democratic opponents, Franklin D. Roosevelt. When Roosevelt mustered the nomination, Reed did not want to address the party's convention to offer his support for Roosevelt. However, a Roosevelt advisor, Arthur Mullen, appealed to Reed's sense of party unity, reminding him: "We're all Democrats, Jim." Reed then sauntered to the podium and told the convention delegates: "At a time like this, every man who claims to be a Democrat should banish from his heart all feelings of disappointment, all sense of chagrin, and like a good soldier, fall in line, salute the colors and face the enemy."
Contrariwise, John F. Kennedy averred: "sometimes, party loyalty asks too much." American political history is flush with examples of elected officials and former elected officials who did not support their party's nominee in the Presidential election, and some even actively campaigned for an opponent or even ran as a third party candidate in the General Election.
Ironically, Al Smith, unlike James Reed. was not a good soldier after Roosevelt was elected President. Smith was a conservative Democrat who believed the federal government should be a limited purpose entity which only acts under narrowly defined situations. He came to see Roosevelt's "New Deal" as too pervasive. Smith lambasted Roosevelt for pitting "class against class." Smith even actively campaigned for Roosevelt's Republican opponents in 1936, and again in 1940, Alf Landon and Wendell Willkie, respectively.
Smith became persona non grata in many Democratic circles, and some Democratic loyalists branded his actions "treason." When Smith announced he would support Landon over Roosevelt in 1936 the President employed Smith's 1928 Vice Presidential runningmate, U.S. Senator Joseph Robinson (D-AR), to brand Smith derisively as "The unhappy warrior." Roosevelt have given Smith the moniker "happy warrior" when the two Democrats ware allies. It was meant as a term of endearment.
In 1896, with the country mired in an economic recession, the Democratic Party, which was known as the conservative party of the time, nominated the fiery populist William Jennings Bryan for President. The incumbent President, conservative Democrat Grover Cleveland, who was not seeking renomination, was appalled. The Bryan nomination was a repudiation of Cleveland's policies of fiscal austerity and the continuation of the Gold Standard. Bryan favored dramatic action by the federal government to stimulate the nation's economy, and favored the U.S. leaving the gold standard and instituting a graduated federal income tax.
Cleveland was not a good soldier. He refused to "fall in line" and pledge allegiance to Bryan. Instead, he lent his support to John A. Palmer, the nominee of the small National Democratic Party. Palmer was more in line with Cleveland's conservative ideology. Palmer pocketed less than 1% of the vote. Republican William McKinley handily won the election.
In 1912, former progressive Republican President Theodore Roosevelt became disillusioned by the actions of his handpicked Republican successor William Howard Taft. He came to view Taft as too conservative and too close to business interests. Accordingly, Roosevelt launched a bid against Taft for the Republican Presidential nomination. He told news reporters: "My hat's in the ring. The fight is on, and I'm stripped to the buff." Like Trump, Roosevelt was not above ad homonym attacks on his political opponents. He quipped that Taft is: "dumber than a guinea pig, a fathead."
After Roosevelt was embarrassed during the GOP primaries, losing his home state to Taft, Roosevelt announced that if he lost the nomination, he would run for President as an Independent. After that announcement, Roosevelt won a string of Republican primary victories. He won 284 delegates in the primaries, compared to just 125 for Taft. However, Taft secured the nomination because of his support of "pledged delegates" (individual Republicans who had a vote at the convention). In addition, Roosevelt forces alleged the convention was rigged for Taft by the President and GOP Chairman Elihu Root. True to his word, Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party and ran as the nominee of the Progressive, a.k.a. Bull Moose Party. In the General Election, the Republican Party was split asunder; Progressives voted for Roosevelt and conservatives marked ballots for Taft. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election.
This schism between the conservative and progressive bloodlines in the GOP evinced itself again in 1924. Progressive Republicans became disillusioned with the conservative policies of Republican President Calvin Coolidge. Twelve maverick GOP U.S. House members supported the candidacy of the Progressive Party nominee, U.S. Senator Robert La Follete Sr. (R-WI). U.S. House Speaker Nicolas Longworth (R-OH) showed no mercy, making sure mutineers did not serve on important committees during the next Congressional session. In the U.S. Senate, La Follete Sr., and three of his Republican colleagues who had supported his candidacy, lost all of their committee assignments.
Once a politician egresses political stage left, he/she has the liberty to support a candidate of the opposing party without the fear of losing the party's support when up for re-election, losing a coveted committee assignment.
In 1968, U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), whose flagship issue was ending U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, lost the Democratic Presidential nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey had supported the policies of President Lyndon B. Johnson of continuing the war. In part because of the influence of McCarthy and his vociferous supporters, on September 31st, Humphrey announced that as President he would order a unilateral bombing halt in Vietnam "as an acceptable risk for peace."
Even after that concession, McCarthy did not play the role of a good soldier and publically support Humphrey. In fact, McCarthy did not formally endorse Humphrey until a week before the General Election. His endorsement finally came as Humphrey, once far behind in the polls, had rallied to being within just two points of Republican nominee Richard M. Nixon. McCarthy's endorsement was less than enthusiastic. He proclaimed to his supporters: "I'm voting for Humphrey, and I think you should suffer with me." McCarthy's late and tepid endorsement was blamed by some Democrats for Humphrey's whisker-close loss to Nixon.
Trump is proving that he is not a "good soldier" for the Republican Party. Ironically, This may actually help him with grassroots conservatives and Independent voters who themselves are conservatives first and Republicans second. It also continues to cause trepidation among Republican stalwarts that he could split the conservative vote in the General Election, ensuring a Democratic victory. As a savvy business magnate, Trump is playing the "leverage card" well.
Should Biden Run for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, not Getting Endorsement of President would Not be Unprecedented
Vice President Joe Biden is believed to be seriously contemplating a bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Should he enter the race, one of his opponents would be former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who served under President Barack Obama. If Biden enters the race, Obama will likely not endorse either candidate. It may seem awkward if the President does not endorse his hand-picked number two to succeed him, but in actuality, Obama would be following precedent. In fact, only two incumbent Presidents who were not up for re-election in the Twentieth Century endorsed his Vice President for the nomination to succeed him.
Today, the President and Vice President are almost always simpatico politically. The Vice President is expected to carry out the President's wishes rather than harbor his own agenda. However, it was not always that way. In 1904, the Republican Party was comprised of two bloodlines, progressives and conservatives. President Theodore Roosevelt hailed from the Progressive Wing. At the time, the delegates to the party's National Convention chose the Vice Presidential nominee (Today, the delegates simply ratify the choice of the party's Presidential nominee). A majority of the delegates hailed from the conservative flank and chose U.S. Senator Charles Fairbanks (R-IN), a conservative stalwart, to be Roosevelt's runningmate. Roosevelt had advocated for the progressive U.S. Representative Robert R. Hilt (R-IL) over Fairbanks.
As Vice President, Fairbanks was hostile to Roosevelt's domestic agenda, which was nicknamed: "The Square Deal." Consequently, Roosevelt gave Fairbanks little responsibility. Fairbanks sought the nomination to succeed Roosevelt as President in 1908. Roosevelt actively supported U.S. Secretary of War William Howard Taft, who he saw as the heir apparent to his progressive legacy. Roosevelt used his political influence to secure the nomination at the convention for Taft, dissuading delegates from selecting Fairbanks.
In 1952, President Harry S. Truman dropped his re-election bid after being embarrassed in the New Hampshire primary by U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN). Kefauver won 12 of the 15 Democratic primaries. However, at the time, the preponderance of the delegates were selected at the convention, not in the primaries.
The Democratic Establishment detested Kefauver, a maverick. He had come to national political stardom for his role as Chairman of a Special U.S. Senate Committee that held hearings on organized crime. However, there was a "Stop Kefauver" movement in the party as Truman and the Democratic high command were incensed at Kefauver's tethering of Democratic office holders and power brokers with members of the mafia. In response, Truman endorsed the candidacy of his Vice President Alben Barkley in an attempt to derail the Kefauver candidacy. Truman's handpicked chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Frank E. McKinney, followed Truman's lead in endorsing Barkley.
Many party regulars also joined Truman in supporting Barkley. However, Barkley was 74 years old and many delegates believed he was too old to garner the nomination. Vice President Barkley suffered an immutable blow when prominent labor leaders claimed that he was too old to be president. Barkley was unable to salvage his candidacy and came in fourth place at the Democratic Convention. The nomination went to Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson instead. The 74-year old Barkley did not go quietly into retirement, however. Two years later, he won an open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky.
In 1960,Vice President Richard M. Nixon won the Republican nomination unopposed. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller had flirted with the nomination, but chose not to run. Despite the lack of opposition during the Republican primary process, the popular President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not immediately offer his endorsement to Nixon.
With Nixon the only Republican running, Eisenhower was asked if he would support Nixon. He gave an opaque answer: "The only thing I know about the Presidency the next time is this - I can't run."
Despite Nixon's pleas for an early endorsement, Eisenhower was trying to stay "above partisanship" and wanted to avoid being seen as a spokesman for the Nixon Campaign. In addition, he wanted to make it clear that he was in charge, and that he would not abdicate his Presidential responsibilities to Nixon to bolster Nixon's image.
Eisenhower inadvertently impaired the Nixon campaign after a reporter asked the President: "Give us an example of a major idea of his that you have adopted." Eisenhower answered: "If you give me a week I might think of one. I don't remember." Nixon's Democratic opponent, John F. Kennedy, used the exchange against Nixon in a campaign commercial. Eisenhower eventually endorsed Nixon and campaigned for him after the Vice President pocketed the GOP Presidential nomination.
In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to seek another term as President after nearly being upset in the New Hampshire Primary by U.S. Senator Eugene McCarty (D-MN). With Johnson out of the race, Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered. U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) was also entered the race at the time. Kennedy and McCarthy both favored withdrawal from Vietnam, while Humphrey supported Johnson's policy.
Johnson had become unpopular with many Democratic primary voters who opposed his escalation of U.S. troops in Vietnam. Many members of the Johnson administration as well as many Party regulars who were loyal to Johnson, switched their allegiances to Humphrey. However, Johnson himself did not endorse Humphrey, though he did give him political advice. Johnson's endorsement could actually have hurt Humphrey with some undecided primary voters who had grown wary over Vietnam. In fact, Iowa Governor Harold Hughes and Vermont Governor Philip H. Hoff unsuccessfully urged Humphrey to resign as Vice President to separate himself from the unpopular administration.
Johnson did not officially endorse Humphrey until September 17th, less than two months prior to the General Election. This was well after the Vice President captured the Democratic nomination, raising speculation that Johnson did not want Humphrey to succeed him.
Even after the endorsement, Johnson mostly stayed off the campaign trail until a few weeks prior to the election. Johnson had become inflamed with the Vice President for a speech he made just two weeks after Johnson's endorsement in which he announced that as President he would unilaterally halt the bombing in North Vietnam "as an acceptable risk for peace." However, once Johnson went on the campaign hustings, he proved a net positive for Humphrey, especially helping Humphrey win Johnson's home state of Texas.
In 1988, President Ronald Reagan did not endorse his Vice President, George H. W. Bush, in his bid for the GOP Presidential nomination. Reagan had a conflict here, in that he was close to some of Bush's opponents. Reagan was in a similar predicament to Obama, in that his Vice President was being challenged by his former Secretary of State, Alexander Haig. In addition, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) was also running and Reagan did not want to effectuate discord with him, as Reagan needed him as his chief lieutenant in the Senate.
Other candidates running for the nomination included U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), the co-author of Reagan's tax cut plan in the House, and U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV) who was one of just two U.S. Senators (The other was Jesse Helms (R-NC)) who had endorsed Reagan in his 1976 bid for the nomination against incumbent President Gerald R. Ford. Laxalt had also served Reagan as General Chairman of the Republican Party.
Reagan finally endorsed Bush in May of 1988, once the last challenger to Bush, televangelist Pat Robertson, suspended his candidacy. However, Reagan's endorsement was less than enthusiastic, just one paragraph in a speech at a Republican fundraiser, and he mispronounced Bush's name.
Unlike some of the aforementioned examples, in 1999, Bill Clinton delivered an unambiguous endorsement for Vice President Al Gore over U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ). Clinton had seen Gore as his heir apparent since selecting him as Vice President in 1992. Gore was in many respects the political mirror image of Clinton. Both men were young, from the Upper South, and both were ideological centrists. Clinton called Gore: "The most effective and influential Vice President who ever served."
If Joe Biden enters the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Obama will likely not endorse his Vice President unless and until he actually garners the nomination. If this is the case, Obama will not be entering uncharted electoral territory. In fact, he will simply be following the actions of many of his predecessors. Not all Vice Presidents are endorsed by their President in the nomination battle. In rare cases, like in 1908 with Theodore Roosevelt, the President overtly works against the nomination of their Vice President. The most prevalent action is for the President to remain neutral during the nomination process. If the Vice President musters the nomination, the President then usually announces his support for his candidacy and campaigns for him to varying degrees.
Restless Insurrectionist Syndrome Strikes in the 2016 Presidential Election
A year ago, few Americans would have predicted that Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, would be leading a formidable insurrectionist challenge to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential Primary, or that real estate magnate Donald Trump would be leading in the polls in the Republican Primary. Why is this happening? It is a reflection of the ideological absolutists in both parties who are disenthralled with their party's political establishment. The absolutists have held their nose in the name of party unity, but are now agitated and want a nominee who will not prevaricate, dissemble, or equivocate in their message. Restless Insurrectionist syndrome is infecting the body politic.
In 1992, liberals in the Democratic Party who had supported the candidacies of Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin, and Larry Agran in the primary reluctantly supported their party's nominee, the centrist Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in the General Election. Progressives were moved when Harkin said in the primary: "I'm the only real Democrat in this race," when Agran called for a 50% reduction in U.S. military expenditures, and when Brown branded Washington D.C. a "Stop and Shop for the moneyed special interests." Yet the liberals became united in the interest of retaining the White House after a 12-year drought. They accepted Harkin's call to: "link arms, dig in our heals, set our sights to put Bill Clinton in the White House."
Many rationalized that Clintons' centrist rhetoric was merely campaign fodder and that as President he would govern as a progressive. Yet as President, Clinton proved to be a bone fide centrist. He championed deficit reduction over stimulus spending, signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, extended normal trading relations to China, supported U.N. Sanctions on Iraq, and signed a landmark Welfare Reform bill into law.
In 2008, Barack Obama defeated the preponderant frontrunner Hillary Clinton by running against the political legacy of Bill Clinton. Obama accused the Clinton's of "triangulation and poll-driven politics." He called Hillary a "corporate Democrat." Obama enraptured progressives by declaring he would lead "not by polls, but by principle; not by calculation, but by conviction."
Some on the left became disenchanted with Obama for delaying action on immigration reform, for deporting more illegal immigrants than his Republican predecessor, George, W. Bush, for agreeing to extend all Bush tax cuts in exchange for extending unemployment insurance, for increasing the use of predator drones, and for signing a health care law which provides 31 million new customers for the nation's insurance companies, rather than eliminating their influence by working to pass legislation establishing a single-payer Health Care system.
Among progressives, Hillary and Obama have become tethered as centrists who are too quick to work and compromise with the Republicans, and who are not wedded to a liberal philosophy. Then along comes Bernie Sanders at the opportune electoral time. During his time in Congress, Sanders developed one of the most liberal voting records in the U.S. Congress. In past elections, he would have been seen as a fringe liberal candidate with a narrow appeal and low ceiling. Yet grassroots progressives are looking for an ideologically unadulterated nominee and believe that in a political environment where the entire political establishment is scorned upon, voters in the General Election will see a candidate with no political filter as a refreshing respite. Sanders supporters believe he can win the General Election without altering his message, and then govern as the liberal of their dreams.
Conservative activists are in a similar predicament. There was a similar mutiny away from the establishment in 1992 when conservative Pat Buchanan won 37.5% of the vote in the New Hampshire Primary against President George H.W. Bush. Buchanan styled himself: "a real Republican." Bush had lost much trust on the right by reneging on his 1988 campaign pledge of: "Read my lips, no new taxes." New Hampshire was Buchanan's high watermark, as he failed to replicate that redoubtable showing in other contests.
In 2000, with the party locked out of the White House for eight years, Texas Governor George W. Bush was nominated and elected President. Conservatives held their noses as President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, expanded the Federal Government's role in education, and when he signed legislation adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the biggest entitlement program since 1965. Bush spent much of his second term barnstorming the country calling for an earned pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, which conservatives vociferously oppose.
The illegal immigration issue has become a litmus test for grassroots conservatives, the conservative intelligencia and conservative media. This was evinced in 2014 when Randolph-Mason College Economics Professor Dave Brat ousted U.S. House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in a Republican primary for Cantor's Congressional seat in part because of Cantor's support for comprehensive immigration reform. The race became a cause celeb, as conservatives from around the nation campaigned for and donated to the electoral neophyte, Brat.
Enter Donald Trump. The Donald is telling grass roots conservatives what they want to hear. He minces no words on illegal immigration, calling for a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border paid for by the Mexican Government. He also goes right after Hillary Clinton in an unequivocal manner, calling her: "The worst Secretary of State in the history of our country." In addition, Trump taps into an economic nationalism on the right similar to the one Buchanan tapped into in 1992, calling for tariffs on China and Mexico and opposing the Transpacific Partnership.
Judging by history, insurrectionist candidates like Sanders and Trump are usually squashed by the party establishment in the primaries. In 1984 and 1988, the Reverend Jesse Jackson could not defeat the establishment candidates Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, respectively. In 1992 and in 1996, conservative Pat Buchanan fired up the conservative base, but could not defeat the Republican establishment candidates. In 2004, Democrat Howard Dean struck a resonate chord with the left for his opposition to U.S. involvement in the War in Iraq. However, the establishment candidate, John Kerry, defeated him.
On the rare occasion that an insurrectionist does in fact win the nomination, they usually prove to be electoral disasters in the General Election campaign. In 1964, U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) defeated the Republican establishment candidate. In the General Election, rather than veering to the center, Goldwater and his supporters only hardened their ultra conservative message. At the Republican National convention that year, Goldwater's moderate opponent, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, was booed by conservative forces. In his acceptance speech, Goldwater told the nation: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." The Goldwater campaign tried to use Goldwater's unabashed conservatism to their advantage by adopting the campaign slogan: "In your heart you know he's right." The campaign of his Democratic opponent Lyndon B. Johnson retorted: "In your gut, you know he's nuts."
Goldwater doubled down on his conservative bone fides by selected U.S. Representative Walter Miller (R-NY), a staunch conservative, as his Vice Presidential runningmate. When a news reporter asked Miller if he thought Goldwater was extreme, he asked the reporter: "Are you married?" The reporter replied: "Yes." Miller responded" "Would your wife rather you be moderately faithful to her, or extremely faithful." The Goldwater/Miller ticket suffered a thumping, winning just six states.
Similarly, in 1972, the Democratic Party nominated insurgent U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) over the establishment candidates. The liberal activist bloodline of the party was inflamed by their leadership's failure to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam. While his opponents for the nomination took a more nuanced position on bringing troops home from Vietnam, McGovern stated without reservation that as President he would "announce a definite early date for the withdrawal of every American soldier." McGovern campaigned from the hard left, proposing to give every American a $1,000 income supplement, and calling for a major truncation in the U.S. Defense Budget. With little support outside of the left in the General Election, McGovern won just one state, Massachusetts (and the District of Columbia). Republican President Richard M. Nixon garnered a whopping 94% of the Republican vote, 66% of the Independent vote, and 42% of the Democratic Vote.
While some political observers may point to Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory as an example of an election where an unapologetic insurrectionist conservative won the Presidency, there were a litany of contributing factors. First, Democratic President Jimmy Carter had a job approval rating just above 30%. Prior to the only debate the two party nominees had, which took place just one weak before the election, Reagan and Carter were in a virtual dead heat. Carter should have been down by double digits based on his low poll numbers. While Americans wanted to retire Carter, they had reservations that Reagan was too extreme. Reagan won that debate and the election, not by the incessant espousing of conservative positions, but by appearing moderate. When Carter accused Reagan of opposing Medicare and Social Security, Reagan humorously retorted: "There you go again."
Furthermore, Regan ran a Pollyannaish platitude-laden campaign. His campaign brochure read: "Ronald Reagan believes in the need to devise lasting solutions to problems, and in the need to combine a sense of caring with a sense of the cost involved." Contrary to popular belief, Reagan espoused mainstream Republican views, favoring a balanced budget, tax cuts, and an increase in Defense spending. Reagan said the U.S. and Mexico should "open the border both ways" and pledged to "improve quality health care for the aged and poor through Medicare and Medicaid."
Sanders and Trump exemplify the Restless insurrectionist syndrome. History is replete with examples showing that insurrectionist ideologically pure candidates usually lose to the establishment candidates. On rare occasions when they do in fact win their party's nomination, they are trounced in the General Election due to the fact that they have difficulty connecting with less ideologically pure voters. On the outside chance that both insurrectionist candidates win their respective party's nomination, we will be in uncharted territory.
In Politics, It's All About Timing
In 2011, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was a champion to conservatives who admired his combative approach to critics and his willingness to stand up to the public sector unions. Moderates saw him as a blue state Governor who worked well with Democrats and who balanced the state's budget. The Republican establishment took notice, seeing him as the candidate who could bridge the ideological chasm between conservatives and moderates, and by doing so close party ranks, unifying the party.
Many prominent Republicans beseeched Christie to seek the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination. Polls showed Christie sporting a redoubtable lead against all other potential Republican opponents, and leading President Barack Obama in a hypothetical general election matchup. However, Christie resisted the pressure and announced that he would not run for the nomination, averring: "Now is not my time."
After the Republican Party's 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, lost the race to Obama, Christie began preparing for a 2016 Presidential bid. Christie was at the high watermark of his popularity. One year later, he exhibited his electoral bone fides by being re-elected as Governor of Democratically leaning New Jersey with 60 percent of the vote. He was ready to use this landslide victory as an argument to Republican voters that he could garner votes behind enemy lines in a General Election campaign as well. Then, Christie's good political fortune regressed. It was revealed that after Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich refused to join other Democratic mayors in endorsing Christie, Christie aides schemed to close lanes on the George Washington Bridge allegedly as political retribution. This began a nosedive for Christie's job approval rating in New Jersey. This was then compounded by discontent among state residents over Christie's frequent out of state political trips and the credit downgrades in New Jersey. Consequently, Christie now harbors job approval ratings of just 30 percent in his home state, and is in the middle of the pack of Republican Presidential candidates nationally.
Contrawise, after delivering the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, Barack Obama, then a recently minted nominee for an open U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, rose to national political stardom in the Democratic Party. After being elected to the Senate, liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats requested that Obama campaign with them in their home states. Obama was one of a very few national Democrats who were welcome in Nebraska to campaign for the re-election of conservative U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and in Vermont to campaign for U.S. Senate candidate Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist. Consequently, members of the Democratic high command geminated with rank-and-file Democrats and persuaded Obama that 2008 was Barack Obama's time. Despite a dearth of experience, and the fact that he made the following pledge to his new constituents: "I can unequivocally say that I will not be running for national office in four years," Obama broke his pledge and sought the nomination.
There was a vacuum for a major candidate who was charismatic and not an entrenched member of the Beltway Establishment who had opposed the Iraq War from the start and could assemble a coalition of African-Americans, gentry progressives and disaffected Independents. Obama saw that the electoral stars were aligned in favor of his candidacy. He ran and won. Had he waited, the issue of the Iraq War likely would have become a less prominent issue, and Obama would have been seen as just another U.S. Senator with Presidential ambitions.
Similarly, the timing of Bernie Sander's in entrance into the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination is politically impeccable. With the more centrist Hillary Clinton as the preponderant front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination, there was an aperture on the left for an unreconstructed progressive candidate. Many grassroots Democrats have never gotten over Hillary Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The Occupy Wall Street movement unleashed a cavalcade of opprobrium toward the financial elites on the left. Hillary is viewed with suspicion for her ties to Wall Street and the fact that seven of her top ten donors since 1999 are Wall Street related.
Sanders was a vociferous opponent of the authorization of the use of force in Iraq, and the flagship issue of his 2016 Presidential campaign is combating what he calls "unquenchable greed of the Billionaire Class" The result is that Sanders is surging in the polls, is drawing better than expected crowds to rallies around the country and is making Hillary less immutable than many political observer thought she would be in the Democratic Primary.
For Hillary's husband, then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, the timing of his centrist message was spot on. In 1984, U.S. Senator Gary Hart (D-CO) ran for President as what is now known as a "New Democrat." The impetus of his campaign was to foster economic growth rather than push for the redistribution of wealth. Hart argued that the Democratic Presidential nominee should not be captive to labor unions and to the "special interest government in Washington." However, Democratic voters nominated former Vice President Walter Mondale, a traditional liberal. Mondale was trounced in the General Election, losing 49 states.
Four years later, two centrist candidates, former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt and U.S. Senator Al Gore (D-TN), ran for the nomination, but again, the party chose a more traditional frost-belt liberal: Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. Dukakis won just ten states in the General Election.
By 1991, the Republican Party was desperately looking for a winner. President George H.W. Bush, in the wake of his handling of the Persian Gulf War, seemed indomitable, at one point sporting a 91 percent job approval rating, and defeating the leading potential candidate, New York Governor Mario Cuomo, by a jaw dropping 62 points. One-by-one, potential Democratic contenders announced they would not seek the nomination.
The afterglow for Bush of the U.S. victory in the Gulf proved ephemeral. As the economy cratered, Clinton, who had promised Arkansas voters during his 1990 re-election campaign that he would serve out his full term, saw his chance. He went on a tour of the state, asking his constituents to release him from his campaign pledge. With a less than stellar field shaping up, and his tactical electoral antenna at its optimal height, Clinton announced his candidacy in October of 1991.
Clinton ran as a "New Democrat." At a time of discontent among voters within the political establishment, Clinton deadpanned: "I'm against brain-dead policies in either party or both." Clinton pledged to: "end welfare as we know it," and wanted to establish a nationwide paramilitary "boot camp" program for non-violent first-time offenders. Moreover, he praised Bush's handling of the War, and, like Hart, called for economic growth rather than redistribution of the wealth. The party decided that nominating a winner would trump nominating an ideologically rarified candidate. Unlike the three aforementioned centrist candidates, Clinton was in the right place at the right time, and won the nomination and the Presidency.
Contrawise, one of Clinton's opponents in that race, U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), unashamedly branded himself: "a liberal." He exclaimed: "I'm the only real Democrat in this race." Harkin's message was almost a mirror image of the one Sanders is now peddling. The populist Harkin excoriated corporate leaders whose "pay increased four times faster than employees did and three time faster than profits" and called "for resourced-based economics." Harkin exclaimed: "No more trickle down. Put it in at the bottom. Let it percolate up for a while." However, Harkin's' progressive message failed to resonate with a large swath of Democratic voters as he only won his homestate primary. Harkin's old-time liberal religion might have struck a resonate chord with Democratic voters in 1984 and in 1988, but by 1992 the message became antediluvian. Harkin's message did not correspond to the times.
An effective Presidential candidate must strike at the right time with an image and message that resonates for that election cycle. Christie may have had had both in 2012, but failed to seize the opportunity. Harkin ran at a time when the Democratic Party was moving to the center and away from his traditional liberal message. Obama, Sanders and Clinton seized and capitalized on the moment. As the late nineteenth century British Prime Minister William Gladstone observed: "In Politics, timing is everything."
Some Presidential Candidates Get No Respect
When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, many in the media declared he was the 14th Republican to officially declare his presidential candidacy. In actuality, over 100 Republicans have filed with the Federal Elections Commission as candidates for the GOP nomination. Most are ignored because of their lack of name recognition, potential to get their names on enough state and territorial ballots, and their dearth of campaign money.
However, usually there is one candidate at the margins who has gravitas, yet is largely disregarded. This year's victim is Mark Everson, former Deputy Director of the Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services where he administered the enforcement of the Immigration and Control Act under President Ronald Reagan. Everson also served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service under President George W. Bush. Everson later headed the Red Cross.
In every presidential election there are candidates with compelling resumes who the high command of the political parties and the media rarely mention. In almost every election cycle, a formidable candidate fails to make the cut.
Two Minnesotans, Republican Harold Stassen and Democrat Eugene McCarthy, both had a major impact on their party's nomination. However, later in life the two politicians ran for their party's nomination and both were treated as non-entities.
Stassen was once a boy-wonder in GOP Politics. He was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1938 at just 31 years old. Just two years later, the rising star delivered the keynote address at the Republican National Convention. Stassen was a candidate for his party's nomination in 1940 and was the Floor Leader for the party's nominee Wendell Willkie.
In 1948, Stassen, now a former Governor, was an early frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination after defeating New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey in the Nebraska and Wisconsin Primaries. However, Stassen lost his momentum following a loss to U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH) in Taft's home state, and following a defeat by Dewey in the hotly-contested Oregon primary. Dewey became the frontrunner and eventually won the nomination. Stassen was a potential runningmate for Dewey but lost out to California Governor Earl Warren. In 1952, Stassen ran as a stalking horse for Dwight D. Eisenhower against Taft.
Eisenhower had not yet declared his candidacy, and 41 Republican luminaries supported Stassen's candidacy until Eisenhower entered the race.
Stassen ran for president seven more times, each time mustering less attention. Stassen went from the boy-wonder of the party to a quixotic candidate who the party and media networks did not even invite to debates and rarely acknowledged his presence in the race. U.S. Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) averred: "The Principal problem of Harold Stassen is that someone early told him that he should be president and he believed it."
Similarly, Eugene McCarthy was once a rising star in the Democratic Party. After being elected to a U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota in 1958, the freshman Senator came to national notice by delivering a speech at the 1960 Democratic National Convention, urging delegates to support Adlai Stevenson for president. In 1964, he was the runner-up to his Minnesota colleague Hubert Humphrey as President Lyndon B. Johnson's Vice Presidential running mate. In 1968, McCarthy became a cult figure to opponents of the Vietnam War.
Disillusioned young adults shaved their beards going "Clean for Gene" and his campaign became a "children's crusade." McCarthy shocked the body politic by coming within eight points of defeating Johnson in the New Hampshire Primary. A poll showed he was ahead of the president in the Wisconsin Primary. Johnson subsequently announced he would not be a candidate for reelection. McCarthy then captured a plurality of the vote in the Democratic primaries, but lost the nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey who mustered more delegates at the Democratic National Convention.
Four years later, McCarthy ran again, but was overshadowed by the campaign of U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) who was also an opponent of the U.S. role in Vietnam. McCarthy later left the Democratic Party, launching an Independent presidential bid in 1976, pocketing just 0.91 percent of the popular vote in the General Election. Later in life, McCarthy became a Democrat once again and ran for the party's presidential nomination in 1992. Instead of being treated as an elder statesman who had made history in the party, McCarthy was treated as a non-entity. He was shut out of most debates and was ignored by the party high command and the media.
McCarthy was not the only credentialed candidate who was ignored that year. Larry Agran was the former mayor of Irvine, CA, a city with a population of over 200,000 inhabitants. His name appeared on the ballot in 40 jurisdictions. When allowed to address Democratic forums, his message of economic conversion from military to domestic spending struck resonant chords with the party's liberal base. Although he managed to garner some television interviews, Agran was not treated with the respect afforded his Democratic compatriots. One network literally broke its promise to provide Agran with makeup, forcing an aid to gallivant to Super Savor to purchase it for him. On another occasion, when he appeared at a forum with three other Democratic candidates, the Associated Press literally cropped him out of their photograph.
One poll showed Agran ahead of former California Governor Jerry Brown. However, ABC News, in reporting on the poll, mentioned Brown's numbers, but not Agran's. In a surreal moment, Agran attended a debate as an audience member (he was not invited as a participant) and was arrested for heckling the moderator.
Democratic Party Chairman Ron Brown would often say the party had six presidential candidates, ignoring both McCarthy and Agran. However, the two candidates did get invited to a debate late in the primary season, in Buffalo along with the remaining "major" candidates, Jerry Brown and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. In his opening statement, McCarthy amused the crowed by deadpanning: "This is the highest-ranking Democratic organization that's let me talk to them for 20 years. I've got a lot of things to say."
The New York Times devoted most of its coverage of the debate to Clinton and Brown, musing of Agran: "Mr. Agran devoted most of his opening statement to demanding more time, and at the end tried Mr. Brown's tactic of reciting an "800" phone number for campaign contributors to call." Regarding McCarthy, the paper wrote: "Mr. McCarthy, who spent much of the debate doodling on a pad, turned his wit on President Bush, whom he called a "traveling salesman."
As more candidates enter the Presidential sweepstakes, we must keep in mind that when members of the media and the high command of the respective parties mention the number of candidates, they are only mentioning ones they deem to be "major candidates." As in past elections, there are many more choices. Some are vanity candidates, yet some offer formidable credentials but simply do not make the arbitrary debate cut. Currently, Mark Everson is experiencing the blackout effect in presidential politics.
Posted: 07/02/2015 8:01 pm EDT Updated: 07/02/20
Open Season on the Elites: Bernie Sanders Is Leading the Charge
Democratic Presidential candidate Bernard Sanders is drawing overflow crowds. He is garnering support at the grassroots level, and is raising "eye-popping" amounts of cash from small donors. Some of his enthusiastic adherents seem to believe there is no God but Bernie Sanders.
Part of the reason for this insurgence is not only what Sanders is proposing, but also who he is attacking. Insurrectionist candidates like Sanders often make a splash on the national radar by excoriating "the elites." On the Democratic side of the ledger, the elites are the "billionaire class" from Wall Street and multinational corporations. They are portrayed as having what Sanders calls: "unquenchable greed," and exerting too much influence over policy makers. Sanders told CNBC: "What I think is obscene, and what frightens me, is again when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning as much as the bottom ninety."
Conservative insurgent candidates also can spark a firestorm of approbation by vilifying "elites." However, they take shots at a different kind of elite. They view elites in cultural rather than economic terms. An insurgent Presidential candidate can hit a nerve by lambasting academicians, liberal college students, intellectuals, and bureaucrats.
The left has a perpetual angst toward Wall Street and the concentration of wealth in the few. Populist insurgent candidates like Sanders exploit that enmity. As far back as 1892, James B. Weaver, the nominee of the liberal Greenback Party, fueled his populist candidacy by pitting working class Americans against the powerful. Like Sanders, he called for Federal Government action to narrow the economic disparity. Weaver bemoaned: "Our government has chartered thousands of corporations, turned them loose upon us and now permits them to commit from year to year... outrages upon our people."
While the Populist Party dissolved, many planks in their platform became enveloped in the Democratic Party. In 1896, the Party nominated William Jennings Bryan, who moved the message of the Democratic Party to the left, supporting a graduated income tax, an increase in social spending, and taking the nation off of the Gold Standard. Bryan branded himself as "The Great Commoner" and took on his own party and its relationship with Wallstreet. He avowed: "Our party should not defer to Wall Street and big business." Bryan's nomination forced establishment Democrats with close ties to Wall Street, including President Grover Cleveland, to support the third party candidacy of John M. Palmer.
U.S. Senator Huey Long (D-LA 1932-1935) became a cult figure for his declamations excoriating the influence of Wall Street on the political process. Like Bryan and Sanders, Long viewed both parties as beholden to the moneyed elites. Long exclaimed in 1932: "They've got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." Before his assassination in 1935, Long was preparing for a primary challenge to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who he viewed as too close to Wall Street. Long drew elephantine crowds from around the country. Roosevelt came to fear a potential challenge in his renomination bid in 1936 and his campaign commissioned the first ever nationwide poll, which showed that Long would garner about 6 million votes against Roosevelt.
More recently, during his 1992 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination, former California Governor Jerry Brown drew legions of followers by railing against those at the top of the economic ladder. He called for dramatic reforms in the electoral and financial systems to level the playing field. His rhetoric was eerily similar to Sanders, and he drew similar crowds. Brown bewailed: "You have an incredible concentration of wealth that has no historic precedent . . . The 1 percent, who have been able to insulate themselves from this downward pressure on wages, this is the group that controls politics."
Interestingly, as the New Hampshire primary approached that year, one of Brown's opponents, Bill Clinton, adopted populist anti-elite rhetoric in part to distance himself from the New Hampshire front-runner and eventual winner Paul Tsongas, who was loathe to attack the upper classes. Clinton said that a vote for him would "send a message to Washington and Wall Street."
In 1968, Alabama Governor George Wallace, the nominee of the American Independent Party, won a largely blue-collar conservative following by exploiting the undercurrent of virulence they felt toward "cultural elites." Many were Democrats who had become disillusioned with "the new left." Many protested U.S. involvement in Vietnam, and many rejected contemporaneous American values. When heckled during a speech by a coterie of hippies, Wallace turned to them and averred: "You come up when I get through and I'll autograph your sandals for you. That is, if you got any on . . .. You need a good haircut. That's all that's wrong with you . . .. There are two four-letter words I bet you folks don't know: work and soap." The crowd awarded Wallace with an avalanche of applause. During stump speeches, Wallace would often draw thunderous applause by asserting that if he were to become President, he would: "bring all these briefcase-toting bureaucrats in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to Washington and throw their briefcases in the Potomac River."
That year, it was Wallace who filled the niche as the anti-elitist candidate, not the Republican nominee Richard M. Nixon. However, Nixon was a pioneer in challenging 'cultural elites.' In 1952, as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Nixon gave the Democratic Presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson, who often spoke in a professorial tone, the moniker, "egghead." Stevenson tried to make light of the attack, quipping: "Eggheads of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your yolks."
As President, Nixon deployed Vice President Spiro Agnew to "crack those elites." Following the 1969 Moratorium to end the War in Vietnam, Vice President Spiro Agnew revved up conservative populist indignation toward the intellectual elites. He told a Republican Party fundraiser in New Orleans: "A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals." In an address to the California Republican State Convention delivered on September 11, 1970, Agnew excoriated the American news media, exclaiming: "In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club - The hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."
More recently, even Republican Presidential nominees who earned Ivy League degrees employ the anti-elitist tactic. For example, in 1988, George H. W. Bush bashed his Democratic rival Michael Dukakis, asserting: "His foreign policy views born in Harvard Yard's boutique, would cut the muscle of defense."
Similarly, in 2012, Mitt Romney, who earned two advanced degrees from Harvard University, tried to tether Democratic President Barack Obama negatively to the institution. Romney declared: "I didn't learn about the economy just reading about it or hearing about it at the faculty lounge at Harvard."
Sanders is singing from the same hymnbook of past contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination by railing against "the economic elites." The caricature of the elitist, which effectuates indignation on the left, is the rapacious billionaire who has no regard for those economically less fortunate.
So far in the 2016 Presidential election cycle only Bernie Sanders has opened fire on the elites. It probably won't be long, however, before other candidates take aim at the elites, be they cultural or economic elites. Elites are always a very popular target for candidates.
The Political Stars May Be Aligning for Another Ross Perot
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) are both running for President as antagonists to the political establishment. Though the two candidates harbor irreconcilable differences on economic policies, the two find themselves simpatico on many issues. Strangely, political ideology is a circle, not a continuum -- left sometimes meets right.
The Libertarian-Right and the Progressive Left are at odds with the establishment candidates of their parties on a litany of issues. A recent poll showed that only 26 percent of Americans are satisfied with the two-party dominant political system.
Assuming nether Sanders nor Paul pockets their party's nomination, and that an establishment Republican and establishment Democrat (most likely Hillary Clinton), manage to win their party's nomination, an Independent candidate could be viable in 2016. The candidate would need to adopt and promote issues which unify Paul and Sanders supporters. To appeal to disaffected centrist voters as well, the candidate would need to delineate a plan to deal with the federal deficit, the national debt and unfunded liabilities.
In many respects, the 1992 Independent campaign of populist insurgent H. Ross Perot could serve as an archetype for an Independent candidacy today. That year, Perot garnered 18.9 percent of the popular vote. Surprisingly, he was actually ahead in the polls before dropping out of the race (He later re-entered the Presidential sweepstakes). Perot's candidacy was eclectic, hitting a populist tone with insurrectionists in both major parties.
Similar to this current election cycle, there was a populist uprising in the primaries of both parties in 1992. Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Pat Buchanan had sharp disagreements on fiscal issues, yet both challenged the establishment candidates of their party.
Brown called his campaign "a populist movement" and said his campaign was "a cause to take back our government from special interests." Buchanan, running against Republican President George W. Bush, ran against the leadership of both parties, declaring: "the establishment that has dominated Congress for four decades is as ossified and out-of-touch with America as the establishment that resides in the White House."
Both Brown and Buchanan were opposed to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and both opposed U.S. involvement in most foreign entanglements, and shared a deeply rooted economic nationalism which viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a threat to American sovereignty and to American jobs. Bush supported both the Gulf War and NAFTA. On the Democratic side, Bill Clinton, the de facto establishment candidate (once New York Governor Mario Cuomo announced he was not running), took a nuanced approach. Regarding the Persian Gulf War, Clinton said: "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the Minority made." Clinton did not take a stand on NAFTA until after defeating Brown, saying he would not sign it "until we have reached additional agreements to protect America's vital interests."
Perot styled himself as a populist insurgent. The billionaire industrialist gained support from some Brown and Buchanan supporters by emphasizing that he too had opposed the Gulf War and was a NAFTA opponent. He sounded a clarion call that the agreement would result in "a giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs moving to Mexico.
Economically, Perot was a deficit hawk, excoriating the fiscal policies of former President Ronald Reagan which emphasized tax cuts coupled with increases in the Defense budget. Perot averred: "We got into trickle down economics and it didn't trickle." While Perot did not muster support from fellow deficit hawk Paul Tsongas (who lost the Democratic Presidential nomination to Clinton), a group of his supporters, called TCitizens for Tsongas (playing on the silent 'T' in Tsongas"), backed Perot in the General Election campaign.
In order to be a plausible alternative to the current two-party electoral hegemony, the Independent candidate must spotlight and support issues which unify Paul and Sanders supporters. Both candidates, and the preponderance of their supporters, advocate a smaller footprint abroad, oppose warrantless wiretapping, are critical of the American war on drugs, and favor support for criminal justice reform, which would include an end to mandatory minimums for repeat offenders. In addition, both candidates support auditing the Federal Reserve.
On foreign policy, the Independent candidate could unite Libertarians and Progressives by making the case that U.S. intervention abroad makes America less safe. Many Sanders and Paul supporters are non-interventionists. The establishment candidates in both parties are not exponents of a retrenchment of U.S. forces abroad. To the chagrin of many liberal Democrats, Hillary supported the authorization for the war in Iraq.
To mainstream the non-interventionist doctrine, the Independent candidate would need to point to the now unpopular war in Iraq as the epitome of the blowback U.S. intervention can cause. The candidate would need to point out that the war in Iraq and the sanctions regime which preceded it effectuated enmity toward the U.S., spurred the formation of ISIS, and resulted in Shia-Dominated Iran accruing an ally in the region, making the U.S. less safe.
The Independent candidate would argue that it is unconstitutional and paternalistic for law enforcement to wiretap an American citizen without first getting a warrant, that the U.S. can no longer afford to wage a war on drugs, which has cost the U.S. over a trillion dollars since 1971, and that mandatory minimum prison sentences leveled against non-violent drug offenders should be retired.
While all of the aforementioned issues would unify Sanders and Paul supporters, the Independent candidate would need to support an economic program similar to Perot's in 1992, which would reduce the deficit and begin to retire the National Debt while making short-term economic investments. There is no politically popular way to do this. The pain would have to be dispersed out across the spectrum.
The candidate would have to advocate entitlement reform, perhaps reducing Social Security payments to future wealthy retirees. This would appeal to advocates of fiscal austerity. That would be geminated with a truncation of the military budget, which presently tops 600 billion dollars. This is almost 20 percent of federal spending and more than what the next seven nations spend on their defenses combined. This program would appeal to Libertarians, Liberals, and fiscal hawks.
Independent candidates in the U.S. are only taken seriously if they can either pull together an eclectic crew of electoral discontents who are unhappy with the status quo, or if they can unify a widespread cross section of constituencies, while appealing to centrist voters who believe that entrenched partisanship is stagnating the country and that only someone from outside the electoral duopoly can move the country forward. Perot was able to appeal to both sectors, the insurrectionists from both parties and disaffected centrists. The political atmosphere is now in a similar situation to 1992. A candidate must appeal to the Paul and Sanders supporters in both parties, while concomitantly appealing to centrist voters who are open to electoral alternatives. It is quite possible that in this Presidential election cycle, the political stars may be aligning for another Ross Perot.
Kentucky Republican Gubernatorial Primary One in a Litany of Whisker-Close Elections in U.S. History
In the recent Kentucky Republican Gubernatorial Primary, Louisville businessman Matt Bevin was ahead by just 83 votes out of over 214,000 votes cast. His opponent, Agricultural Secretary James Comer, requested a recanvising of the election.
Kentucky voters are used to close elections. In 1998, Jim Bunning quipped: "It's great to have a landslide victory" after winning an open U.S. Senate seat by just 6,766 votes out of 1,145,414 cast. In 2004, Bunning was re-elected by just 22,652 votes out of 1,724,362 votes.
It seems that in every election cycle there is one election where the results are breathtakingly close. While most Congressional elections are easy victories for the incumbents, there are always a few elections where the result is not decided until weeks, even months after election night. This past cycle, the closest election occurred in Arizona, where Republican Martha McSally ousted Democratic incumbent Ron Barber by just 167 votes out of 219,351 cast. Following a protracted recount process. Barber conceded the election to McSally about a month and a half after the election. Interestingly, just two years earlier, it was Barber who defeated McSally by just 1,402 votes out of 285,000 cast.
There was actually an election where one vote literally decided the winner of a statewide election. The closest Gubernatorial election ever recorded in U.S. history occurred in Massachusetts in 1839. At the time, a candidate was required to garner a majority of the votes to win the election. Otherwise, the State legislature would choose the winner. The legislature was controlled by the Whig Party, which would almost assuredly have voted to re-elect incumbent Governor Edward Everett, the Whig nominee.
However, his opponent, Democrat Marcus Morton, garnered 51,034 votes of 102,066 votes cast, giving Morton a majority by a single vote margin. Had just one vote switched, Morton would not have won the majority, and thus would have lost the election. Amazingly, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, H.A.S. Dearborn, a devoted Whig and Everett supporter, did not cast a vote. Neither did some members of the Whig high command, prompting Everett to bemoan: "A better mode of showing [their support] would have been to vote."
Similarly, in 1974, a U.S. Senate election in New Hampshire was decided by just two votes out of 223,363 votes cast. On Election Day, Republican Louis Wyman was declared the winner by just 355 votes. His Democratic opponent, John A. Durkin, subsequently asked for a recount. The recount showed Durkin had actually won the election by 10 votes. Wyman then asked for another recount.
This time it was Wyman who was the winner by a measly two votes. Undeterred, Drukin then appealed the election to the Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate. But the Senate could not resolve the dispute. Finally, after a seven-month deadlock, Wyman asked Durkin to run in a Special election. Durkin agreed.
The election garnered national attention because it was the only Congressional election during the off year. It became a referendum on the economic policies of President Gerald R. Ford. In fact, Ford participated in a 136-mile motorcade in the state five days prior to the election in a futile attempt to keep the seat in Republican hands. Durkin won the Special election by 27,000 votes.
South Dakota has been the epicenter of close elections. In 1962, George McGovern was elected to the U.S. Senate by just 597 votes out of 254,139 cast. In 1978, Tom Daschle was elected to the U.S. House by just 139 votes out of 129,227 votes. In 2002, South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson was re-elected by just 524 votes out of 334,458 votes tabulated.
Close elections can alter the course of history. The 1948 election to the U.S. Senate of Lyndon B. Johnson illustrates this point. In 1941, Johnson lost a special election to fill the seat of the late U.S. Senator Morris Sheppard by just 1,311 votes out of 988,295 cast. In 1948, Johnson was on the other side of a photo finish, defeating former Governor Coke Stevenson by just 87 votes out of 988,395 cast.
Decades later, Louis Salas, who served as an elections judge in Jim Wells County, told author Robert Caro that he had certified 202 fraudulent ballots for Johnson, enough to give him the race. Johnson earned the alliterative moniker: "Landslide Lyndon." Because of that 87-vote victory, Johnson went to the U.S. Senate, and subsequently became exceedingly influential, as evinced by his meteoric rise to the top of the Senate hierarchy. Just four years into his Senate term, Johnson became Minority Leader. Two years later, he became Majority leader. In 1960, he was elected Vice President, and in 1963 he assumed the Presidency upon the death of President John F. Kennedy.
In 1994, U.S. Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA) engineered a Republican take- over of the U.S. House, making him its first Republican Speaker in forty years. But Gingrich never would have gotten to that position had he been on the other side of a razor-thin election to his congressional seat just four years earlier. In 1990, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) did not view Gingrich as vulnerable, and thus did not fund the campaign of his Democratic opponent, David Worley. However, the DCCC underestimated the political skills of Worley. They undervalued concerns within the District that Gingrich was spending too much time advancing his national profile and not enough time on parochial issues. Startlingly, Gingrich defeated Worley by just 983 votes out of more than 155,000 votes cast.
Worley could have won the race, but the national Democrats did not fund his campaign. The following day, Gingrich averred to the New York Times that he got the message: "They [his constituents] want me to come home more often, to pay more attention to local issues, and I'm going to do it."
Many Americans are still reeling from the protracted and still disputed Presidential election of 2000, where Republican George W. Bush was certified by Florida Secretary of State Katharine Harris as the winner of the Florida Presidential election, and thus won the national election. Officially, Bush had just 597 more votes in the sunshine state out of more than six million votes cast in Florida.
In 1880, Republican James Garfield defeated Democrat Winfield S. Hancock in the popular vote by just 7,368 popular votes out of 9,217,410. However, in the Electoral College, the margin was much wider, with Garfield garnering 214 votes and Hancock mustering just 155 votes.
In the election of 1884, one solitary event might have been the difference in another close election. A few days prior to the 1884 Presidential election, Presbyterian Minister Samuel Burchard, a supporter of Republican Presidential nominee James G. Blaine, spoke before the Religious Bureau of the Republican National Committee of New York, where he excoriated the Democrats as the Party of "Rum, Romance, and Rebellion."
Blaine sat silently during this tirade and made no effort to disassociate himself from these volatile remarks. Unfortunately for the unsuspecting Blaine, many Irish voters took umbrage by the use of the word "rum," believing that the Minister was perpetuating a stereotype that Irish-Americans, who were mostly Democrats, were alcoholics. This galvanized the Irish vote against Blaine in the swing state of New York, where Democrat Grover Cleveland eked out a razor-thin victory, defeating Blaine by just 1,047 votes. New York proved to be the state that made the electoral difference in a very close Presidential election.
The race for the Republican Gubernatorial nomination in Kentucky will enter the annals of whisker-close elections in American history. When election results are this close, those who chose to sit on the electoral sidelines believing their vote would not make a difference, may view with much regret their reticence to participate in the electoral process.
Presidents and Their Political Bases Don't Always Sing From The Same Song Sheet: Obama and His Democratic Base are a Prime Example
President Barack Obama is engaged in a feverish effort to shepherd the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a free trade treaty between the U.S. and 11 other nations) through the U.S. Congress. The preponderance of the opposition to the pact comes from the Democratic Party base. Obama is battling environmental advocacy groups, labor unions, and his own party's Congressional leadership, including U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
If passed, this agreement will be a major legacy item for the president. Ironically, for a president who won the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination with the support of the left wing of the Democratic Party, much of his presidency has been spent battling and trying to persuade liberal Democrats into supporting his policies.
Obama's flagship legislative achievement was the Affordable Care Act of 2010. To get the measure through the Democratic Congress, Obama importuned liberal members of Congress who favored a single-payer health insurance system to support the act, which did not even include a public option. In fact, it provided subsidies to private health insurance companies and granted them 31 million new customers.
Obama put out a full-court press to get liberal stalwart U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to vote for the bill. A reluctant Kucinich agreed to support the proposed legislation, affirming: "I have doubts about the bill. I do not think it is a step toward anything I have supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support."
During his first year in office, Obama withstood opposition from the left when he ordered an additional 68,000 troops to Afghanistan. He recently announced that nearly 10,000 troops would remain in the country into 2016. Obama has also faced excoriation from the left for his expanded and ambitious use of predator drones in the Middle East.
Interestingly, many presidents are defined in history by the times they stood against the bases of their own parties.
There are eerie parallels between Obama and the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton. One of Clinton's signature legislative achievements was the passage of The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Though Clinton had not focused on the issue during his presidential campaign, he spent much of his political capital promoting the treaty. Liberal Democrats wanted him to spend that political capital on health care reform rather than on getting NAFTA passed. The president and his team worked feverishly against the Democratic House leadership, including Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) and Majority Whip David Bonior (D-MI), to get the votes of enough rank-and-file Democratic members to get the treaty passed. U.S. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen quipped: "I courted some of these congressman longer than I courted my wife."
Furthermore, in 1996, to the consternation of the liberal base, Clinton signed legislation which ended welfare as an entitlement program. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called the legislation "the moral equivalent of a Dear John letter to poor people." U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) bemoaned "My President -- he's a winner -- and the kids are the losers." Mary Wright Edelman, the founder of the Children's Defense Fund, said: "President Clinton's signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children."
A year later, Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which his team negotiated with the Republican Congressional leadership over the objection of the Democratic Party's base, including Gephardt. The act cut discretionary spending by $77 billion and reduced taxes by $135 billion.
Republican Presidents have also defied their political bases on occasion. Though Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the federal budget deficit skyrocketed, and the next year, to the chagrin of conservatives, Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which raised taxes by $37.5 billion annually. A year later, Reagan, working with the liberal U.S. House Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-MA), signed legislation raising the payroll taxes and truncating Social Security benefits to wealthy recipients in an effort to preserve the program.
Reagan's greatest legislative coup was the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with the Soviet Union. The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched intermediate range ballistic and cruise missiles. At the time, there was vociferous opposition from the Republican base. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), a long-time ally of the president, averred: "The President doesn't need to discard the people who brought him to the dance." In fact, sixty conservative organizations signed a petition admonishing that the treaty would bring the United States "Into strategic or military inferiority." In fact, conservatives ran newspaper advertisements comparing the treaty to the 1938 agreement in Munich, Germany between Adolph Hitler and British Chancellor Neville Chamberlain. The ads read: "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938."
Republican Gerald R. Ford was ridiculed by hardliners in his own party for signing the Helsinki Accords. Under this agreement (also signed by the Soviet Union and 33 other nations), each country agreed to respect the autonomy of every nation-state in Europe and not encroach upon their territory. Ford withstood a redoubtable challenge in the Republican primaries by former California Governor Ronald Reagan who said the Helsinki Accords put a "stamp of approval on Russia's enslavement of the captive nations."
In the spirit of détente (relaxation of tensions with the Soviet Union), Ford accrued a firestorm of indignation for refusing conservative overtures to meet with soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, author of Gulag Archipelago. The conservative Wall Street Journal blasted the decision as "the most unworthy decision of his tenure."
Going further back, Theodore Roosevelt spent much of his presidency fighting his Republican base, most notably battling with U.S. House Speaker Joe Cannon (R-IL). Cannon was a "standpatter" who thought the federal government should be a limited-purpose entity. He often remarked: "The country don't need any legislation." Contrariwise, Roosevelt was a progressive Republican who favored a more activist federal government. The two men clashed over much of Roosevelt's domestic agenda, including the presidents' successful effort to preserve conservation lands. Cannon asserted: "Not one cent for scenery." In addition, Cannon, a strict Constitutionalist, complained: "Teddy Roosevelt has no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license."
The standpatters, distraught with Roosevelt's progressive policies, were plotting a challenge to his nomination for a full-term by supporting U.S. Senator Mark Hanna (R-OH). Financier J.P Morgan, who mustered what in contemporaneous dollars would be about $340 billion, was offering to finance Hanna's campaign. However, Hanna succumbed to typhoid fever, allowing Roosevelt to garner the party's nomination unopposed.
In 1883, Republican President Chester A. Arthur, in an impavid but politically suicidal move, signed into law the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. The act requires the hiring and promotion of federal employees based on merit rather than on political connections. The law also made it a crime to raise political money on federal property.
Mr. Arthur was a member of the "Stalwart" faction of the Republican Party, which opposed Civil Service Reform. He was offered the Republican Vice Presidential nomination by James Garfield, a supporter of Civil Service Reform, to balance the ticket. When Arthur assumed the Presidency upon the untimely death of President James Garfield, Arthur made the Pendleton Act his number one priority, challenging and taking on his base and shepherding the legislation through the Congress. As might be expected, Arthur became an apostate to his former Stalwart backers. This inflamed U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling (R-NY), Arthur's political mentor. Consequently, Arthur did not muster "Stalwart" backing in the 1884 Presidential nomination sweepstakes and did not garner the GOP presidential nomination.
Barack Obama is certainly not the first president to challenge and even oppose the positions of his political base. The current battle over the Trans-Pacific Partnership showcases a classic struggle between a president and his political base.
Hillary Clinton's Battle With Cultural and Financial Elitism
Bill and Hillary Clinton have amassed a fortune since leaving the White House. Because of this financial windfall, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is facing charges of “elitism.” The revelation that Hillary decided to run for President at the Dominican Republic estate of fashion mogul Oscar de la Renta, and the revelation that some of the participants in an Iowa forum that she participated in were Democratic campaign workers rather than rank-and-file voters, make some Americans wonder if Hillary is “out of touch” with the Middle Class.
Even though the Clinton’s did not have a monetary fortune in their early years together, during Bills’ first gubernatorial term in Arkansas, Hillary became susceptible to charges that she was a cultural elitist. When the Clintons first married, Hillary kept her maiden name, Hillary Rodham. This was very rare in the conservative state of Arkansas and viewed by traditionalists as elitist.
In 1980, Bill Clinton lost his bid for re-election, making the 34-year-old the youngest ex-Governor in American history. Bill Clinton’s Republican opponent, Frank White, exploited the maiden name issue by continuously introducing his own wife as “Mrs. Frank White.”
In 1982, Bill Clinton regained the Governorship, defeating White. Hillary became more engaged in the campaign and changed her name to Hillary Clinton, telling a reporter: “I’ll be Mrs. Bill Clinton.” During the next nine years of her husband’s Governorship, Hillary gradually shed the elitist label, as she chaired the Arkansas Education Standards Committee and was successful in bringing a neonatal clinic to Arkansas’s Children’s Hospital in Little Rock. By 1990, there was even talk of Hillary running to succeed her husband as Governor of Arkansas. Bill instead ran and won re-election.
When Hillary ran for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination, she became a champion of blue-collar voters and lunch bucket Democrats, focusing on economic issues and championing her humble roots. Her main opponent was U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), who battled charges of cultural elitism because of his professorial speaking style. These allegations were compounded when he seemed to be patronizing working class Americans by telling attendees at a San Francisco fundraiser that working class voters “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade.”
Historically, it is a struggle for wealthy candidates for public office to relate to voters. Whether they hail from patrician backgrounds, are self-made, or marry into wealth, most of their coefficients come from upper-income tax brackets. They take on the language and demeanor of the wealthy, making interactions with voters somewhat awkward. This leads to many Candidates developing specific strategies to downplay the inevitable elitism charges.
Nelson Rockefeller, in his first campaign for Governor in 1958, would tell voters who praised him: “Thanks a thousand” rather than his customary “thanks a million” so that voters would not associate Rockefeller with his vast inherited wealth.
In a rare case of taking the issue of Elitism head-on, Massachusetts Republican Governor Bill Weld, after losing a hard-fought U.S. Senate race in 1996 to incumbent Democrat John Kerry, made light of his patrician pedigree and cultural elitism. He told New York Times reporter Sara Rimer: “It was not my first defeat. There was the Rhodes scholarship, the Marshall scholarship, the Harvard Law Review. My life is a tangled wreck of failures.”
George H.W. Bush, the son of a U.S. Senator, learned to take the offensive when it came to his wealth. Before being branded as an “elitist,” Bush would suggest the same of his opponents. Bush was reared in Greenwich Connecticut, was educated at the prestigious Philips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts and then graduated from Yale University.
Despite Bush’s own privileged background, when he ran for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1988, he derisively referred to one of his opponents, Pierre (Pete) S. du pont (a fellow ivy leaguer from a patrician background) as “Pierre.” Mr. DuPont always referred to himself as “Pete,” knowing that “Pierre” triggers elitist connotations. His other opponents referred to DuPont as “Pete.” Despite Bush’s background, his first name did not denote elitism in voter’s minds like the name “Pierre.”
After mustering the Republican nomination that year, Bush successfully countered his patrician heritage, including his accent and demeanor, by framing his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis as a “cultural elite.” Bush often referred to him as “that liberal Governor from Massachusetts.” Interestingly, though Bush was an Ivy leaguer himself, he bashed Dukakis, who graduated from Harvard Law School, asserting: “His foreign policy views born in Harvard Yard’s boutique, would cut the muscle of defense.” These charges helped Bush turn a seventeen- point deficit into a ten-point victory over Dukakis. Although Dukakis tried to suggest Bush was a “financial elitist,” his charges gained him little political traction. Dukakis averred: “George Bush plays Santa Claus to the wealthy and Ebeneaser Scrooge to the rest of us.” In the end, the American people chose the “financial elitist” over the “cultural elitist.”
Bush’s son, George W. Bush, is a rare breed of politician. Despite his Ivy League education and immense inherited wealth, he was successfully able to style himself as “an old boy from West Texas.”
In 1978, when Bush ran for an open Congressional seat, his Democratic opponent, Kent Hance, was successful in branding Bush as an “Ivy Leaguer.” Hance used his own humble background to lambast Bush’s elite upbringing. Hance lamented: “Yale and Harvard don’t prepare you as well for running for the 19th Congressional District as Texas Tech [Hance’s alma mater] does.” Hance also said “My daddy and granddad were farmers. They didn’t have anything to do with the mess we’re in right now, and Bush’s father has been in politics his whole life.” Hance won the race.
However, George W. Bush learned his lesson, and when he ran for Governor of Texas in 1994,he turned the tables by presenting himself as the antithesis of his background. He even succeeded in talking in colloquialisms, calling parents “moms and dads” and calling voters “folks.”
In his race for Governor in 1994, Bush beat popular incumbent Governor Ann Richards despite her personal approval ratings, which exceeded 60%. He did this with a disciplined message, focusing on issues which struck a resonant chord with socially conservative Texans, including welfare reform, tort reform, and juvenile justice reform. Moreover, Bush excoriated Richards for vetoing a concealed carry handgun bill. Lone Star state voters came to see Bush as one of their own, not as some “phony Texan” from Yale.
In 1999, as Bush was beginning his Presidential campaign, he purchased a ranch in Crawford, Texas. This was a strategic and political tour de force. The Bush team successfully effectuated a master narrative of Bush as a rugged individualist and a rhinestone cowboy clearing brush from his ranch while the Eastern elite sit in their ivory tower air-conditioned offices mocking working class Americans. Bush exploited the undercurrent of virulence in Middle America toward the people he had gone to school with, and he did it brilliantly.
Bush knew that Harvard and Hollywood don’t play well in America’s heartland. By emphasizing his slight Western accent, his love for the outdoors, and his devout Christianity, Bush became public enemy number one in the eyes of the coastal establishment. They mocked him as obtuse, ignorant, and anti-intellectual. In both 2000 and 2004, Bush ran against two fellow patricians, Ivy Leaguers Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively. In both cases, Bush won the election, in part by creating a master narrative where he was a plain-talking Texan challenging “intellectual out-of-touch elites.”
During his successful 1992 Presidential campaign, Hillary’s husband Bill emphasized his humble background and pledged to be a voice for the plight of “the forgotten middle-class.” During a primary debate, former California Governor Jerry Brown accused Bill Clinton of using his power as Governor to funnel money to the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary worked. In response, Clinton portrayed Brown as an elitist, retorting: “Jerry comes here with his family wealth and his $1,500 suit, making lying accusations about my wife.”
In the 2016 Presidential election, Hillary must counteract charges of both cultural and financial “elitism.” She must prove to voters that despite her recent fortune, she is still the same woman who grew up in a middle-class household in Park Ridge, Illinois, moving to Arkansas after college.
One way to showcase this would be to dispatch her contacts from Parkridge and Arkansas to the early primary states to make the case that Hillary has not changed. This will counteract the inevitable charges by critics that Hillary only associates with the rich and famous. In Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 Presidential campaign, he dispatched the family’s Arkansas friends to campaign for him around the nation. They came to be known by the moniker: “Arkansas Travelers.” Hillary must show voters that despite her wealth and elite friends, she still views the country through the prism of everyday Americans, not through the prism of the nation’s economic and cultural elites.
Unlike Father, Rand Paul Is Willing to Alter His Positions to Win
Some Libertarians who supported then U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) in his two failed quests for the Republican presidential nomination are irritated with his son, Rand Paul. Rand Paul, who recently entered the sweepstakes for the GOP presidential nomination, has moderated his positions on some key issues. For example, Rand asserted in 2007 that Iran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon "is not a threat." Yet in the U.S. Senate, he supported a resolution that called Iran's nuclear ambitions: "a tremendous threat." In another instance, Rand indicated his support for eliminating foreign aid to Israel. However, now he maintains: "I haven't proposed targeting or eliminating any aid to Israel." Then in 2011, Rand called for a 23 percent reduction in U.S military spending. Now he calls for a $190 billion increase in military spending.
Rand Paul is doing what any savvy political operative would advise him to do: alter and mainstream his message to appeal to as many voters in the Republican Primary as possible. Unlike Rand Paul, the elder Paul stuck vociferously to his ideological convictions. In his 2012 presidential campaign, the elder Paul surged, with strong showings in New Hampshire and Iowa. Then he hit a ceiling. Rather than adapt by amending his positions, Paul did not alter his non-interventionist foreign policy views and stood by his belief that the 9/11 hijackings were effectuated by blowback from the nation's interventionist foreign policy. Paul lost the GOP nomination. While Paul cultivated support from Independents, Libertarian-minded Republicans, and some Democrats who voted in Republican primaries, a Washington Post-ABC poll taken in 2011 showed that only 8 percent of self-identified "Conservative Republicans" viewed him as "strongly favorable."
The younger Paul knows that in the political big leagues, candidates of conviction who refuse to moderate their message or refuse to adapt to the prevailing contemporaneous political sentiment, are often abandoned at the alter by the electoral consumer. Be that as it may, candidates who change their beliefs are often labeled as "flip floppers." Yet the excoriation a candidate receives for altering a position is not as damaging as the opprobrium a candidate accrues from taking an unpopular position.
The three most recent presidents have shown a willingness to change positions in what many would view as rank electoral opportunism. In 1996, while running for an open State Senate seat in Illinois in a liberal area of Chicago, Barack Obama wrote: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." Then in 2008, as a presidential candidate appealing to a more ideological heterogeneous constituency, Obama exclaimed: "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." In 2012, with polls showing a wider acceptance of gay marriage, and with Vice President Joe Biden announcing his support for gay marriage, Obama, asserted: "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married." Many U.S. Senate Democrats also disavowed their past opposition to gay marriage with alacrity.
Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had a similar electoral conversion. As a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush was a steadfast exponent of free trade. He pledged as president to: "end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom." Yet in 2003, just one year before his re-election, Bush uncharacteristically levied tariffs on imported steel, a move that was popular with the domestic steel industry in the electorally critical showdown states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. By contrast, two years later, Bush shepherded through the U.S. Congress the Dominican-Republican-Central American Free Trade Agreement, ignoring protests from Louisiana's Republican Governor Mike Foster that the treaty would "gradually wipe out the Louisiana sugar industry." Of course, Louisiana is a "safe Republican state." Like Obama and Rand Paul, Bush was willing to alter his ideals for electoral advantage.
In 1992, as Democratic presidential candidate Paul Tsongas picked up electoral support -- winning the primary in fiscally austere New Hampshire -- he refused to alter his fiscal austerity mantra. While his "root canal" economic policy of raising taxes, truncating federal spending, and controlling entitlement expenditures had played well in the Granite state, it was less popular in other parts of the nation. Tsongas held himself out as a man of convictions and would not support a 10 percent middle-class tax cut favored by one of his opponents, Bill Clinton. Tsongas averred: "I'm no Santa Clause." He also called Clinton a "pander bear" who "will say anything, do anything to get votes." Tsongas called Clinton a "cynical and unprincipled politician." Voters might have admired Tsongas's convictions, but it was Clinton's more populist message that struck a resonate chord with Democratic primary voters as Clinton secured the nomination.
Two recent presidential nominees, Democrat Al Gore and Republican Mitt Romney, had an ideological makeover, yet charges that they were unprincipled or flip-floppers did not stop voters from awarding them the presidential nomination.
Gore began his political career in 1976 by winning an open House Seat in culturally conservator middle Tennessee. He represented his constituents' views, supporting the Hyde Amendment, which disallows federal funding for abortion and "shall include unborn children from the moment of conception." Gore branded homosexuality "abnormal sexual behavior" and said it "is not an acceptable alternative that society should affirm."
In 1988, Gore ran as the most conservative presidential candidate, showcasing his support for tobacco farming, telling a North Carolina audience: "'I've chopped it. I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." In addition, in 2000, Gore ran for the presidential nomination as a supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, and was a supporter of regulations on the tobacco industry. Voters did not punish him for altering his views. He won the nomination.
In 1994, Romney challenged U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy in liberal Massachusetts. Romney supported abortion rights, favored federal campaign-spending limits, and said he would vote for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In 2002, while running for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney said: "I'm someone who's moderate. My views are progressive."
By the time he was running for the 2012 presidential nomination, Romney had disavowed each of these positions and now called himself: "severely conservative." Yet, like with Gore, voters granted Romney the nomination.
Rand Paul is one of a long line of presidential candidates who is willing to alter or change positions as the situation warrants. Like Tsongas, Ron Paul ran a campaign of stout consistency. He stuck to his ideals even when unpopular. Rand Paul is more in the mold of the other aforementioned politicians. He wants to break through his father's ceiling to garner the Republican presidential nomination and the Presidency. While a candidate who changes positions on issues is often steered off message to explain his/her altered positions, as a cold hard strategic political calculation, the scorn the candidate will take for modifying his/her positions may be worth the price. This is a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Perhaps Rand Paul has learned the lesson not only of his father and Paul Tsongas, but also of U.S. Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (R-SC), who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 by pledging to reinstate the military draft and to freeze federal spending. Hollings never wavered from these unpopular views. The result: Hollings garnered just 3.5 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire presidential primary. Upon dropping out of the race, Hollings declared: "Well, nothing happened to me on the way to the White House."
The Invasion of the Party-Switchers in Presidential Politics
The 2016 Presidential election might go down in history as the year of the party-switchers. Republican Rick Perry was once a member of the Texas Democratic State Legislature. Potential Democratic Presidential candidate Jim Webb was once a Republican. Lincoln Chafee became a Democrat in 2013. He had initially been a Republican, then registered as an Independent. Republicans Benjamin Carson and Donald Trump are former Independents. Bernie Sanders, who appears likely to seek the Democratic Presidential nomination, is still registered as an Independent. Going further back, Hillary Clinton was once the President of the Young Republicans at Wesley College, and campaigned for the party's 1964 nominee, Barry Goldwater.
At a time when many Americans are weak partisans or Independents, party allegiances have less relevance. Still, in a party primary, a candidate who is new to the party must prove to primary voters that his/her change of party affiliation was due to "ideological conviction," rather than out of rank electoral opportunism. The line many party-switchers use is the line that worked for Ronald Reagan when he left the Democratic Party to become a Republican: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."
During the past half-century, the two major parties lost their ideological homogeneity. An ideological realignment occurred, as the Democrats became the center-left and liberal party, while the Republicans became the center-right and conservative party. Reading the electoral tealeaves, many conservative Democrats, particularly in the South and West, gravitated to the Republican Party. Contrariwise, some liberal Republicans on the West Coast and in the Northeast changed their allegiances to the Democratic Party.
Perry and Chafee are the epitome of this phenomenon. Both can make a legitimate case that the political landscape shifted and they became iconoclasts within their own parties. Perry was reared in a political family. His Grandfather was a state legislator. His father was a County Commissioner. Perry followed them into politics, being elected to the Texas Legislature as a Conservative Democrat. Perry might fit the term often used today: "Democrat in Name Only." In fact, he was often an ally of the conservative Republican Governor Bill Clements. The liberal Texas Observer branded Perry with the label: "Benedict Arnold of the Democratic Party."
In 1988, Perry, along with 27 mostly conservative Texas legislators, supported the failed candidacy of Democrat Al Gore for the Democratic nomination. Gore had been dubbed a "southern centrist." However, to Perry's chagrin, Gore lost the nomination to the more liberal Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. Perry later told The Austin American Statesman that seeing Dukakis' name on the ballot was the moment he realized he was too conservative for the Democratic Party. Perry asserted: "I came to my senses." Perry voted for Republican Presidential nominee George H. W. Bush instead of Dukakis.
The switch paid off for Perry politically, as he was elected as a Republican to the following positions in the Loanstar state: Agricultural Commissioner, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor of Texas.
Lincoln Chafee, like his father John Chafee, served Rhode Island as both the state's Governor and U.S. Senator. Both Chafee's did this as liberal Republicans. Lincoln Chafe was arguably the last liberal Republican to serve in the U.S. Senate. His father was at home in the GOP Senate caucus, serving with fellow liberals like Ed Brooke of Massachusetts, Jacob Javitz of New York, and Charles Percy of Illinois.
The hallmark of Chafee's Senate career was independence from his caucus and independence from Republican President George W. Bush. He was the only Senate Republican to vote against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq, and was the only Republican to favor returning the top tax rate to 39.6%. Chafee did not even vote for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, writing-in Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, on the ballot instead.
Before his 2006 re-election campaign, some Democrats made expanded overtures for Chafee to caucus with the Democrats. However, Chafee rejected them and subsequently lost his re-election bid as a Republican in 2006 to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. A year later, Chafee became an Independent and asserted: "Its not my [Republican] party anymore." In 2013, three years after being elected the Ocean State's Governor as an Independent, Chafee completed the full shift, joining the Democratic Party.
The relatively recent party-switching of the aforementioned candidates is reminiscent of 1940, when both major parties nominated a party-switcher on their national tickets. Both candidates were considered interlopers by some elements in their respective parties. Henry Wallace Jr. was the son of Henry Wallace Sr., a steadfast Republican who served as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture under the administration of Republican Warren G. Harding. The younger Wallace became a Democrat after being introduced to the party's 1932 Presidential nominee, Franklin D. Roosevelt, by a mutual friend, Harry Morgenthau Jr. Wallace, the Editor of The Farmer, advised and helped write speeches for Roosevelt on farm policy during the campaign. Impressed, Roosevelt nominated Wallace as U.S. Agricultural Secretary. Wallace's populist proclivities were more welcomed in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party that he had been born into.
In 1940, the GOP nominated U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary (R-OR) as its Vice Presidential nominee. McNary was popular in the agricultural community. In a move partly to counter that selection, Roosevelt asked the Democratic National Convention to chose Wallace as his Vice Presidential Runningmate. However, the choice was met with consternation by many Democratic partisans. In fact, when Wallace's name was placed in nomination, he was booed, with one Democratic stalwart commandeering an open microphone and demanding: "Give us a Democrat! We don't want a Republican!" However, the delegates knew Wallace was Roosevelt's choice, and he was nominated on the first ballot. The losing candidates reluctantly coalesced around the nominee.
Interestingly, Wallace continued to move to the left. In 1948 he was the Presidential nominee of the Progressive Party. Unlike the Democratic Party, which called for a hard-line against Communists, Wallace called for "a peaceful understanding between the United States and Soviet Russia."
In 1940, while the Democrats nominated a former Republican for Vice President, the Republican Party nominated Utilities Executive Wendell Willkie, a former Democrat for President. Willkie had actually been a delegate to the 1928 Democratic National Convention, which nominated New York Governor Al Smith for President. Willkie was put on the political radar screen of many Republicans after a strong debate performance against Assistant U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson on a national radio program on the issue of Free Enterprise. This resulted in an attendant movement to draft Willkie by some in the Republican Party. Willkie shocked many Republicans by winning the GOP nomination on the sixth ballot at the Republican National Convention. Many Republicans were wary of a nominee who had so recently pledged his allegiance to the Party. Relative to this sentiment, U.S. Senator James E. Watson (R-IN) quipped: "I don't mind the Church converting a whore, but I don't like her to lead the choir the first night."
During the general election, Willkie often angered his new Republican compatriots by referring to them in public orations as: "You Republicans." Willkie lost the election to Roosevelt and Wallace.
In this current election cycle, Perry's migration from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party is not likely to become an issue, since it was over 25 years ago. However, his support for Al Gore could be fodder for his Republican opponents to exploit due to the fact that Gore has moved to the left since 1988 and is no longer viewed as a "Southern centrist." Perry will have to explain Gore's ideological transmogrification since 1988.
Alternatively, should Chaffee gain any traction in the Democratic race, he will have to explain why he switched from a Republican to an Independent to a Democrat in the span of the last eight years. His challenge is to convince Democrats that his move was done out of sincerity, not opportunism.
Reminiscent of 1940, the 2016 Presidential election is shaping up to be the invasion of the party-switchers.
No Political Ideology Has a Monopoly on Patriotism
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani created a firestorm by publicly stating: "I do not believe the President [Barack Obama] loves America." Giuliani also suggested that Obama developed negative feelings toward America from Frank Marshall Davis, a member or the Communist Party USA, who was introduced to Obama by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, at the age of nine.
Lost in the controversy over Giuliani's comments is the misapprehension many people have about the meaning of the word "Patriotism." The term generally means love of one's nation and a feeling of unity with its people. By and large, Americans have come to believe, although erroneously, that Patriotism is tantamount to support for the Constitutional system of government and the policies instituted by the government. In truth, an American Patriot can love his/her country while opposing the polices of the government and the nation's Constitutional system.
Obama is not the only politician to be mendaciously criticized for a lack of patriotism. After the 9/11 hijackings, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), MIT Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky, and former Libertarian Presidential nominee Harry Browne faced these same charges because of their view that U.S. foreign policy effectuated the attacks. They were branded unpatriotic and anti-American. Yet they said nothing suggesting that they had disdain for the country, its people, or its land. They only excoriated the foreign policies of the U.S. government. It could easily be argued that their criticism was actually patriotic in that they were warning that the continued bi-partisan interventionist foreign policies of the American government could result in greater danger to the homeland and to the nation's economy.
Love for one's country has little connection to the form of government a county's citizenry live under. In 1787, 55 prominent Americans met at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia under the guise of amending the existing Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Articles were viewed by many Americans as allowing too much decentralization, granting the respective states too much power, rendering the federal government essentially impotent. During the Constitutional Convention, delegates debated the proper form of government. Today, some of these proposals would incorrectly be called anti-American. For example, Alexander Hamilton proposed delegating almost all power to the Federal government and almost none to the states.
Some delegates refused to sign the document or left the Convention early in protest. Caleb Strong left because the document did not allow the State Legislatures to choose the President. John Lansing left because he thought the Federal Government would have too much power. Luther Martin did not sign because he believed the document would be an affront to states' rights. These Americans were opposed to the new document because they believed it would cause deleterious effects to the nation. They were patriots who opposed the positions of the majority of the delegates. Today, anyone who is vehemently critical of the Constitution, or a substantive provision within it, might be roundly assailed as being "unpatriotic."
In suggesting that an avowed Communist influenced Obama, Giuliani suggests that there is an inherent contradiction between being a Communist and being an American patriot. However, even if Obama was a Communist, that would not in and of itself make him any less of a patriot than if he were a Capitalist. If any American genuinely believes that it would benefit the U.S. to live under a Communist system, or under any other ideology, and is willing to advocate for it, that person could be considered a patriot. Likewise, if a Communist truly believes America would be a better place under Communism, that would not make that person unpatriotic.
If there were to be a coup d'état in the U.S., and a new regime were to assume power, be it Communist, Fascist, Socialist, ect., Americans who supported the old Constitutional Republican system and opposed the new system would be no less patriotic. They might despise the new regime, but that does not mean they would no longer love their country. The fact that the new government might change the flag and actuate a new constitution would be irrelevant to whether or not an American citizen is patriotic.
Bill Clinton once said: "You can't say you love your country and hate your government." But in fact, love for one's country and love for one's government or constitutional system are mutually exclusive. An American patriot can be a Communist, Capitalist, Liberal, or Conservative. All can want the best for the country, but harbor divergent views of achieving that goal.
No political ideology has a monopoly on patriotism. During the dark days of 1968, with the nation deeply divided over U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, U.S. House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford [R-MI) told his constituents: "We will survive and become stronger - not only because of a patriotism that stands for love of country, but a patriotism that stands for love of people."
One Galvanizing Issue Can Rocket Launch a Potential Presidential Candidacy: Scott Walker Is One Example
On election night 2010, Scott Walker's victory in the Wisconsin Gubernatorial sweepstakes flew under the national radar. More national focus was thrust upon Texas Governor Rick Perry's successful re-election bid, and the election of Marco Rubio to the U.S. Senate in Florida. Yet today, Walker sits in the first tier of 2016 Republican Presidential aspirants, and is actually ahead in some polls. He is garnering a cavalcade of national media attention. The other two potential GOP Presidential candidates have been relegated to the second tier of possible Presidential candidates. How did this happen? In his first year as Governor, Walker struck a resonate chord with one issue, his proposal to limit the rights of public sector unions to collectively bargain.
When Walker's indignant opponent's succeeded in securing the requisite signatures to recall the Governor that year, money flooded into Wisconsin from conservatives from all over the country. Walker became the national tribune for those Americans who believe public-sector unions wield an inordinate amount of power in state capitals. Walker won the recall election and became a household name on the political right. Consequently, Walker was catapulted from political obscurity to a top tier Presidential candidate because of this single issue.
American Presidential politics includes other examples where one issue (or galvanizing event) has launched a national political career. For example, in 1918, Republican Calvin Coolidge was elected Governor of Massachusetts by just 16,733 votes, defeating Democrat Richard H. Long. Coolidge won largely because of his association as Lieutenant Governor with the popular outgoing Republican Governor Samuel W. McCall. The next year, the unassuming, low key Coolidge became a hero in conservative quarters. The Boston Police went on strike after the city's police commissioner, Edwin U. Curtis, denied them the right to join the American Federation of Labor (AFL). With the city in a near state of anarchy, Coolidge ordered the Massachusetts National Guard to supplant the Boston police officers during the strike. The Guard succeeded in reestablishing order in the city. Coolidge became a political folk hero to conservatives when his response to a letter written to him by AFL President Samuel Gompers was disseminated. Coolidge wrote to Gompers: "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, at any time."
Similar to the recall election with Walker, Coolidge's 1919 re-election campaign became a referendum on Coolidge's leadership during that strike (At the time, Massachusetts Governors were elected to one-year terms). Unions worked feverishly for Richard H. Long, who once again ran against Coolidge. The race became a cause célèbre for the unions because of Coolidge's handling of the police strike. The Boston Central Labor Union called for voters to oppose Coolidge so as to: "remove this menace to public safety and vindicate our cause." Bay State voters, however, were not singing from the same hymnbook as the unions. Coolidge was soundly re-elected as Governor.
Coolidge's handling of the police strike and his subsequent statement against the strikers, coupled with his resounding re-election as Governor against a union backed candidate, precipitously elevated Coolidge to national stardom with the Republican Party's conservative bloodline. At the 1920 Republican National Convention, some conservatives wanted to place Coolidge's name as a candidate for the Presidential nomination. Coolidge refused the overtures.
The nomination instead went to the conservative U.S. Senator Warren G. Harding (R-OH). The GOP establishment wanted to balance the ticket with U.S. Representative Irvine Lenroot, who was the tribune of the party's liberal bloodline. However, after Lenroot's name was placed into nomination, conservatives rebelled against the establishment and chanted Coolidge's name. Delegate Wallace McCamant soon placed Coolidge's name in nomination. Coolidge handily defeated Lenroot. The Harding-Coolidge ticket won the race, and Coolidge assumed the Presidency in 1923 after Harding died from a respiratory illness.
In 1938, Wendell Willkie, a wealthy utilities executive and a Democrat, became disenchanted with the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and their effects on the utilities industry. He agreed to debate Assistant U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson on the issue of Free Enterprise on national radio. Willkie wooed conservatives with his stronger than expected performance. With that one appearance, an attendant draft movement began among Republican activists for Willkie to run for the GOP Presidential nomination in 1940. The movement picked up steam, and Willkie pocketed the GOP nomination on the sixth ballot at the Republican National Convention. However, he lost the General election to Roosevelt.
Two Democratic Presidential candidates also used a single issue (in their roles as Committee Chairmen) as a springboard for a Presidential candidacy. In 1950, while television was in its infancy, U.S. Senator Estes Kefauver (D-TN) was Chairman of a Special U.S. Senate Committee that held hearings on organized crime. While many Americans did not own a television, some stores placed a television in their window so that Americans could watch these high-profile hearings. Many Americans became entranced watching as mobsters and politicians testified before the Committee. The hearings made Kefauver a household name. Kefauver ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1952 and defeated incumbent President Harry S. Truman in the New Hampshire Primary. Truman subsequently bowed out of the race. Kefauver went on to win 12 of the 15 primaries. However, at that time, primary voters had little power, and the high command preferred Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson who was able to muster the nomination on the third ballot.
Similarly, in 1975, U.S. Senator Frank Church (D-ID), also the chairman of a Special U.S. Senate Committee, launched hearings into abuses by U.S. In. The hearings were launched after revelations by Seymour Hersh in The New York Times that U.S. intelligence agencies had been engaged in covert actions to assassinate foreign leaders, had engaged in illegal wiretapping of Americans, and had opened citizens' mail. Church excoriated the intelligence agency's illicit activities, and branded some agents "rogue elephants." This led to President Gerald R. Ford signing Executive Order 11905, which promulgated: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
The hearings made Church an exemplar of truth to some on the left and led to a Church candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1976. In his announcement speech in Idaho City, ID, Church sagaciously used the national fame he had accrued from the hearings. He bellowed: "It is a leadership of weakness and fear which permits the most powerful agencies of our government - the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS - to systematically ignore the very law intended to protect the liberties of the people."
While there was a brief bump of momentum for Church (winning Democratic primaries in Idaho, Montana and Nebraska), his entrance into the race in March of 1976 was too late to stop the eventual nominee, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter. However, the hearings did propel Church to be considered as a potential Vice Presidential nominee. However, Carter skipped over Church for U.S. Senator Walter Mondale (D-MN.)
Scott Walker is one of a very small number of Presidential candidates to have been catapulted into the national spotlight by a single galvanizing issue or event. Walker's challenge to public sector unions struck a nerve with rank-and-file Republicans, as well as with Libertarian-oriented Tea Party voters and GOP benefactors.
How Will Chris Christie's Unfiltered Style Play in the Presidential Sweepstakes?
Prospective Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie is known for his confrontational style. Unlike most politicians, Christie has no problem telling-off hecklers and giving candid responses to questions. For example, during a town hall meeting, Christie told a heckler: "Sit down and shut up!" He publicly said of New York Daily News sportswriter Manish Mehta, who had criticized New York Jets coach Rex Ryan: "When reporters act like jerks, you need to treat them that way. This guy's a complete idiot, self-consumed, underpaid reporter." In another instance, Christie responded to a protester holding a sign that read: "Do Your Job" with: "You do yours, buddy!"
Christie's unfiltered, candid style runs contrary to most contemporaneous politicians. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, and where campaigns hire trackers to follow opponents on the campaign trail waiting for them to make a faux pas that they can then use against them, politicians have become near robotic. They appear to be in a hypnotically induced trance during public events. The politician may walk into a room and greet people with the familiar: "Hi, how are you? Nice to see you. Thank you for being here." The politician tries to saunter to the next person without having an actual conversation for fear of being asked his position on a controversial issue.
Some of the most entertaining and memorable moments in American politics occur from these unscripted moments when politicians speak off-the-cuff and mince no words. While Christie is a good example of this, President Harry S. Truman also spoke quite bluntly in public. While on the campaign trail in 1948, Truman was a sharp contrast to his ultra-scripted Republican opponent, New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey. Dewey tried to sit onto his electoral lead by avoiding any controversial statements. At his campaign rallies, Dewey would often bellow platitudes. Truman capitalized on one such platitude. In an address in Phoenix, Dewey asserted: "America's future, like yours in Arizona, is still ahead of us." Truman responded by telling a crowd in Yonkers, N.Y.: "Well I hope the future will last a long time for all of you, and I hope it will be a very happy future -- and I hope it won't be a future under Republicans, either."
At a campaign stop in Spokane, Wis., a supporter shouted that Truman should throw eggs at his chief U.S. Senate critic Robert A. Taft (R-OH). Truman candidly retorted: "I wouldn't throw fresh eggs at Taft. You've got the worst Congress you've ever had. If you [referring to the audience] send another Republican Congress to Washington, you're a bigger bunch of suckers than I think you are."
That year, voters chose the candid Truman over the robotic Dewey in arguably the greatest upset in American Presidential election history. After winning the election, Truman continued his candid style. During a 1951 ceremony observing National Music Week, President Truman told the assembled crowd of musicians: "There is usually one aria or one song in nearly every great opera that is worth listening to -- most opera music is boring. I don't want you to say that out loud. It might hurt the Metropolitan Opera."
In 1960, former President Truman spoke at a rally for Democratic Presidential nominee John F. Kennedy and made no effort to hide his true feelings toward Republican Presidential nominee Richard M. Nixon: "Nixon has never told the truth in his life... He is against the small farmer. He is against small business, agriculture, and public power. I don't know what the hell he's for, and that bird has the nerve to come to Texas and ask you to vote for him. If you do, you ought to go to Hell." In response, Kennedy joked: "I've asked President Truman to please not bring up the religious issue in this campaign."
Similar to Truman, the 1940 Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie, who had never before run for public office, was often unfiltered. His vice presidential running mate, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles L. McNary (R-OR), offered Willkie the following advice: "In politics you'll never get into trouble by not saying too much." Contrary to this advice, Willkie put his foot in his mouth during the campaign by appearing to suggest that he did not care if voters chose him. Willkie told a crowd in Kansas City, Mo.: "I'm the cockiest fellow you ever met. If you want to vote for me, fine. If you don't, go jump in the lake." Willkie lost the election to Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.
When a member of the U.S. Congress holds a town hall meeting, they subject themselves to moments of acute criticism. Most politicians stay above the fray, usually answering the hostile constituent with preformulated talking points. They then try assiduously to move on to the next constituent. Occasionally, however, a member of Congress will fire right back at the constituent, usually drawing thunderous applause from their supporters in the audience.
In 2009, U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) was asked by constituent Rachel Brown (who came to the meeting holding a sign depicting Barack Obama with an Adolf Hitler-style mustache): "Why do you continue supporting the Nazi [Heath Care] policy as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it?" Frank Responded: "On what planet do you spend most of your time... Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table: I have no interest in doing it." Ironically, Frank landed up having nearly a one-hour conversation with Brown, as she ran against him for the Democratic nomination for re-election. The two candidates also participated in a debate.
In 2010, many members of Congress who supported the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, were receiving hostile receptions at town hall meetings. This prompted U.S. Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) to tell WILK Radio that he would supplant traditional town hall meetings with teleconferences. Kanjorski candidly asserted: "We're going to do everything we can to get opinions from people, to meet with people. But I'm not going to set myself up for, you know, nuts to hit me with a camera and ask stupid questions." Kanjorski lost his re-election bid that year.
Indignant constituents often write their legislators, criticizing their job performance. Most politicians take this criticism in stride, and sometimes send impersonal form letters back to the constituent. However, there have been a few politicians who have written back to the constituent, telling him/her exactly how they feel. John S. McGroarty (D-CA 1935-1939) once wrote back to a constituent who had sent him a critical letter lambasting him for not fulfilling a campaign promise regarding the reforestation of the Sierra Madre Mountain chain. McGroarty wrote back: "One of the countless drawbacks of being in Congress is that I am compelled to receive impertinent letters from a jackass like you in which you say I promised to have the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested and I have been in Congress two months and haven't done it. Will you please take two running jumps and go to Hell?"
Similarly, U.S. Senator Stephen M. Young (D-OH 1959-1971) had little patience for critics. One of Young's critics wrote a letter to Young that ended with the following phrase: "I would welcome the opportunity to have intercourse with you." Young responded: "You sir, can have intercourse with yourself."
Of course, it is common for politicians to become candid the day they lose office. After losing a Democratic primary for a State Senate seat in California, Dick Tuck quipped to supporters: "The people have spoken, the bastards." Similarly, after losing a re-election bid in 1834, U.S. Representative Davy Crocket (Whig-TN) exclaimed: "I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not... you may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas." He did go to Texas and died at the Battle of the Alamo on March 6, 1836.
Should Christie publicly deride liberal critics to their face, he would win plaudits from some conservatives, yet this may not play well with the more moderate establishment bloodline of the Republican Party who would view this behavior as unpresidential. They might worry about how Christie would conduct himself should he garner the nomination. For that reason, members of the establishment bloodline of the party might lend their support to the more measured establishment candidate, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
Is Jeb Bush Channeling Henry "Scoop" Jackson?
The positions of political parties are not static. In fact, they sometimes change rapidly. Ideological shifts usually begin at the grassroots level, and then trickle up to the political leadership. Those who do not change with their party on major issues often become heretics. Two prime examples of this are U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA), who during his 1972 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination continued his support for a muscular foreign policy and U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who while exploring a bid for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination, refuses to abandon his support for a pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants. In both of these examples, the politician is "out of ideological line" with the prevailing consensus among members of their party.
There are a number of illustrations of this phenomenon in American political history. For example, in 1892 the Democratic Party nominated Grover Cleveland for President. He advocated a limited role for the federal government and a continuation of the Gold Standard. By 1896, just four years later, with the nation mired in an economic depression, the party moved to the left, nominating "The Great Commoner" William Jennings Bryan, who advocated for an activist role for the Federal Government and the abolition of the Gold Standard. Cleveland Democrats became heretics, and some, including Cleveland himself, supported the hapless candidacy of John M. Palmer of the newly established National Democratic Party.
Up until fairly recently, the Republican Party supported immigration reform, which included a pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants. Then a sea change occurred within the party. Beginning at the grassroots level, then ascending to the political establishment, most Republican politicians now oppose legalizing illegal immigrants, branding it as "amnesty." However, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush continues to subscribe to the former view of his party, even doubling down, contending that illegal immigrants enter the nation as "an act of love." He calls for "a tough but fair path to legalized status."
Jeb Bush appears to be borrowing a page from U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) who in 1972 doubled down both on his support for the U.S. role in Vietnam and for his opposition to cuts in the nation's military expenditures. Like Bush, Jackson was a representative of a political view that had been the mainstream orthodoxy in his party. This position has since receded within the party and has been supplanted by a new grassroots-oriented incarnation.
Henry "Scoop" Jackson's ideology was once the embodiment of the Democrat Party. In fact, he was Chairman of the party in 1960 and was considered by the party's Presidential nominee, John F. Kennedy, as a Vice Presidential running mate. Jackson's support for a munificent social service regime at home coupled with a muscular interventionist foreign policy had been the ideology of most Democrats since the inception of the Cold War. Past Democratic Presidents including Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnsons advocated for an activist interventionist Cold War foreign policy. Truman ordered U.S. troops into Korea. Kennedy and Johnson sent them into Vietnam. However, this position on foreign policy became antiquated in the party, as members virulently came to oppose the war in Vietnam. Democratic President's Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnsons all advocated an activist Cold War foreign policy.
The Vietnam War fractured the Democratic Party, beginning with the insurrectionists in the party who called for the U.S. to abandon its efforts in Indochina. Establishment Democrats began to read the political tealeaves and joined the insurrectionist chorus. The Democratic Congress that had passed the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, which authorized Johnson to use "conventional" military force in Vietnam, gradually moved to oppose the war. This significant ideological shift on the issue is evinced by future U.S. House Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-MA) transmogrification in thinking on this matter. In 1966, Speaking at a rally at the Massachusetts State House in favor of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, O'Neill took aim at those who opposed the war, including many in academia who were his Cambridge constituents. O'Neill said: "I believe in Academic Freedom, but not as it is expounded by kooks, commies, and egghead professors." A year later, O'Neill became an opponent of the war.
Similarly, Jeb Bush's position on immigration reform reflects the Republican Party of the past and not the contemporaneous GOP. Today, on the illegal immigration issue, Bush is more in line with Ronald Reagan, who while running for the GOP Presidential nomination in 1980, exclaimed: "Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don't we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit, and then, while they're working and earning here, they'd pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. They can cross. Open the borders both ways."
In 1986, Reagan signed the Immigration and Control Act, which included a provision legalizing amnesty to about three million illegal immigrants who had come to the U.S. prior to 1982. The statute contained certain caveats such as the requirement of paying back-taxes owed to the Federal Government and proving one's ability to speak English. The act also included more federal funding to secure the U.S-Mexican border.
The Reagan position was also the mainstream GOP position in 2000. The two main Republican Presidential candidates, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Texas Governor George W. Bush, opposed deploying U.S. troops to defend the Mexican border. They were both sympathetic to the plight of illegal immigrants. Bush asserted during the primary: "Family values does not stop at the Rio Grande River." Furthermore, President Bush unsuccessfully sought comprehensive immigration reform that would include a pathway to legalization for illegal immigrants.
Since that time, the Republican Party has moved away from plans to grant a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, and now supports utilizing resources to construct a border-fence. A Republican candidate will assuredly muster uproarious applause by declaring "no amnesty" to a GOP audience. In fact, U.S. Representative Steve King (R-IA), a vociferous critic of illegal immigration, has become a leading "King-maker" in the Republican Party. He is currently slated to hold forums for GOP Presidential candidates. King has branded illegal immigration "a slow-motion-terrorist attack."
In the 1972 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, most of the Democratic field vociferously lambasted the U.S. policy in Vietnam. Even candidate Hubert Humphrey, who as Vice President to Lyndon B. Johnson had been a public supporter of the war, began advocating for "a total military withdrawal" from Southeast Asia. Contrariwise, Senator Jackson made no effort to tone down his hawkish foreign policy views or his support for the war. In fact, he doubled down on his position.
Jackson promised: "à la Harry Truman, to tell it like it is." Jackson's campaign brochure stated that he "wants to bring the troops home from Vietnam as soon as possible, but he wants to give the President of the United States [Republican Richard M. Nixon] a chance to do that in a responsible manner." In addition, Jackson did not toe the party line when it came to truncating the military budget. He said: "To those who say we must take risks for peace by cutting the meat from our military muscle, I say you are unwittingly risking war."
While Jackson garnered support from members of his party's establishment who had not caught up to the shift in thinking within their party, Democratic voters did not cotton to Jackson's message, and instead selected U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) as their party's nominee. McGovern sang from the hymnbook of the Democratic base. McGovern trumpeted withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam along with reducing the nation's Defense budget over a three-year time period.
There was however one last-ditch effort by some in the Democratic establishment to nominate Jackson instead of McGovern. At the Democratic National Convention, Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter placed Jackson's name in nomination. The effort failed, and McGovern won the nomination. The hawkish foreign policy once at the mainstream of the party was now near moribund, as the party supported McGovern's calls to "Come Home America."
Like Henry "Scoop" Jackson on Vietnam, Jeb Bush is making no effort to compromise his beliefs on what is a flagship issue for many conservative voters. Both Bush and Jackson took a position dramatically against the ideological tide in their respective party. Jackson was unable to bring the party back to its former ideological position of supporting a muscular foreign policy. Jackson failed to rekindle his party's past hawkish flame.
Should Jeb Bush make a bid for the GOP Presidential nomination, he will have the same challenge to overcome as Henry "Scoop" Jackson did. The question remains: Will Bush, like Jackson, be able to secure his party's nomination despite taking an opposing stand on what is the flagship issue to many voters in his party?
Is Mitt Romney the Political Reincarnation of Hubert Humphrey?
Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee, is making noises about another run for president. He is contacting past financial benefactors and supporters, and telling them that he is concerned with the direction of the country and inquiring about future support.
A 2016 Romney candidacy would have seemed a bit farfetched in the immediate aftermath of his last campaign. The Romney campaign won just 24 percent of the proliferating Latino vote, and Romney could not overcome his image as a patrician out-of-touch with working class Americans. Still, Romney is tempted to join the presidential sweepstakes as polls show him at or near the head of the pack of potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates.
Should Romney run for president again, he would be on the same trajectory as Democrat Hubert Humphrey. Both Romney and Humphrey first sought their party's presidential nomination and lost. Both sought their party's nomination a second time and won, only too lose in the General Election. Humphrey threw his hat in the ring a third time and lost his party's nomination to an anti-establishment insurrectionist candidate. Will Romney suffer the same fate should he declare a third presidential candidacy?
Humphrey, a U.S. Senator from Minnesota, first sought the presidency in 1960. Humphrey had made his name as a tribune of Civil Rights for African-Americans, though he came from a state where the African-American population was de minimis. While in the Senate, Humphrey also championed traditional liberal issues such as economic equality, community service, and arms control. However, in 1960, Humphrey could not withstand the momentum of his more glamorous Senate colleague, John F. Kennedy. Kennedy upset Humphrey, first in Humphrey's neighboring state of Wisconsin, and then in West Virginia. This is significant because West Virginia was about 95 percent Protestant and Kennedy was a Catholic, and because the blue-collar electorate was tailor-made for Humphrey.
Part of the reason Humphrey lost West Virginia was that Kennedy's campaign manager and brother, Robert F. Kennedy, prompted Kennedy supporter Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. to suggest that Humphrey had been a draft dodger during World War ll. The accusations were mendacious in that Humphrey failed his medical examination because of a hernia. Roosevelt later withdrew his charge, but the damage was done. Kennedy won the nomination.
Romney first sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Though Romney had waged a vigorous campaign in Iowa, spending millions, he lost by nine points to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Half of the state's caucus goers were evangelical voters, and that group backed Huckabee, a fellow evangelical, over Romney by 27 percentage points.
Romney was then embarrassed by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in Romney's neighboring state of New Hampshire. By working the townhall circuit, McCain overcame a 12-point deficit to defeat Romney. Romney was also hurt by opponents who portrayed him as a "flip flopper" for his change of position on a litany of issues, including abortion, climate change, and his support for President Ronald Reagan. McCain later bested Romney in Romney's birth state of Michigan and went on to pocket the nomination.
Despite a bitter campaign, McCain considered picking Romney as his vice presidential running mate, but ultimately chose the more provocative and charismatic Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
In 1964, Humphrey was selected by Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, to be his vice presidential runningmate. In 1968, when Johnson, fatigued from the escalation of the war in Vietnam, announced that he would not seek re-election as President, Humphrey entered the race as the establishment Democrat candidate. While Humphrey garnered support with the blue-collar base of the Democratic Party, and much of party high command, he became an anathema to the party's "new left." The new left could not overcome his support of the Johnson policy of sending more ground troops into Vietnam. They called for an immediate troop withdrawal from Vietnam and supported the candidacies of U.S. Senators Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) and Eugene McCarthy (D-MN).
Kennedy was assassinated prior to the election. The insurrectionist forces coalesced around McCarthy as he racked up delegates in the presidential primaries. Humphrey did not enter the primaries, choosing instead to cultivate the support of elected officials who were voting delegates to the Democratic National convention in Chicago. Humphrey garnered the nomination at the Convention despite a large group of protesters outside the Convention Hall at Grant Park who believed the Convention was rigged. They called for an immediate end to the Vietnam War.
During the General Election, Humphrey began to bring some of the "new left" into the fold. In a September 30 speech in Salt Lake City, Utah, Humphrey pledged that as president he would unilaterally halt the bombing of North Vietnam "as an acceptable risk for peace." It is estimated that Humphrey gained more than eight million votes between the Salt Lake City speech on September 30 and the election on November 5. Had the election been held one week later, Humphrey, with his accelerating electoral momentum, might very well have won the election.
In 2012, Romney was an early front-runner. He had the name recognition and had the seal of approval from the Republican establishment. Like Humphrey in 1968 with the "new left," Romney faced significant opposition from the "new right." The Libertarian-oriented Tea Party bloodline of the party was unimpressed with Romney's conservative bone fides. During the primary, Romney tried to propitiate them by calling himself "severely conservative" and taking a hard right stance against illegal immigrants, calling for "self-deportation." Luckily for Romney, the new right was fractured and could not consolidate behind a single Romney challenger. Consequently, Romney garnered the GOP nomination.
President Richard M. Nixon preached the dictum most Republican presidential candidates subscribe to: "Run to the right for the nomination and to the center in the General Election." Romney could not get to the center fast enough because he had been forced to move so far to the right in the primary. In addition, he could not ameliorate gaffes he made during the campaign, most notably the release of a tape at a private fundraiser with well-healed donors where Romney said of supporters of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama: "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them." Consequently, Romney lost the General Election to Obama.
In 1972, Humphrey chose to seek the Democratic presidential nomination a third time. The establishment was not a monolith in supporting Humphrey. Many thought he had blown the past election by taking too long to partially disavow the unpopular policies of the Johnson administration in Vietnam. In response, Humphrey tried converting his past losses into an asset, stating: "with determination and faith, a man or a nation can grow from defeat."
The early frontrunner in a crowded Democratic field was not Humphrey, but U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME). However, Humphrey did have a loyal base of support from many in the labor movement as well as Civil Rights leaders who remembered his early passion for their cause. However, Muskie faltered and Humphrey once again became the establishment Democratic candidate. Humphrey again secured support from traditional blue-collar Democratic constituencies as well as from some in the Civil Rights community, but he could not overcome the proliferating electoral power of the "new left." They galvanized around the insurrectionist candidacy of U.S. Senator George McGovern. While Humphrey denounced his past support for U.S. involvement in Vietnam, McGovern reminded voters of his early opposition to the Vietnam War with his campaign slogan "Right from the start."
McGovern campaigned from the hard left, proposing to give every American a $1,000 income supplement, and to truncate the U.S. Defense budget. This forced Humphrey to spend much of his campaign excoriating McGovern's plan as too far left. Accordingly, Humphrey appeared less progressive, hurting him with liberal voters. After a victory in the hard fought California primary, McGovern secured enough delegates to win the nomination.
Should Romney choose to run for president again, he will have a similar problem to the obstacle faced by Humphrey in 1972. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Muskie with the Democrats in 1972, is winning support from many parts of the GOP establishment. Accordingly, like Humphrey, Romney does not start out as the establishment favorite. Should Bush falter, like Muskie did in 1972, and should the establishment turn to Romney, there is a Libertarian-oriented insurrectionist movement in the Republican Party that favors a candidate well to the right of Romney. This is similar to the liberal insurrectionist movement in 1972 which denied Humphrey the nomination. The "new right" today, like the "new left" in 1972, is searching for a voice from outside of the partisan power structure to challenge the establishment candidate.
It will be interesting to see if Romney decides to make another bid for the presidency in 2016, and if his political fortunes will continue to echo Humphrey's.
Neurosurgeon May Perform Exploratory Operation on Presidential Candidacy
At the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, the keynote speaker was Dr. Ben Carson, a retired renowned neurosurgeon. In his address, Carson excoriated political correctness, supported health savings accounts, and advocated for the implementation of a federal flat tax. The oration occurred in an unorthodox non-partisan setting with President Barack Obama at the head table. The conservative intelligencia, including talk show host Rush Limbaugh, sang his accolades before millions of fellow conservatives. Carson precipitously became a folk hero to some on the right. An attendant draft movement was established to urge a Carson candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.
Carson is a non-politician and only became a Republican in 2014. While in most fields someone with no experience would hardly be seen as a credible option for the top job, in politics being a non-politician can be an asset as Americans increasingly hold establishment politicians in low repute.
Should Carson seek the Republican nomination, he would not be the first non-politician to do so. In addition, Carson would not be the first recent convert to a political party to run for its nomination. However, as a former neurosurgeon, he would be entering uncharted waters. Most previous non-politicians who sought the presidency were either businessmen or military men.
Perhaps the candidate whose circumstances were most similar to Carson was Wendell Willkie. Willkie, a corporate lawyer and utilities executive, wowed Republicans with his 1938 debate performance against U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson on the issue of free enterprise. Willkie was a former Democrat who became a Republican in opposition to the domestic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, particularly with respect to public utilities. A draft movement began for Willkie to run for the 1940 GOP presidential nomination. The party was split among four candidates. Willkie pocketed the nomination on the sixth ballot at the convention. While most rank-and-file Republicans supported him in the general election, many were wary of a nominee who was not a politician and who had just recently joined the party. U.S. Senator James E. Watson (R-IN) quipped: "I don't mind the Church converting a whore, but I don't like her to lead the choir the first night."
During the general election, Willkie often appeared to be uncomfortable with his new party affiliation. He would often refer to Republicans as: "You Republicans," and appeared uncomfortable in the Republican Party. Willkie ran a respectable presidential campaign, but could not overcome the popular Roosevelt who won an unprecedented third term as president.
In 1992, billionaire industrialist H. Ross Perot issued a challenge to his supporters on the CNN program Larry King Live to get him on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. His supporters rose to the occasion. At a time when Americans were disaffected with the partisan paralysis, Perot's independent candidacy appealed to a widespread cross-section of constituencies. In addition to Independent voters, Perot's economic nationalism appealed to voters who had supported Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Pat Buchanan in the presidential primaries. Perot's focus on deficit reduction appealed to supporters of Democrat Paul Tsongas, who had made fiscal austerity his flagship issue during the primary. A June Gallup poll showed Perot actually leading in the popular vote at 39 percent. However, Perot soon abandoned his presidential candidacy, stating that he did not want to split the vote in the Electoral College, resulting in the election being thrown into the U.S. Congress. Perot later reentered the race, explaining that the real reason he had dropped out was that a Republican operative had threatened to sabotage his daughter's wedding. Despite this erratic episode, Perot performed well in the presidential debates and won 18.9 percent of the vote. Perot ran again in 1996, but did not muster enough support to be invited into the debates. He garnered just 8.4 percent of the vote in that election.
In 1996, Morry Taylor, the CEO of Titan Tire Corporation, spent about $6 million in his bid for the GOP presidential nomination, only to pull out of the race after garnering less than 1 percent of the vote. He tried to piggyback on Perot's anti-politician message. Taylor ran a very candid and spirited campaign, maintaining that he would only serve one term. When asked if he would run for re-election, Taylor answered: "Why the Hell would I want to do that?"
The last non-politician to win the presidency was General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1952, Eisenhower, who like Carson had been a lifelong Independent, became a Republican to run for the nomination. Eisenhower ran as a non-ideological pragmatist. His main opponent for the nomination was conservative U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH). The Republican Party had not held the presidency since 1933, and the party's rank-and-file voters were willing to hold their noses and support the more moderate but popular Eisenhower over the ideologically impeccable Taft. Eisenhower won the GOP nomination and easily defeated Democrat Adlai Stevenson in the general election.
Similar to Eisenhower, two other military generals with no political experience were elected president: Whig Zachary Taylor in 1848 and Republican Ulysses S. Grant in 1868. Grant had only voted once prior to his own election. In 1856 he voted for Democratic presidential nominee James Buchanan over Republican nominee James C. Freemont, who Grant viewed as an egotist. Grant said: "I voted for Buchanan because I didn't know him and voted against Freemont because I did know him." In Taylor's case, he had not even registered to vote until he was 62 years old.
In contrast to Eisenhower, Taylor, and Grant, two other military men who were recent converts to a new political party saw their respective candidacies falter. In 1900, the Democrats recruited Admiral George Dewey to run for their party's presidential nomination. On paper, Dewey was a dream candidate to challenge the popular Republican William McKinley. Dewey had become a national icon for his role in defeating the Spanish during the Spanish-American War at the critical Battle of Manila Bay. When Dewey returned home, parades were held in his honor.
However, Dewey did not seem to fathom that the American people had come to expect an activist president who serves as a leader, not a figurehead who is subservient to the prerogatives of the U.S. Congress. Rather than laying out his own ambitious agenda, Dewey asserted that as president he would: "execute the laws of Congress as faithfully as I have always executed the orders of my superiors." In addition, Dewey came across as supercilious by suggesting that the presidency would not be a difficult job: "I am convinced that the office of the President is not such a very difficult one to fill." Dewey never recovered from these gaffes and consequently abandoned his candidacy. To add insult to injury, and proving that he was not really much of a Democrat, Dewey endorsed Republican McKinley over the eventual Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
Similarly, in 2003, the Democrats who opposed U.S. involvement in the Iraq War looked for a candidate who could neutralize the advantage that the Republican president had at the time on national security issues. General Wesley Clark fit the bill, leading to a draft movement for the former General. Clark had commanded allied forces during the successful NATO air campaign over Kosovo. In addition, General Clark had been the valedictorian of his graduating class at West Point, and looked like a president created from Central Casting.
However, like Dewey, Clark proved a better candidate on paper than in reality. His opponents questioned why Clark, a life-long Independent, had become a Democrat. A tape surfaced where Clark had praised Bush in a speech before the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas in 2001. Moreover, Clark said of the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq: "On balance, I probably would have voted for it." Clark spent much of the campaign elucidating what he meant; confusingly saying that he "never would have voted for war." Clark lost the nomination, despite respectable showings in some primaries, including a victory in Oklahoma.
Dr. Ben Carson is a former neurosurgeon who has never served in political office. Should he seek the Republican presidential nomination, he would be entering a whole new political frontier. While he is charismatic and has cultivated support on the right, his lack of political experience as in the case of other non-politicians who sought the presidency, could result in political gaffes, which would take him off-message while trying to explain what he actually meant to say. In addition, being a recent convert to the Republican Party may not sit well with some party elders who may wonder if Carson is a true Republican or just a partisan opportunist. Dr. Carson is an unconventional candidate. In an era where conventional candidates who hold elective office are often scorned, for many Republicans, Carson might be just what the doctor ordered.
Rand Paul May Hedge His Electoral Bets in 2016
U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently announced his candidacy for re-election in 2016. Paul is also seriously considering a bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016. However, Kentucky law only allows a candidate's name to appear on the ballot once in an election. Ironically, Paul could in fact run for both offices in Kentucky without violating Kentucky election law by running for re-election to the Senate and at the same time running in the presidential primary in every state except Kentucky. Although he would never be able to have his name listed on the ballot more than once, this tactic would enable him time to assess his chances in the presidential derby. If it becomes evident that he will not win the presidential primary, he could drop out of the presidential sweepstakes before the May 17th Kentucky Republican presidential primary and seek only re-election to the U.S. Senate.
American political history is littered with examples of politicians who ran for their current office as well as another office in the same election. Politicians who do this usually hail from a state where his/her party is electorally hegemonic, and where the candidates get re-elected without personally campaigning.
Paul is not the first Kentuckian or even the first member of his family to seek re-election to his current post concomitantly seeking the presidency or vice presidency. In 1824, Whig Henry Clay was re-elected to his U.S. House seat while losing the presidential election. Rand Paul's father, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), sought re-election to both the House and the Republican Presidential nomination under the "LBJ law." Although he lost the presidential nomination, Ron Paul won re-election to the House.
The genesis of the LBJ law dates back to 1959. In 1960, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX) was up for re-election to the Senate. With the possibility that Johnson might seek the presidency the following year, the sympathetic Democratic-controlled State Legislature passed legislation allowing a politician to run for two political offices simultaneously. This benefited Johnson in 1960 as he sought both re-election to the U.S. Senate and the presidency. After failing to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, Johnson secured the vice presidential nomination. He subsequently won both the vice presidency and re-election to the U.S. Senate. Johnson then resigned from the Senate. Democratic Governor Price Daniels subsequently appointed former U.S. Senator William Blakley to fill the seat before a Special Election was held.
Other Texas officials have used the LBJ law to run for two offices concomitantly. U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) actually used the law twice. In 1976, Bentsen ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, declaring his bid in February of 1975. While he proved a voracious and efficacious fundraiser, he garnered less than two percent of the popular vote and even lost the Lone Star State Primary. However, Bentsen won re-election to the Senate by defeating U.S. Representative Alan Steelman (R-TX). Steelman tried to use Bentsen's primary loss in the state to show that he was unpopular in Texas. To his credit, Steelman maintained that Texans' feelings for the Senator "run from ambivalent to negative." Steelman, with very little money, ran a formidable race, garnering a respectable 43 percent of the vote against Bentsen.
In 1988, Bentsen was in the midst of a re-election campaign against U.S. Representative Beau Butler when Democratic Presidential nominee Michael Dukakis asked Bentsen to serve as his vice presidential runningmate. Bentsen was faced with the task of running for re-election in Texas, a conservative state, while seeking the vice presidency with the more liberal Dukakis.
After, Bentsen accepted Dukakis' offer to become his runningmate, he spent much time in Texas campaigning for the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket, while rarely mentioning his Senate re-election bid. However, his re-election campaign ran television advertisements highlighting Bentsen's local accomplishments. San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros "quipped at a rally, "We have a very special opportunity, as Texans we get to vote for Lloyd Bentsen twice. We win, and the country wins and Lloyd Bentsen wins in 1988.''
Beau Boulter tried to tether Bentsen to Dukakis, saying of the pairing with the Massachusetts Governor: "It saved us a lot of money. People in Texas now realize that Lloyd Bentsen stands for the things that Michael Dukakis stands for." In addition, Boulter tried to exploit the fact that Bentsen was running for two offices, remarking: "Bentsen is an old-timey, elitist politician from the past. I think this is a power grab." In the end, the Dukakis-Bentsen ticket lost Texas by over twelve percentage points, while Bentsen was re-elected to the Senate by almost twenty points.
In 1996, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) used the LBJ rule to run for the Republican presidential nomination and for re-election. Failing to meet expectations, Gramm dropped out of the presidential race. Gramm had suffered an embarrassing loss in the Louisiana Primary. When asked if there was any resentment from Texas voters that he had initially tried to run for two offices, Gramm responded, citing past precedent: "Naaaaw, they weren't angry with Lloyd Bentsen when he did it twice. They weren't angry with Lyndon Johnson. They still elected them.'' Gramm was securely re-elected to the Senate.
In 2000, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) took some grief from his Senate colleagues for his failure to halt his Senate candidacy after being selected by Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore as his vice presidential runningmate. Had Lieberman dropped out of the Senate race, the party could have nominated someone else. However, had Lieberman won both the vice presidency and re-election to the Senate, his Senate successor would have been appointed by a Republican governor, John Rowland. Instead, Lieberman handily won re-election to the Senate. Interestingly, after the 2000 Senate election, the new Senate would be tied: 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. Had the Gore-Lieberman team won the Presidential election, Lieberman would have had to resign his Senate seat and Rowland would have likely appointed a Republican, giving the Republicans one more seat, which would have granted them control of the Chamber.
More recently, in 2012, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) was selected by his party's presidential nominee Mitt Romney as his runningmate. Ryan ran for both re-election to the House and the vice presidency. Ryan did not actively campaign for re-election or debate his Congressional opponent, Democrat Ron Zerban. Zerban tried to get political mileage by appearing in Danville, Kentucky the day a vice presidential debate between Ryan and Democrat Joe Biden was scheduled to be held. Though Zerban could not shame Ryan into debating him, his Danville appearances resulted in Zerban accruing lots of free local and national media attention and effectuated a cash infusion to Zerban's coffers. In fact, Zerban raised $2.1 million. Zerban held Ryan to just 54.9 percent of the vote, the lowest percentage of any of Ryan's eight Congressional races.
There was one instance where a candidate's simultaneous presidential run likely cost him his seat. In 1995, U.S. Representative Bob Dornan (R-CA) launched a quixotic bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Dornan's district was rapidly becoming more Democratic because of the influx of Latino voters. Dornan lost the Congressional race by just 984 votes to Democrat Loretta Sanchez. Dornan alienated many of his Democratic constituents by his inflammatory polemics during the presidential campaign, calling Bill Clinton a "pathological liar" a "triple draft dodger" and a "criminal." In addition to losing the Congressional race, Dornan pocketed less than one percent of the vote in the presidential election.
Paul, like the aforementioned examples, does not want to launch an all-or-nothing presidential bid. Paul is likely calculating that voters in his conservative home state will not view it as supercilious to run for two offices concomitantly. Should he falter in the early presidential primaries, Paul can drop out of the presidential race and focus instead on his re-election bid. Should he win the vice presidential nomination and lose in the general election, Paul likely believes the Blue Grass State will return him to the Senate in the next election. Paul's move is certainly with precedent.
When Considering a Presidential Bid, When Does 'No' Mean 'Yes'?
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) insists that she "is not running for President" and maintains: "I pledge to serve out my term." Yet few political observers take her comments seriously. In fact, a grassroots movement "Ready for Warren" is forging full-steam ahead to encourage her to run for President.
In American politics, it is kosher for a candidate to repeatedly deny interest in the Presidency and to even issue categorical statements that he/she will not run for President, then subsequently reverse course. Ironically, some politicians even strategize about a potential presidential run after appearing at an event where they double down on their denial of interest.
When a potential presidential candidate answers the question in a non-declarative way, such as "I am not running for President" or "I have no plans to run," it is often interpreted as a "non-denial denial." The press and supporters of the potential candidate extrapolate from that statement that the candidate is leaving the door open. This is the case with Elizabeth Warren. She said she "is not running for President." She did not say that under no circumstance would she run. This is a very different statement.
The art of leaving the door open to a potential run is not a novelty. In 1884, there was an active effort by some Republican Party activists to draft former Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman to seek the Republican nomination for President. Sherman stated definitively: "I will not accept if nominated, and will not serve if elected." This unequivocal language left no wiggle room for Sherman to explore a candidacy. This absolute language is today called a "Shermanesque statement." When an individual says he/she will not run for a certain office, reporters often ask if the candidate will make a "Shermanesque statement" that they will not run.
A great example of Shermanesque language was seen in 1968 when President Lyndon B. Johnson, after winning the New Hampshire Presidential Primary with an underwhelming 49.4% of the vote, and polls showing him behind U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) in the upcoming Wisconsin primary, announced to a stunned nation: "I shall not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President."
Today, however, even a politician speaking in such absolutist language does not necessarily quell speculation of a potential candidacy. It is an odd game where politicians are willing to mislead about their intentions, yet rarely accrue any electoral repercussions. Even when the candidate actually means he/she is not running, they are often not believed. In 2010, speculation of a Presidential candidacy by New Jersey Governor Chris Christy did not cease even after he told a reporter: "Short of suicide, I don't really know what I'd have to do to convince you people that I'm not running."
There are a litany of examples of Presidential candidates who originally pledged not to run, then broke that promise. In 1968, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller was asked if he would run for the Republican Presidential nomination that year. His answer was "Absolutely not." Yet just months later, with polls showing he would do better against the Democratic Presidential candidates than the front-runner, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon, Rockefeller announced his candidacy stating: "By taking this course at this time I feel I can best serve my country." Rockefeller lost the nomination to Nixon but his statement that he would "absolutely not" seek the Presidency was a non-issue.
More recently, the day after being elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois in November of 2004, Barack Obama said: "I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois." Yet Obama supporters never took him at his word, and many of his Senate colleagues urged him to run. In February of 2007, he announced his candidacy for President. Obama's prior "unequivocal" statement did not hurt him.
When ambitious upper-level elected officials seek re-election to their current position prior to a Presidential election, they are often dogged with the question of whether they promise to serve out their full terms or seek the Presidency part way through their turn. In response, candidates often resort to rhetorical gymnastics to give the impression they will serve out their full term, without stating so unequivocally. In an October gubernatorial debate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, running for re-election, was asked if he would serve out his full term. Walker, answered: "My plan is, if the people of the state of Wisconsin elect me on November 4th is to be here for four years." Five days after winning re-election, Walker, who was widely believed to have harbored Presidential ambitions, told Chuck Todd of NBC's Meet the Press: "I said my plan was for four years ... but certainly I care deeply about my state and country."
Two prominent governors with Presidential ambitions who were facing a tough re-election bid were forced to pledge to serve out their full terms and to do so in non-nebulous terms. The first was Bill Clinton. In 1990, Clinton was asked in a debate with Republican Sheffield Nelson if he pledged to serve out his full term as Arkansas Governor. Clinton responded: "You bet." However, after easily beating Nelson, Clinton met with Arkansas voters the next year and asked to be released from that pledge. He eventually defied the pledge and declared his Presidential candidacy.
The one recent Presidential candidate whose broken pledge to not run for President and to serve out his term as governor seriously damaged his Presidential candidacy was Pete Wilson, who sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1996. In 1994, when California Governor Pete Wilson ran for re-election, he promised his constituents that he would not run for President in 1996, declaring definitively: "I'll rule it out." However, just a year later, Wilson broke that pledge. At a press conference announcing the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, Wilson said of his pledge: "When I said it, I meant it."
In Wilson's case, the pledge became his Achilles heal. Two of his Republican opponents pounced on Wilson's broken pledge. Nelson Warfield, the spokesman for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS), compared Wilson's pledge to Clinton's pledge in 1990, chiding Wilson as "a politician who began his campaign for President the same way Bill Clinton did, breaking his pledge to serve out a full term as governor. Wilson responded: "I was not in any way expecting that I would be standing here talking to you about running for president. At that time, there were a number of people who have my admiration who have since taken themselves out of the presidential sweepstakes: Jack Kemp, Dick Cheney, Bill Bennett, and Dan Quayle.'' Former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander focused radio advertisements directly at Wilson. In the advertisement, an announcer exclaims: "If we can't trust Pete Wilson on that, we can't trust him on anything." Wilson's candidacy soon fizzled.
Potential Presidential candidates are rarely taken at their word when they disclaim interest in the Presidency. It becomes a game. News reporters try to goad them into making a definitive statement that they will not run for President. Presidential candidates who use non-declaratory language in disclaiming a potential Presidential candidacy send signals to supporters and potential benefactors that they are seriously weighing a presidential candidacy. Even after a potential candidate says with absolute certainty that he will not run, many do not believe him or her. With the exception of Pete Wilson, one would be hard pressed to find presidential candidates whose past denials actually had deleterious effects on their presidential candidacies.
The Art of Gamesmanship in Political Debates: A Few Interesting Examples
The recent incident where Florida Governor Rick Scott refused to make his way to the debate stage for seven minutes because his opponent, former Governor Charlie Crist, had an alleged illegal cooling fan below the debate lectern is emblematic of the political debate culture today. Rather than dissecting and analyzing the policy prescriptions put forth by the candidates during their debates, it is often the gaffes, one-liners and demeanor of the candidates that garner the most attention.
Fearful of losing their lead by making an inadvertent political gaffe or being outshined by their opponents, incumbents usually want as few debates as possible. In contrast, underdogs often call for multiple debates hoping that the incumbent in the race will falter.
When front-runners make a strategic decision not to debate, challengers often go to extreme lengths to shame their opponent into debating them. An oft-repeated tactic is for an underdog candidate to send a person in a chicken suit to events where his/her opponent appears. This almost always garners media attention.
In 1982, Republican Ray Shamie used a creative tactic which embarrassed Democrat Ted Kennedy into agreeing to debate him. Shamie hired a plane to fly around the country with a trialing banner which read: "$10,000 reward -- Get Ted Kennedy to debate Ray Shamie." The stunt mustered national media attention.
Sometimes a candidate is forced to make a pledge in a debate for political survival, which could hurt him/her in future races. In his 1990 bid for a fifth term as Arkansas Governor, Bill Clinton was neck-and-neck with his Republican opponent Sheffield Nelson. While Clinton enjoyed respectable job approval ratings, voters wondered if it was time for a change in the Governorship, and if Clinton would be a full-time Governor if re-elected. There was speculation that Clinton would seek the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1992, taking him away from the state. When Clinton was asked in a Gubernatorial debate if he promised to serve out his full term, he replied: "You bet." After easily beating Nelson, Clinton met with Arkansas voters the next year, and asked to be released from that pledge. He eventually defied the pledge and declared his Presidential candidacy.
Similarly, during a 1994 debate with Democratic U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, Republican Mitt Romney tried to defend himself from charges that he was not a supporter of abortion rights. He said: "I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."
This quote has been used ad nosium by Republican opponents of Romney in his two Presidential runs and Romney has spent an inordinate amount of time explaining how he has since come to oppose abortion rights.
Sometimes a first-time candidate can be embarrassed when debating a seasoned political debater. Former President George W. Bush suffered this fate during a debate in his 1978 race for an open U.S. House Seat. His Democratic opponent, Kent Hance, sang from a populist song-sheet by branding Bush: "Not a real Texan." Hance suggested that Ivy League graduates like Bush and his family caused the economic malaise in the country. Hance embarrassed Bush, and lamented: "My daddy and granddad were farmers. They didn't have anything to do with the mess we're in right now, and Bush's father has been in politics his whole life."
At the 1988 Vice Presidential debate, Democrat Lloyd Bentsen stole the show with a pre-formulated one-liner. When his Republican opponent, Dan Quayle suggested that he had more experience than John F. Kennedy had in 1960 when he was elected President, Bentsen quipped: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." This line became one of the most remembered in American political debate history.
Bentsen was not the only candidate to pull off a memorable one-liner. At the time, Boston Harbor, located in the home state of Governor Dukakis, was one of the dirtiest harbor in the U.S. After Dukakis gave a byzantine answer to a question about the bulging federal budget deficit, Bush deadpanned: "Is this the time for one-liners? That answer is about as clear as Boston Harbor."
Memorable lines are often made off-the-cuff and do not appear scripted. In 1990, two Massachusetts Republicans, Bill Weld and Joe Malone, were elected statewide for the first time. Both brought down the house with inimitable lines, which appeared to be impromptu. During a 1990 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate, Republican nominee Bill Weld exploited a claim by the Democratic nominee, John Silber, Ph.D., that beavers created so much wetland that preserving wetlands should not be of concern. Weld quipped: "Would you tell us doctor, what plans, if any, you have for the preservation of open spaces in Massachusetts, other than leave it to beavers?"
That same year, in the race for Treasurer and Receiver General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Democrat William Galvin, trying to show that his Republican opponent, Joe Malone, was ignorant of economic issues, asked Malone the question: "What's a junk bond?" Without hesitation, Malone responded: "That's what we'll have if you're elected."
During a debate in the 1988 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, U.S. Representative Richard Gephardt (D-MO) turned to U.S. Senator Al Gore (D-TN) and blasted him for moving to the right to secure Southern votes. Gephardt said: "When you started this race, you decided you needed a Southern political strategy. So you decided that you'd better move to the right on defense and [on] a lot of other issues. And lately you've been sounding more like Al Haig than Al Gore" (Al Haig was U.S. Secretary of State in the Reagan administration and was also a GOP Republican Presidential Candidate). Without missing a beat, Gore bested Gephardt, deadpanning: "That line sounds more like Richard Nixon than Richard Gephardt."
Similarly, in a 2012 Presidential debate in Jacksonville, Florida, U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) was asked by host Wolf Blitzer about a proposal by one of his opponents, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), to colonize the moon. Paul mustered uproarious laughter for his response: "Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there."
Candidates spend hours preparing for their participation in political debates. Much time is spent by candidates rehearsing responses to potential questions, testing one-liners, and engaging in mock debates with staffers. Although it can certainly be argued that a candidate's debating skills are probably not indicative of his/her ability to govern, how the candidates perform in the debates influences how undecided voters view the candidates and impacts upon their perceptions regarding their ability to govern. Again, for the American people and the media, it is often gamesmanship rather than substance that rules when determining the winner of a political debate.
Political Exaggerations: Stretching the Truth Is a Tradition in American Politics
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) said: "Modesty is a vastly overrated virtue." Politicians have apparently taken Galbraith's words to heart.
Through advertisements and meetings with voters, they are quick to trumpet a litany of accomplishments and virtues. Most recently, the Republican nominee for governor of Georgia, David Perdue, told Morehouse College students that his father, in his role as a superintendent of Schools, desegregated the Houston County schools. Perdue said his father "integrated I think the first -- if not the first or second -- county school system in Georgia, and he did it before they had to. He did it right after he got elected, and he did it because it was the right thing to do." Perdue failed to mention the fact that the desegregation plan was instituted after the NAACP successfully challenged the "Freedom of Choice" plan instituted by the Houston County School Board, which allowed but did not mandate integration.
Perhaps the most egregious exaggeration in U.S. political history of a candidate's background was the yarn spun by William Henry Harrison, who was elected President in 1840. Harrison was raised in a patrician family. His father was once Governor of Virginia. Yet Harrison brilliantly styled himself as "one of us." He dressed the part of a humble down-home candidate and boasted of the fact that he had lived in a log cabin. While it was true that Harrison once lived in a log cabin, it was only briefly after retiring from government service. Contrary to popular belief at the time, he was not born in a log cabin. Yet this tactic helped Harrison get elected. In fact, one of Harrison's supporter, Whisky distiller E.G. Booze, sold whisky in log-cabin-shaped bottles during the campaign to promote this master narrative (This is where the word booze came from.) Harrison's ploy worked and he was elected president. However, he was not able to do much as President, as he died of pneumonia just 31 days after his inauguration.
Lyndon B. Johnson had a fascination with the Alamo. His father, Samuel Johnson Jr., wrote legislation to give control of the Alamo to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. In 1966, while visiting troops in South Korea, Johnson accurately said that there is a picture of his father inside the Alamo. He then went a step too far by mendaciously claiming that his great-great-grandfather had died in the Alamo. In actuality, the great-great-grandfather that Johnson was referring to was a real-estate trader who died at home. When confronted with this inaccuracy, Johnson creatively told Press Secretary George Christian:"You all didn't let me finish. It was the Alamo Bar and Grill in Eagle Pass, Texas."
Perhaps the most famous political exaggeration has been grossly exaggerated in and of itself. When someone asks the question: "Who invented the Internet?" someone will invariably quip: "Al Gore." It is popular belief that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. This belief however is false. In reality, Gore told Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Gore was referring to his role as the lead sponsor of the 1991 High-performance Computing and Communications Act, which appropriated $600 million for high-performance computing and co-sponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992. Critics chided Gore for his statement and falsely claimed that Gore had said he "invented the Internet." U.S. House Majority leader Dick Armey (R-TX) joked: "If the vice president created the Internet then I created the Interstate."
However, Gore has exaggerated other facts in his past. During his failed 1988 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Gore told the Des Moines Register that in his early days as a reporter for the Nashville Tennessean, he got "a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail." However, it was later revealed that Gore's reporting resulted in just two municipal officials being indicted, and neither was jailed.
Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also has a history of exaggerating the facts. During his two Presidential campaigns, Romney continuously claimed that as governor of Massachusetts he made the "tough choices and balanced the budget without raising taxes." Romney was referring to the $3 billion budget shortfall he inherited when he assumed office in 2003. Romney did not mention that he raised over $500 million in "fees." Romney also raised corporate taxes under the guise of closing corporate loopholes and truncating local aid to the state's municipalities. This forced municipalities to cut services and/or raise property taxes on their residents.
Similarly, in 2007, Republican Presidential aspirant Mitt Romney told a voter: "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life." It was later revealed that Romney had only hunted twice in his life. Romney later said: "I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear. I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will."
Candidates with military experience often brandish this experience on the campaign trail, and occasionally get themselves into trouble. During his 2008 bid for an open U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut, it was revealed that the Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal had on two occasions claimed he served as a Marine "in Vietnam." Blumenthal had in fact served in the Marines during the Vietnam era, but never served in Vietnam. He apologized for the remarks and despite this exaggeration was elected to the Senate by twelve points.
An amusing exaggeration came from Mark Roosevelt, the Democratic nominee for Massachusetts Governor in 1994. In an interview with the Boston Globe, he made the following comment about his tenure in the Massachusetts State Legislature: "A record of accomplishment probably unsurpassed by any legislator in the 20th century in Massachusetts." Roosevelt later retracted the comment, stating: "I can be sanctimonious." Roosevelt lost the Gubernatorial election, garnering less than 30 percent of the vote.
Politics is not the profession for the modest. To a great extent a politician has to be a salesperson. He/she must master the art of bragging about himself over and over again without overdoing it, appearing supercilious.
It takes a certain personality type to be ready, willing, and able to repeatedly tell voters of his/her stellar attributes. As the aforementioned cases reveal, politicians sometimes go a step too far and exaggerate what they have accomplished, sometimes losing all credibility. Robert Strauss, who served as chairman of the Democratic Party, captured this phenomenon of political exaggeration best when he said: "Every politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself."
Contrary to "Progressive Belief," Obama Has Not Departed From his Campaign Rhetoric
There is disenchantment on the left with Barack Obama. Many progressives agree with sentiment recently expressed by Professor Cornell West, a professor at the Union Theological Seminary, who recently told Salon Magazine: "He posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street Presidency, a drone Presidency."
Despite this claim by Professor West, Obama did not campaign for President in 2008 as a tribune of the left. Instead he campaigned as a candidate of bipartisanship. On some campaign issues Obama was even to the right of President George W. Bush. In fact, Obama was elected in part by winning 60% of moderate voters and 20% of conservative voters.
In political advertisements, Obama did not present himself as an unadulterated progressive. He held himself out as a post partisan figure that would work toward bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. Obama featured Kirk Dillard, a Republican who worked with Obama when both served in the Illinois State Senate, in a campaign advertisement wherein Dillard explains: "Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had, and he was successful in a bipartisan way. Republican legislators respected Senator Obama. His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well."
Obama entered the national stage in 2004. After garnering the Democratic nomination for an open U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry tapped him to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. While progressives were mesmerized by the delivery of his speech, it was hardly a clarion call to them. Obama did not call for a major expansion of the Social Safety net, or for a more nimble foreign policy, but delivered a mostly platitudinous speech centered on the commonalities of Americans of all ideological persuasions. His signature line was: "There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America."
Liberals saw what they wanted to see in Obama, while turning a blind eye to what the President was actually saying. Now some Progressives are indignant that the President is essentially governing on what he campaigned about.
Obama's main appeal to liberals in the 2008 campaign was that he was the only major Democratic Presidential candidate who opposed the authorization of the use of force in Iraq, which the U.S. Congress approved in 2002. Obama, no pacifist, told a Chicago crowd that year: "I am not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to dumb wars." Progressives saw only Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq, failing to recognize his support for a more robust, interventionist foreign policy, which included using military force abroad.
Obama was a hawk on U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. He was explicit in his view that the U.S. should expand its military involvement there. Obama told a Pennsylvania rally in 2008 that the war in Iraq "distracted us from the task at hand in Afghanistan." Obama made no effort to couch his bellicose policy on Afghanistan, writing in a New York Times op-ed column: "As President I would pursue a new strategy and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan."
In addition, while enmity proliferates on the left for Obama's ambitious use of predator drones, Obama was no critic of the use of predator drones during the campaign. In an address at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in 2007, Obama averred that as President he would order attacks inside Pakistan even absent permission of the Pakistani government: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf (Pakistani President) won't act, we will."
On both the issue of Afghanistan and the potential use of predator drones in Pakistan, Obama was, in reality, to the right of the Bush administration. This was not a progressive position.
Progressives often excoriate Obama for his failure to condemn the military policies of the Israeli Government, and the fact that he is the only world leader who opposed the Palestinian Authority's bid to achieve statehood through the United Nations. Yet on this issue too, Obama performed as advertised. During the campaign, Obama presented himself as a supporter of the Israeli government. He said that for a peace agreement to be achieved, "The Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of 'right of return' in a way that would persevere Israel as a Jewish state." In 2006, when Israel invaded Lebanon, Obama co-sponsored a Senate resolution defending the attack. In fact, he delivered his first foreign policy speech of the campaign before the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
Furthermore, Obama was an exponent of increasing sanctions on Iran to prevent that country from constructing nuclear weapons, and Obama would not take the military option off the table. In addition, Obama supported adding the former Soviet satellites of Georgia and the Ukraine to NATO, a very bold move sure to antagonize Russia.
On domestic issues, then Senator Obama voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which allocated $700 billion to bailout the banking system. Opposition to the bailout became a battle cry for liberals. In fact, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) publicly exclaimed: "Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?" Goldman Sachs employees were the largest donors to Obama's 2008 campaign, contributing nearly $1,000,000 collectively. The Financial Services industry donated a collective $43 million to the Obama campaign. Somehow, progressives seemed not to have noticed this not so subtle pattern of behavior on the part of Obama.
Moreover, in 2006, then Senator Obama voted for reauthorization of The USA Patriot Act, whose repeal became a cause célèbre with the progressive intelligencia. In 2008, Obama came off the campaign trail to vote for the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expanded the federal government's warrantless wiretapping program. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that President Obama signed a five-year extension of the statute.
Despite what many progressives seem to believe, Obama has not departed from his campaign ideals. The failure to comprehend what Obama actually campaigned on is now leading to righteous anger by Progressives. However, the facts show that Obama's presidency is no great departure from the way in which he presented himself while campaigning for the Presidency. He has been true to his campaign ideals. Progressives simply put their blinders on, heard what they wanted to hear, and did not stop to listen to what Obama was actually saying during the campaign.
Rand Paul's Potential 'Brian Schweitzer Problem'
In referring to the reasons for the September 11 hijackings, Republican U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) stated in a 2007 South Carolina Republican presidential debate "They attack us because we've been over there."
He was referring to the nation's interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Paul later pointed out that by meddling in the Middle East, the nation had effectuated enmity in the region. Osama bin laden referred to such grievances as U.S. troops on Saudi soil, the U.S. supporting sanctions leveled against Iraq -- which likely contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, U.S. aid to Israel, and support for secular nationalist autocratic regimes. While establishment Republicans roundly booed Paul, he became a folk hero to the party's Libertarian bloodline, as well as to Independents, Democrats and the previously politically dispossessed.
While most Democrats had come to oppose U.S. war in Iraq, they opposed it on the grounds that it was simply the wrong war. They did not question the foundations of U.S. foreign policy. For example, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the Democratic party's 2004 Presidential nominee, simply proclaimed "It was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." The party's eventual 2008 nominee Barack Obama called Iraq "the Wrong War" while calling the War in Afghanistan: "The Right War." In fact, he called for sending three more brigades to Afghanistan.
In addition, Paul supported the federal government abdicating its role in interdicting illegal drugs, and letting the states decide their own drug policy. Paul was sympathetic to legalizing drugs, and suggested that the citizens do not need government to regulate them. He said at a Republican presidential debate: "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would."
Paul's call for a complete retrenchment of commitments abroad, coupled with his calls to end the Drug War, and his opposition to NSA spying, along with his support for home schooling and opposition to gun control provided a motley coalition of supporters in his second run for President in 2012. Paul was perhaps the only candidate in American History who could attract supporters from Oz Fest attendees, ACLU members and Wickens on the left, as well as NRA members, fundamentalist Christians, and military personnel on the right.
His son, Rand Paul, was elected to an open U.S. Senate in Kentucky in 2010, largely through the help of the same coalition that so enthusiastically supported his father.
However, in trying to propitiate enough establishment Republicans to secure the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016, Rand Paul is displaying some independence from his father. Unlike the non-interventionist policies of Ron Paul, whose ideological antecedents included Presidents Grover Cleveland and Warren G. Harding, Rand Paul is more of a realist, skeptical toward making commitments overseas, but still recognizing a vital role for the U.S. in the international arena. His "realist" ideological antecedents are Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald R. Ford.
Paul also voted to tighten economic sanctions on Iran. Furthermore, he does not favor liquidating all U.S. military bases outside of the U.S. and he says he would support "some drones." After Russia invaded Crimea, Paul called for Russian President Vladimir Putin to be punished, and averred: "It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's aggression."
While Paul is buttressing his bone fides with the Republican establishment for his prospective 2016 Presidential run, he may have competition from many supporters of his father including the charismatic former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Many states, including New Hampshire, which hosts the omni-critical, first-in-the-nation primary, hold open primaries, meaning that voter's can choose a ballot from any established party in their state.
Schweitzer mirrors many of Ron Paul's views on the fundamental foundation of American policy. Like Ron Paul, Schweitzer's excoriates the influence of "The Military Industrial Complex." He is a harsh critic of the U.S. war in Iraq, which he calls an "oil-well war to protect profits for multinational oil companies and petro-dictators." In addition, like Ron Paul, Schweitzer shows no trepidation in warning of the effects of "blowback" on Americans as the result of its interventionist foreign policy. He points out that the tension between the U.S. and Iran began "because of what we did in 1953, replacing an elected official [Prime Minster Mohammed Mossadegh] with a dictator [Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi]." Schweitzer also points out that the U.S. government supplied chemical weapons to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, which were subsequently used against Iranians.
Rand Paul rarely mentions the concept of blowback. With a war-weary electorate, it is kosher in the Republican Party to call for what George W. Bush in 2000 called "a more humble foreign policy." However, once a Republican suggests that U.S. policies are a contributing factor to the enmity effectuated toward the U.S., he/she takes a step too far from the party establishment, which will invariably brand such a candidate as "a Blame America First Isolationist."
Furthermore, Schweitzer, like Ron Paul, is a populist critic of the high command of his own party, calling Barack Obama a "corporatist." Ron Paul was an incessant critic of George W. Bush. Like Paul, Schweitzer can appeal to Liberals and Libertarians with his criticisms of Barack Obama, particularly on Civil Liberties issues. Schweitzer calls revelations unearthed about the scope of the NSA Surveillance program "un-effen-believable."Like Ron Paul, Schweitzer declares the War on Drugs lost, saying that Colorado, which recently legalized marijuana, "might have it more right than the rest of us."
Not all Ron Paul supporters in 2008 and 2012 were Libertarians or Conservatives. In fact, many Progressive Independents and Democrats supported Paul. Political commentator Robin Koerner coined them "Blue Republicans." Paul drew support from across the political spectrum with voters and previous non-voters who believe the political system is corrupt. They supported Paul's populist insurrectionist campaign. Accordingly, the fact that Schweitzer, unlike Paul, supports a munificent social safety net, the establishment of a single-payer Health Care System might draw Paul's more liberal supporters to Schweitzer. In Schweitzer these "Blue Republicans" have a candidate who is more ideologically in tune with them than Ron Paul.
As Rand Paul assiduously cultivates support from within the Republican establishment, he becomes less desirable to the anti-establishment Libertarian, Independent, and Liberal voters who supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012.
As Rand Paul becomes more of a traditional Republican, an aperture will form for a candidate more like Ron Paul was in 2008 and 2012. Schweitzer is positioning himself as the anti-corporate political establishment candidate for 2016. His message can strike a resonant chord with the same voters who marked ballots for Ron Paul in 2012, particularly in Open Primary states. Many members of the motley Ron Paul coalition could support Schweitzer rather than Rand Paul. In states with a closed primary, some of these voters might become Democrats to vote for Schweitzer. Schweitzer would appeal to many disaffected voters with his characterization of the nation's capital as "A giant cesspool filled with special interests."
An opening is developing for Schweitzer. Crossover support could make him not merely a nuisance to the likely Democratic establishment candidates, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, but also an irritant to Rand Paul as he tries to keep his father's supporters in the Republican Primary. Bottom-line: for every rank-and-file Republican voter Rand Paul attracts, he could lose a voter from his father's coalition to Schweitzer.
In the Political Arena an Underdog Challenger Must Be Creative to Force an Incumbent to a Debate
In every election cycle, voters witness the spectacle of an underdog candidate challenging an incumbent elected official to participate in a series of debates. This is usually a starting bid, with the underdog hoping the incumbent will engage in at least one debate.
A debate is an opportunity for a challenger to share the same stage with an incumbent. For the incumbent, a debate can usually only have deleterious effects upon his/her respective candidacy. If the incumbent does not appear sharp and relevant, voters may start to question whether the incumbent has been in office too long. If the challenger impresses, donations could swarm into the challenger's campaign warchest. Of course, to effectuate a debate, a challenger with little name recognition who is trailing badly in the polls, must resort to creative tactics to force a debate.
In 1982, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was a leading candidate for the Presidential nomination in 1984. His senatorial re-election campaign was believed to be pro forma. Republican Senatorial nominee Ray Shamie, a businessman and political neophyte, succeeded in getting Kennedy to agree to a debate. He pointed out that in 1980, when Kennedy had run for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he had called on President Jimmy Carter to debate him. Ingeniously, the Shamie campaign exploited Kennedy's past demand. The Shamie campaign spent much of its time garnering free media attention by offering a cash reward to anyone who could persuade Kennedy to debate Shamie. The campaign hired an airplane to pull a banner that read: ''$10,000 Reward - Get Ted Kennedy to Debate Ray Shamie." The airplane flew around the country over large populations. Shamie's antics in trying to get Kennedy to debate became a national story, and finally Kennedy agreed to a debate with Shamie. The $10,000 reward went to the Cardinal Cushing School and Training Center for Special Needs Students located in Hanover, Massachusetts. While Kennedy easily won re-election, Shamie mustered a respectable 38.26% of the vote in heavily Democratic Massachusetts.
In 1990, U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN) appeared to be a shoe-in for re-election. His campaign had raised a redoubtable $6 million and it appeared he would face only token opposition and coast to re-election. The Democratic nominee was Paul Wellstone, an obscure Political Science Professor at Carlton College in Northfield, Minnesota. Political consultant Bill Hillsman engineered a brilliant advertising campaign, wherein Wellstone tried to find Boschwitz by going to his campaign and state offices, asking staffers where Boschwitz was. When they told him he was not there, Wellstone asked the staffers to tell Boschwitz he would like to debate him. Wellstone also interviewed Minnesota residents, who told him how debates were healthy for the political process. Using the interviews, Wellstone developed an advertising campaign which garnered national attention, precipitously increasing Wellstone's name recognition and forcing Boschwitz to agree to multiple debates. That year, Wellstone scored one of the biggest upsets in the country, defeating the once near immutable Boschwitz. In fact, Wellstone was the only Democrat to defeat an incumbent Republican U.S. Senator that year.
In 1994, U.S. House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-GA), in his quest to become the first Republican House Speaker in forty years, spent little time in his Congressional District. Instead, Gingrich barnstormed the nation, campaigning for Republican Congressional candidates in 125 other districts. Gingrich refused to debate his Democratic opponent, Ben Jones, a former U.S. Representative. Jones traveled to Gingrich's campaign stops around the country, trying to get to meet Gingrich and demand that he come back home to Georgia to debate. At one stop, Jones brought bloodhounds. However, Jones could not get close enough to Gingrich to confront him about participating in a debate. Jones lost the race by over 25 percentage points.
In 2012, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) concomitantly sought re-election to his House seat and election to the Vice Presidency as Republican Mitt Romney's runningmate. Ryan did not actively campaign for re-election or debate his Congressional opponent, Democrat Ron Zerban. Zerban tried to get political mileage by appearing in Danville, Kentucky the day a Vice Presidential debate between Ryan and Democrat Joe Biden was scheduled to be held. Though Zerban could not shame Ryan into debating him, his Danville appearances resulted in Zerban accruing lots of free local and national media attention and effectuated a cash infusion to Zerban's coffers. In fact, Zerban raised $2.1 million. Zerban held Ryan to just 54.9% of the vote, the lowest percentage of any of Ryan's eight Congressional races.
In 2014, Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, well ahead in the polls, did not debate his three opponents. While he was safely re-elected, supporters of his opponents had fun with Cornett's absence. At one debate, at the Fairview Missionary Baptist Church, a man seated in the front row sporting a chicken suit made local headlines by clucking: "Why won't Mick debate?"
During this election cycle, we will likely see more creative tactics employed by hapless challengers to force their incumbent opponents to debate. The incumbents will most likely agree to just one debate, try to say as little as possible, speak in platitudes and not even mention their opponents by name.
Of course, for a challenger to score a debate does not mean the debate will garner the requisite attention sought, and could in fact result in a debate with very few television viewers. Sometimes bad luck and bad timing can also play a role. For example, in 1986, popular Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis afforded his Republican challenger, George Kariotis, one debate. The debate was scheduled to be held on the day after the last game of the World Series between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Mets. However, the Seventh game was rained out and re-scheduled for the next day. Consequently, while about 1.5 million households in the Boston media market turned their television sets to the game, only about 46,000 viewers watched the debate. In good humor, Kariotis said in his concession speech, after pocketing just 31.2% of the vote: "In fairness to Mike, I should clear up something. He was criticized, I think, for giving me only one televised debate during the seventh game of the World Series [Between the Boston Red Sox and the New York Mets]. I should point out that that was really his second choice; his first choice was tomorrow." (The day after the election)
It is a harrowing task for underdog challengers to force an entrenched incumbent to debate. The incumbent has little to gain and much to lose. However, sometimes the challenger can muster media attention by using creative, imaginative, outside-the-box tactics. Even if the incumbent does not agree to debate, the free media attention for the challenger can enhance his/her name recognition and create a narrative of a feisty underdog challenger who creatively pursues the entrenched incumbent.
When a Political Gaffe Torpedoes a Political Candidate
With another election season upon us, it is close to certainty that we will see political candidates make major gaffes, including answering a question honestly, when political correctness would be the prudent tactic. Candidates sometimes misspeak, like in 1968 when Democratic Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey told Playboy magazine: "No sane person in the country likes the War in Vietnam, and neither does President [Lyndon B.] Johnson."
Sometimes a gaffe occurs when a candidate makes an attempt at humor and falls flat, like in 2011, when Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney told unemployed Americans in Tampa, Florida, "I should tell my story. I too am unemployed."
Sometimes a candidate can appear insensitive, like in 1978, when Massachusetts Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Ed King was asked about the potential dangers of his plan to repeal environmental regulations, and his advocacy of nuclear power. King cavalierly stated: "I'm sure we'll find a cure for cancer."
However, in rare instances, a political gaffe has proven fatal and the candidate never recovered. For example, in 1900, the Democratic Party was looking for a candidate to take on the Republican incumbent, William McKinley. McKinley was riding a wave of popularity for his role in leading the nation to victory in the Spanish-American War. Democrats thought they could co-opt McKinley's foreign policy bone fides by nominating Admiral George Dewey. Dewey became a national icon for his role in defeating the Spanish during the war at the critical Battle of Manila Bay. When Dewey returned home, parades were held in his honor.
Dewey did not seem to understand however that the American people had come to expect an activist President who serves as a leader, not a figurehead who is subservient to the prerogatives of the U.S. Congress. Rather than laying out his own ambitious agenda, Dewey said that as President he would: "execute the laws of Congress as faithfully as I have always executed the orders of my superiors." In addition, Dewey came across as supercilious by suggesting that the Presidency would not be a hard job: "I am convinced that the office of the President is not such a very difficult one to fill."
Despite being apotheosized by the American people, Dewey had no experience in elective politics. He did not attempt to filter his words and spoke directly off the cuff, and in doing so, he made too many gaffes. These gaffes resulted in Dewey's campaign ending before it started. Adding insult to injury for the Democrats, Dewey endorsed McKinley over the eventual Democratic nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
Similarly, in 1967, the early frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination was the popular, charismatic, telegnenic Governor of Michigan, George Romney. This was an opportune time for a Romney candidacy. With conservative Barry Goldwater having lost in a landslide to Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, the Party was in desperate need for a moderate nominee with crossover appeal in the General Election. Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson (who eventually announced he would not seek re-election) appeared electorally vulnerable, and the party was galvanized, having picked up 47 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and three U.S. Senate seats in the 1966 mid-term elections. A Gallup Poll conducted in 1967 showed Romney beating Johnson by eight points. However, in just one interview Governor Romney sabotaged his candidacy.
In 1965, Romney took a 31-day expedition to Vietnam, meeting with U.S. military and Defense officials. When he returned home, Romney announced his support for the continued escalation of U.S. troops in that nation's Civil War. Romney told Lou Gordon of WKB-TV in Detroit that he'd had "the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." Romney subsequently reversed himself, voicing opposition to the war. However, the notion that a would-be President could be "brainwashed" did not sit well with Republican voters. Because of this gaffe, his poll numbers dropped precipitously, and Romney egressed from the race before the New Hampshire Primary.
Usually candidates who are ahead in the polls tend to make their remarks as general and as innocuous a possible so as not to lose any voters they already have. However, in 1990, Democrat John Silber, who harbored a commanding lead over Republican Bill Weld in the Massachusetts Gubernatorial race, inexplicably went off script.
Silber was asked why he did not campaign in the inner-city Boston community of Roxbury. Astonishingly, Silber responded: "There's no point in my making a speech on crime control to a bunch of drug addicts." While Silber could have recovered from this gaffe, it was in a subsequent interview with Natalie Jacobson of WCVB-TV in Boston where Silber, still up by nine points, handed the election to Weld on a silver platter. Jacobson asked a seemingly pedestrian question: "What's your biggest weakness?" Silber snapped: "You find a weakness. I don't have to go around telling you what's wrong with me. The media have manufactured about 16,000 nonexistent qualities that are offensive and attributed them all to me. Let them have their field day. You can pick any one of them." With that unnecessary statement, Silber's poll numbers took a nosedive and he lost the election to Republican Bill Weld by four points.
Ed Koch, having been elected Mayor of New York City, presumably would have the political dexterity not to offend the state's many suburban voters, but he did. During his failed 1982 run for the Democratic nomination for Governor of New York, Mayor Ed Koch asked Peter Manso of Playboy Magazine: "Have you ever lived in the suburbs? I haven't but I've talked to people who have, and it's sterile. It's nothing. It's wasting your life, and people do not wish to waste their lives once they've seen New York [City]." Then when Manso asked Koch why people would live in New York City, given "lousy city service and late subways," Koch again exploded on the suburbs, asserting, "As opposed to wasting time in a car? Or out in the country, wasting time in a pickup truck? When you have to drive 20 miles to buy a gingham dress or a Sears Roebuck suit. The rural American thing I'm telling you, it's a joke." Koch lost the nomination to Mario Cuomo.
While it is customary for a candidate to attack an opponent, sometimes demeaning attacks can actually backfire and help the opponent. For example, in 1994, Texas Governor Ann Richards heaped approbation on Debbie Colman, who won the Texarkana Teacher of the Year Award. She blasted Republican nominee George W. Bush for suggesting that she had manipulated student test scores in an election year. Richards, in praising Colman, exclaimed: "You just work like a dog, do well, the test scores are up, the kids are looking better, the dropout rate is down. And all of a sudden, you've got some jerk who's running for public office [George W. Bush] telling everybody it's all a sham." Texas voters viewed this rhetoric as below the belt. This gaffe contributed significantly to Richards loss to Bush.
A political candidate is almost always in the spotlight and often suffers from exhaustion. It is easy for even the most seasoned candidates to make a mistake. A political gaffe normally results in a few days of being taken off-message, defending or backtracking from one's comments. However, on rare occasions the gaffe is so major that a candidate cannot recover. Journalist Michael Kinsley gave perhaps the best definition of a political gaffe: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."
Will the Carpetbagger Card be Effective Against Scott Brown in the New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race?
Former U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) has packed his truck and moved full-time to his former vacation home in Rye, New Hampshire. He is running for the Republican nomination to challenge U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) in November. With Brown the putative favorite for the nomination, the general election will likely be a donnybrook. This race will likely be a marquee matchup and could determine control of the U.S. Senate.
The term "carpetbagger" will be a watchword leveled against Scott Brown. The term originally referred to a Northern resident who moved to the South following the Civil War. Many of these Northerners carried "carpet bags." The term has since entered the political lexicon referring to individuals who move from one state to another state to run for political office.
On paper, New Hampshire appears to be the opportune state for a candidate from another state to run for office. About 60 percent of Granite State residents were born out of state. Interestingly, the state's Governor, Maggie Hassan, is also a Massachusetts transplant. Even Shaheen is a transplant to New Hampshire, having grown up in Missouri. However, both Hassan and Shaheen established their professional lives and political careers in New Hampshire.
The state most associated with the term carpetbagger is New York. Two national figures, Robert F. Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, moved to the state for the sole purpose of pursuing political office.
It was not until August of 1964 that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy officially threw his hat into the ring to run in the Democratic Primary for the U.S. Senate. On Election Day, he was still a registered voter in Massachusetts and thus could not vote for himself. Nevertheless, this did not stop Kennedy from handily defeating the homegrown candidate, U.S. Representative Samuel S. Stratton (D-NY) in the Democratic Primary. Stratton later observed: "When Bobby Kennedy decided he was a New Yorker, that was the end of my campaign." In the General Election, Kennedy defeated U.S. Senator Kenneth Keating (R-NY) in part by challenging his self-depiction as a "liberal Republican." The Kennedy campaign distributed literature called "The myth of Keating's liberalism." Like Shaheen, Keating was a freshman Senator seeking a second term. Keating chided the state Democratic Party for not nominating a New Yorker. Making light of Kennedy's Massachusetts roots, Keating began a press conference by announcing:
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we all know what we're here for. And I want to announce at the outset that I will not be a candidate for the United States Senates from Massachusetts.
Ultimately, Kennedy won the race on the coattails of the popular Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson who outran Kennedy in New York. Johnson carried every county in the state and garnered a whopping 68.5 percent of the vote. Kennedy won the Senate seat with just 53.5 percent of the vote.
In 1998, the popularity of First Lady Hillary Clinton in New York evinced itself as she campaigned for the state's U.S. Senate nominee, Chuck Schumer. The High Command of the Democratic Party urged her to run for the State's open Senate seat in 2000. They wanted someone with political star-power to challenge likely Republican nominee Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani made light of Hillary moving into the state to run for the Senate. In fact, he traveled to Arkansas, where Hillary had previously lived, to raise money. Speaking at a fundraiser for his campaign in Arkansas, Giuliani joked: "I've never lived here, I've never worked here, I've never gone to school here, it's the first time I've been here. I guess it would be cool to run for the Senate." Ultimately, Giuliani did not run due to his messy divorce and diagnosis of prostate cancer. U.S. Representative Rick Lazio (R-NY) supplanted him. Lazio however could not make the carpetbagger label stick to Clinton. Clinton went on to win the election, pocketing 55.27 percent of the vote.
In 2002, Massachusetts Democrats legally challenged the residency of Republican Gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney. The Commonwealth's Constitution requires candidates for Governor to have lived in the state for seven consecutive years before running for office. Democrats claimed Romney was a resident of Utah where he was CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Romney claimed he was a part-time resident of Massachusetts, had maintained his property there and is thus eligible to run for Governor. The State Ballot Law Commission agreed that Romney was eligible to run for Governor. Democrats never gained much traction with the strategy of claiming Romney was a carpetbagger.
Many politicians have dealt with the carpetbagger label early in their careers, including future presidents. In 1946, John F. Kennedy first ran for an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in a Congressional District he had not lived in since his youth. His opponents derided him as a son of privilege from outside the district. The East Boston Leader poked fun at Kennedy's entry into the race, exclaiming: "Congress Seat for sale - No experience necessary - Applicant must live in New York or Florida - Only millionaires need apply." Despite this attack, Kennedy used his sterling military credentials, Irish Catholic ethnicity, and prolific retail politicking skills to win the seat. In fact, Kennedy's campaign paid an unemployed plumber named Joseph Russo to run in the Democratic Primary, siphoning voters away from one of his opponents, a Boston City Councilor who was also named Joseph Russo, thus splitting the Joseph Russo vote.
The best answer to the charge of carpetbagging came in 1982 by John McCain, who had lived in Arizona for less than a year before he ran for an open U.S. House seat. He put the carpetbagging issue to bed after a voter called him a carpetbagger. McCain averred:
Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the first district of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.
McCain won the race.
One of the few times the carpetbagger label actually stuck to a candidate was in 1978 when George W. Bush pursued a U.S. House seat in West Texas. Bush had spent much of his time out of state, being educated in New England at Philips Andover Academy, Yale University, and The Harvard Business School. Bush's Democratic opponent, Kent Hance, taunted Bush as: "Not a real Texan," and asserted "Yale and Harvard don't prepare you as well for running for the 19th Congressional District as Texas Tech does [Hance's alma mater]." Hance won that race.
The most successful carpetbagger was James Shields. Shields is the only U.S. Senator to serve three separate states. At the time, the State Legislatures selected U.S. Senators, not the citizens of the respective states. Shields was selected by the Illinois Legislature to serve in the U.S. Senate in 1848. After the Illinois State Legislature did not reappoint him in 1854, Shields moved to Minnesota, and in 1858 was selected by that Legislature as one of that state's first Senators. Later in life, when Shields was domiciled in Missouri, that State's legislature selected him to fill the remainder of the term of the late Lewis Boggs.
The charge of carpetbagging is nothing new in American politics. However, with few exceptions, like in the case of George W. Bush, it is rarely a winning strategy for the opposing candidate. Most of the time when candidates from out of state lose an election, it is not because of where they reside, but because they are out of the state's political mainstream.
For Scott Brown, his major hurdle may be defining a rationale for his candidacy. It is difficult for a candidate who moves to a state to run for office to construct a compelling master narrative as to why he is motivated by more than mere electoral opportunism. However, Brown will likely benefit from the crosspollination between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In fact, about 13 percent of New Hampshire residents cross the border every day to work in Massachusetts. Accordingly, Brown can legitimately claim that he has a vested interest in New Hampshire because he is a long-time property tax payer. Although history suggests that moving into a state to run for office may be an electoral hindrance that a candidate must deal with, it is an encumbrance that can be dealt with and overcome.
History has shown that playing the carpetbagger card is usually an ineffectual strategy. Voters seem to care more about the stature and political positions of the candidates than the length of their residency in the state.
Political Insults: Are They Merely Cheap Shots or Do They Play an Important Role in American Politics?
U.S. House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill (D-MA) had no problem publicly belittling Republican President and friend Gerald R. Ford. He said Ford was “worse than [Warren G.] Harding and [Herbert] Hoover put together.” Yet O’Neill and Ford had a friendly personal relationship. They often golfed together. Ford took O’Neill’s criticisms in stride, knowing that they were not personal, just politics.
Theodore Roosevelt was brilliant at leveling insults, not only directed at his political adversaries, but often directed at his political allies. In 1889, Roosevelt was appointed to serve on the Civil Service Commission by President Benjamin Harrison. However, Roosevelt was less than grateful when Harrison failed to support his ideas for Civil Service Reform. Roosevelt blasted the President, calling him “a cold-blooded, narrow-minded, prejudiced, obstinate, timid old psalm-singing Indianapolis politician." Harrison retorted that the young Roosevelt “wanted to put an end to all the evil in the world between sunrise and sunset.” In 1898, while serving as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Navy, Roosevelt became convinced that President William McKinley was a vacillator. He said of the President: “McKinley had no more backbone than a chocolate eclair.” Ironically, in 1900 Roosevelt became McKinley’s Vice Presidential Running Mate.
Perhaps Roosevelt’s most profound insult was targeted at Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. He called Wilson ”A Byzantine logothete backed by flubdubs and mollycoddles.” (In Layman’s terms, a logothete is an administrator; a flubdud means nonsense; and a mollycoddle means pampered.) Needless to say, Roosevelt’s inimical insults are not often heard on the school playground.
In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson endorsed Pat Harrison in the Democratic U.S. Senate Primary race against the incumbent Democrat James K. Vardaman (D-MS). Wilson was inflamed that Vardaman had voted against the Congressional Declaration of War with Germany. Vardaman did not take Wilson’s endorsement of Harrison lightly. He called Wilson “the coldest blooded, most selfish ruler beneath the stars today.” Hurling invective at Wilson proved a bipartisan affair. Just a year later (in 1919) U.S. Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge Sr. (R-MA) called Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, who he had feuded with over the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, “the most sinister figure that ever crossed the country's path.” After the Treaty failed to garner the requisite two-thirds vote in the U.S. Senate, Wilson referred to Lodge and other opponents of the Treaty as “Pygmy minds.”
Harry S. Truman minced few words. He once had great admiration for Dwight D. Eisenhower, and even offered not to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for President in 1948 if Eisenhower registered in the Democratic Party and ran for President. Yet when Eisenhower decided to run for President as a Republican in 1952, Truman sang from a different hymnbook. In his down-home Missouri dialect, Truman exclaimed, “The General doesn’t know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday.” When Vice President Richard M. Nixon sought the Presidency in 1960, former President Truman called Nixon “A no good lying bastard,” and told an audience in Texas that anyone who votes for Nixon “Ought to go to Hell.” The Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy, was asked about these comments and with great political dexterity quipped; “I’ve asked President Truman to please not bring up the religious issue in this campaign.” When Nixon became President, he made a courtesy call to Truman at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence Missouri. Truman and Nixon got along cordially before the cameras.
The campaign trail is a unique place especially during the Presidential primaries where candidates of the same political party barnstorm the nation excoriating each other and approving advertisements castigating their opponent(s). However, once the Primary is over, the loser ceases all criticism and hits the hustings, singing the praises of the winner.
For example, in 1992 Democrat Paul Tsongas called his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, “unprincipled” and “a pander bear.” He approved an advertisement which asserted: “Some people will say anything to be elected President.” Yet when Clinton secured the nomination, Tsongas heaped praise on Clinton, averring: “Bill Clinton is a healer by instinct and that skill will be critical as we come to understand the pulls and tugs of our multi-cultural society.” As for Tsongas’ earlier statement, he said: “It was a Campaign. Campaigns are tough. People make tough statements and I did and others did as well.”
In the U.S. House of Representatives, three insults are legendary in their creativeness. The first was in 1899. U.S. House Speaker Thomas Bracket Reed (R-ME) leveled an insult at his colleagues, observing: “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”
The second was in 1942, after former Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie compared the Neutrality Act to giving aid to German Chancellor Adolph Hitler. In response, U.S. Representative Dewey Short (R-MO) went to the House Floor to alliteratively brand his fellow Republican “a Bellowing--Blatant---Bellicose---Belligerent---Blowhard.”
The most recent grand insult occurred in 2005, when U.S. Representative Marian Berry (D-AR) referred to his redheaded 30-year-old Republican colleague, U.S. Representative Adam Putnam (R-FL), as a “Howdy Doody-looking nimrod" during a debate on the Federal budget. Berry was incensed that Putnam and some Republican colleagues attacked the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, claiming they were not true fiscal conservatives.
The Reverend Jerry Falwell was a vociferous opponent of Sandra Day O’Connor, Ronald Reagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Falwell thought her views on social issues were too liberal. He urged “All Good Christians to oppose the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the U.S. Supreme Court.” In response to Falwell’s statement, U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), a Libertarian-oriented conservative who virulently opposed the views of social conservatives like Falwell, quipped: "All Good Christians should kick Jerry Falwell’s ass.”
Even family connections do not shield insults in the political sphere. In 1994, Massachusetts State Representative Mark Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt Jr., was the Democratic nominee for governor of Massachusetts. He ran against Republican Governor William F. Weld. Governor Weld was married to Susan Roosevelt Weld, a cousin of Mark Roosevelt. This family feud was a nasty slugfest. Despite Weld's commanding lead, Weld ran up the electoral score in part by approving advertisements attacking Roosevelt. Roosevelt in turn said of Weld: "He's indifferent, apathetic, feckless, aloof, passive and lazy. Did I say uncaring? He's uncaring." Weld won the race with a record 71 percent of the vote.
It should also be noted that there is a fine line to observe with political insults, and that once that line is crossed, there is often an attendant backlash. For example, political insults can be seen as overly insulting to the point where they can backfire on the insulter. In 1994, Texas Governor Ann Richards, on a campaign stop in Texarkana, Texas, heaped approbation on Debbie Coleman who was the recipient of the city’s Teacher of the Year Award. Richards was inflamed that her Republican opponent, George W. Bush, had argued that the achievement scores for students were manipulated because it is an election year. Richards then asserted: "You just work like a dog, do well, the test scores are up, the kids are looking better, the dropout rate is down. And all of a sudden you've got some jerk who's running for public office [George W. Bush] telling everybody it's all a sham and it isn't real and he doesn't give you credit for doing your job. So far as he is concerned, everything in Texas is terrible." Richard’s comments backfired and were seen by much of the Texas electorate as petty, malevolent, and unnecessary.
The winner of the most creative insult award must go to former U.S. Senator Chuck Robb (D-VA). In the 1994 Virginia U.S. Senate race, Republican Oliver North, who had been implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Presidential Administration of Ronald Reagan, challenged Robb. Senator Robb brought out the heavy rhetorical artillery, telling an audience in Alexander, VA that his opponent is a “Document-shredding, Constitution-trashing, Commander in Chief-bashing, Congress-thrashing, uniform-shaming, Ayatollah-loving, arms-dealing, criminal-protecting, résumé-enhancing, Noriega-coddling, Social Security-threatening, public school-denigrating, Swiss-banking-law-breaking, letter-faking, self-serving, election-losing, snake-oil salesman who can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie.” The next day Robb won the Senate election.
Politics is a funny business, and certainly not a good career choice for the thin-skinned. If you want to play in this game you’ve got to be prepared for highly insulting remarks not only about the positions you may hold, but about your personal life as well.
Perhaps how a political candidate handles and deals with sharp insults is an important part of the political vetting process.
The Establishment is Not Quite as Established as One Might Think
There is no greater term of derision in American politics than to be called an "establishmentarian." No one wants to be portrayed as a tribune of the status quo, especially at a time when politicians are held in such low esteem. There is no shortage of candidates who characterize themselves as populist insurgents with a phalanx of grassroots supporters challenging the political machinery, and sometimes an insurgent rises to great political heights and becomes the face of the establishment. Barack Obama is the quintessential example of this phenomenon.
In 2008, the preponderant frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination was U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). She had redoubtable early institutional support. Traditional Democratic benefactors contributed early to her campaign.
In sharp contrast to Hillary, Obama ran as an agent of change, actually using his lack of national political experience to his advantage. Obama asserted: "There are those who tout their experience working the system in Washington. But the problem is the system in Washington isn't working for us, and it hasn't been for a very long time." Obama consolidated a coalition of young professionals, disenchanted Independent voters and African-Americans, defeating Clinton and the Democratic establishment.
Turnabout is fair play in American politics, and ironically Obama is now the poster child for the Washington establishment. He now stands with the bipartisan Congressional leadership on a litany of issues, from the launching of predator drone strikes, to the defense of the NSA domestic surveillance program, to defending a $633 Billion defense budget. His opposition comes from progressive Democrats on the left and Libertarians on the right who are now challenging the bipartisan establishment.
Obama's 2008 General Election opponent, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), finds himself in a similar predicament. In 2000, McCain challenged Texas Governor Bush for the GOP Presidential nomination. Similar to the case of Hillary Clinton's backing by the Democratic establishment in 2008, Bush had the support of the Republican establishment and held an early commanding lead for the nomination. McCain ran as the insurgent. He put a scare into the GOP establishment by running on reforming the political process. Surprisingly, he scored a searing 18-point upset in the New Hampshire Primary with the support of Independents and some crossover Democrats.
The establishment eventually recovered and Bush won in the establishment firewall state of South Carolina. McCain's insurgent army was never able to repeat the magic of New Hampshire and Bush garnered the nomination. Today, McCain is seen as the embodiment of the GOP establishment. He is often the prime defender of established Republican orthodoxy against Libertarian insurgents intent on reorienting the GOP as a party against intervention in the economy and in foreign affairs. McCain was a supporter of the $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financial industry, and is the foremost advocate in the U.S. Senate for a continued robust U.S. military presence in the Middle East.
The quintessence of the paradigm of a rebel becoming the face card of the establishment is Gerald R. Ford. Today, many Americans think of Ford as the quintessential establishment Republican. He served 25 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming House Minority Leader before becoming Vice President and President. Ironically, Ford got to where he was by being an insurrectionist, challenging the GOP establishment.
Ford began his GOP career as chairman of the Kent County GOP. In that role, Ford challenged the supreme reign of the corrupt system within the Michigan GOP led by patronage dispenser and GOP benefactor Frank "Boss" McKay. In 1948, Ford won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives by challenging 9-year incumbent Bartel J. Jonkman in the Republican Primary. Jonkman had been a product of the McKay machine.
In the House, Ford became active in the "young turks," a coterie of Republican rebels who became disenthralled with the GOP establishment in the House. Ford thought the GOP establishment had become too complacent in its role as the minority party, and felt that the party could regain its majority status by recruiting GOP candidates to challenge conservative Democrats in the South. He came to feel that the leadership was too willing to work with Conservative Democrats in the House, rather than working to defeat them. In 1963, Ford successfully challenged incumbent U.S. Representative Charles Hoeven for the Chairmanship of the House GOP Caucus. Two years later, Ford shocked the GOP establishment by defeating House Minority Leader Charles Halleck (R-IN) in his bid for re-election. Accordingly, Ford reinvented the GOP Establishment by supplanting it.
Alternatively, some products of the political establishment went rogue. Eugene McCarthy entered the U.S. Senate in 1959 as a rank-and-file establishment Democrat. In 1964, he was on Lyndon B. Johnson's shortlist for Vice Presidential nominees. However, McCarthy broke with the Democratic establishment over the volatile issue of Vietnam and challenged Johnson in his re-election bid in 1968, declaring: "No nation had a right to destroy a nation." McCarthy mustered an astounding 41.9% of the vote in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary, helping to force Johnson from the race. McCarthy eventually lost the nomination at the Convention to Vice President Hubert Humphrey. McCarthy continued on the rogue trajectory, eventually waging a quixotic Independent Presidential campaign in 1976, advocating nuclear disarmament and a shortened workweek.
Ramsey Clark took a much more radical departure from the Democratic establishment. Clark was the son of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark (1949-1967.) Clark followed in his father's footsteps, earning a law degree from the prestigious University of Chicago and becoming a partner in an esteemed law firm. He became U.S. Attorney General under the Johnson administration in 1967 at a time when the administration was combating domestic unrest caused chiefly by the Vietnam War.
Once the Johnson administration left office, Clark became a vociferous opponent of U.S. foreign policy. He traveled to North Vietnam in 1972, excoriating the U.S. for its bombing of Hanoi. He later became a vocal critic of the Gulf War and the attendant U.S. Sponsored Sanctions on Iraq, labeling them "the clearest form of genocide." Clark also branded the so-called Global War on Terror "A war on Islam" and provided counsel to dislodged Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at his 2006 execution hearing.
Political candidates revel in styling themselves as the populist insurgent. They try to brand a scarlet "E" for establishment on the forehead of their opponents. While an establishment candidate benefits from institutional support and an existing army of benefactors, they usually downplay this significant asset, trying to present themselves as independent-minded. However, once insurgents are elected, they become the face card of the establishment. As the late humorist Art Buchwald opined: "If you attack the establishment long enough, and hard enough, they will make you a member of it."
A New Bipartisanship
It has become conventional thinking that bipartisanship is moribund in American politics. Recent elections of Tea Party Republicans have cemented this mindset. Ironically, the increasing partisan polarity may actually have the unintended result of effectuating a new bipartisanship. Politics is not a continuum but a circle. We are now witnessing a new era of bipartisanship which pits the center-left and center-right establishment against a coalition of forces on the Progressive left and on the Libertarian right.
Progressives tend to favor government spending on domestic programs rather than on overseas expeditions. While they support government intervention in the economy, they are wary of the U.S. asserting its power internationally. In contrast, Libertarian-Republicans want to curtail government actions both at home and abroad. They fear a leviathan state.
This new political dynamic has been in the works since at least the end of the Cold War. Conservatives viewed the fight against Communism as an existential threat to the Republic. With the dissolution of the Soviet empire, neoconservative Republicans pushed for a continued interventionist role in the world. Neoconservative thinkers William Kristol and Robert A. Kagan called for the U.S. to be a "benevolent hegemony." Other conservatives advised the party to return to the non-interventionist proclivities that dominated the party prior to the Gulf War. During the 1990's, the Clinton administration relied on center-right Republicans to support its interventions in the Balkans, the expansion of NATO, and the bailout of the Mexican economy after the peso crises. Meanwhile, some former Cold War conservatives, like Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, found themselves simpatico with traditional anti-war Liberals like U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in denouncing foreign interventionism.
During the 1990s, the Clinton administration and the Republican Congressional leadership supported the continuation of economic sanctions leveled on Iraq. A bipartisan coalition of Libertarian Republicans and Progressive Democrats opposed the sanctions regime. U.S. Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Tom Campbell (R-CA) authored a bipartisan letter to the Clinton administration which read, in part: "Reports from UNICEF (the United Nation's Children's Fund) and other United Nations agencies operating in Iraq estimate that over one million civilians, mostly children, have died from malnutrition and disease as a result of the embargo ... Morally, it is wrong to hold the Iraqi people responsible for the actions of a brutal and reckless government."
In 2002, George W. Bush won the authorization to use force in Iraq. The leadership of both parties supported this measure. U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton D-NY), Joe Biden, (D-DE) and John Kerry (D-MA) locked arms with John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Bill Frist (R-TN) in approving the authorization. Meanwhile, U.S. House Libertarian-Republicans Ron Paul (R-TX), John Duncan (R-TN), and John Hostettler (R-IN) joined liberal Democrats John Conyers (D-MI), Barbara Lee (R-CA), and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) in voting against the authorization.
In 2008, Mr. Bush signed a $700 Billion bailout of the nation's financial industry. He did this with the support of both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees (Barack Obama and John McCain), as well as the establishments of both political parties. The opposition came from a ragtag coalition of Progressive Democrats and Libertarian Republicans in Congress who called themselves "the skeptics caucus." The progressives lampooned the concentrated power of the big banks, while Libertarian Republicans opposed government intervention in the free market.
The best illustration of this new bipartisanship is the unique alliance between former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). On paper, they are the political odd couple. Paul is a Libertarian-Republican. He advocates abolishing the federal income tax. He earned the moniker "Dr. No" for his consistent opposition to government spending. Sanders is a self-avowed Democratic-Socialist who champions a single-payer health care system. The two developed a close working relationship as they found themselves on the same side of a litany of issues. They both vociferously oppose the War on Drugs, favor defunding the Iraq War, and advocate truncating military expenditures. The center-left and center-right establishment opposed this political odd couple on each of these issues.
President Barack Obama has been a focal point in this new bipartisan alignment. Ironically, on a multiplicity of issues, Mr. Obama and the Republican leadership have been in agreement, while the Libertarian right and the progressive left have joined forces in opposition. Obama campaigned for president in 2008 on the premise that the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball in Afghanistan to execute the war in Iraq. Obama pledged to send three additional brigades into Afghanistan. As president, Mr. Obama ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. This move was met with hackles from traditional anti-war liberals. U.S. Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA), one of the House's most liberal members, warned that the continuation of the war was "bleeding our ability to provide for our own people and construct economic recovery and security at home." One of the body's most conservative members, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), criticized the war from the right, telling Politico, "I am opposed to nation building, and I quite frankly don't see or understand what victory looks like."
Similarly, the Obama administration has escalated the use of predator drones to kill suspected terrorists. Obama garners the support of the leadership of both parties in this endeavor. Yet Progressive Democrats are indignant at the civilian casualties the drone strikes actuate and the enmity they effectuate against the United States in the Muslim World. Libertarian Republicans fear the prospect of future drone attacks against Americans. A "who's who" of the liberal Progressive Caucus signed a letter which exclaimed: "The executive branch's claim of authority to deprive citizens of life, and to do so without explaining the legal bases for doing so, sets a dangerous precedent and is a model of behavior that the United States would not want other nations to emulate." It was U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a tribune for the Libertarian-Republican bloodline, who filibustered the nomination of John O' Brennan for CIA Director, remonstrating the administration's use of drones. Paul feared the possibility that the drones could be used in the U.S. He was joined by two of his most conservative Republican colleagues, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (UT). Paul's actions were chastised by center-right U.S Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who defended Obama. Graham asserted: "People are astonished that President Obama is doing many of the same things that President Bush did. I'm not astonished. I congratulate him for having the good judgment to understand we're at war."
This brings us to Obama and his steadfast defense of the National Security Agency surveillance program. The program, which began under George W. Bush, has the support of much of the leadership within both parties. Again, the Libertarian Republicans and Progressive Democrats have joined forces to oppose the program. Libertarian-Republican Justin Amash (R-MI) and Progressive Democrat John Conyers (D-MI) are leading the opposition to the program and have offered an amendment to greatly retrench the scope of government surveillance activities.
This is the new paradigm in American politics: Libertarian-Republicans and progressive Democrats holding positions against the center-right Republicans and center-left Democrats. Contrary to popular belief, Bipartisanship is not moribund; it is just evincing itself in a new fashion. Ironically, the political circle has now been joined at both ends.
A presidential campaign is a tedious and protracted process where strategies are developed, employed, and usually changed, and where operational tactics are formulated and brainstormed for every possible situation the campaign finds itself in. However, sometimes a president assumes office by mere serendipity. One odd or unusual event can lead to a chain of events, leading to an unexpected presidency.
A good example of this is the 1880 presidential election. One of the Republican candidates vying for the presidential nomination was U.S. Treasury Secretary John Sherman. The nomination at the time was decided at each party's National conventions. U.S. Representative James Garfield (R-OH) was a member of the Ohio delegation to the Republican National Convention. His role was to deliver an address on behalf of the Ohio delegation nominating Sherman, a native son of Ohio. Garfield was not a candidate for president. In fact, he had just been elected by the Ohio State Legislature to the U.S. Senate (At that time, the legislatures, not citizens, elected their U.S. Senators). Earlier that year, Garfield and Sherman had agreed to a deal whereby Garfield would support Sherman's presidential bid if Sherman endorsed Garfield for the U.S. Senate. The Republican Convention was deadlocked between Sherman, former President Ulysses S. Grant, and James G. Blaine. Garfield, unlike the person he was nominating (Sherman was nicknamed the Ohio Icicle), electrified the crowd and a chorus of "We Want Garfield" ensued. Stunned by the chant, Garfield insisted that his name not be placed for nomination. However, by the second day, with no end in sight to the stalemate, Blaine and Sherman both agreed to support the rising star, James Garfield. The nation was astounded by this set of unlikely events as was Garfield himself. Garfield mustered the nomination on the 36th ballot.
Garfield was a supporter of Civil Service Reform. In fact, there was a schism in the GOP over this issue. The leading supporter of the current system was the omnipowerful U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling (R-NY). To unify the party, Garfield offered the Vice Presidency to U.S. Representative Levi Morton (R-NY), who strongly desired becoming president. However, Conkling persuaded Morton, his protégée, that Garfield was destined to lose the election, and that Morton would share the blame for the loss and would never win the Republican presidential nomination. Morton reluctantly heeded that advice and declined the offer. Garfield's second choice was Chester A. Arthur, also a supporter of Conkling. As with Morton, Conkling beseeched Arthur not to accept the nomination. Arthur refused Conkling's request and was nominated as Vice president. The ticket scraped out a victory and Garfield assumed the Presidency. Garfield was subsequently assassinated in just his first year in office. Arthur, not Morton, assumed the Presidency.
Four years later, James G. Blaine, now the GOP presidential nominee, made a strategic blunder by not dissociating himself from a supporter. This faux pas likely cost Blaine the election. A few days before the 1884 presidential election, Republican presidential nominee James G. Blaine made a campaign appearance in New York, where Presbyterian Minister Samuel Burchard, a Blaine supporter, excoriated the Democrats as the Party of "Rum, Romanticism, and Rebellion." Blaine sat silent during this tirade, making no effort to disassociate himself from these volatile remarks. Unfortunately for the unsuspecting Blaine, many Irish voters took umbrage by the use of the word "rum," believing that the Minister was perpetuating a stereotype that Irish-Americans, who were mostly Democrats, were alcoholics. This galvanized the Irish vote against Blaine in the swing state of New York, where Democrat Grover Cleveland eked out a razor-thin victory, defeating Blaine by just 1,047 votes. New York proved to be the state that made the electoral difference in this razor-close presidential election.
Under the category of "be careful what you wish for," comes a story of a political boss who made history by elevating a foe to the nation's highest office. Vice President Garret Hobart had died in office of heart disease, and the Republican Party needed a new vice presidential running mate for President William McKinley in 1900. New York Republican Party boss and U.S. Senator Thomas C. Platt, a rival of New York Governor Theodore Roosevelt, successfully urged the Republican Party to select Roosevelt as the running mate to President William McKinley in 1900. Platt did this to get Roosevelt out of the Governorship because Roosevelt was challenging the Platt political machine in New York. Platt thought with Roosevelt gone that Lieutenant Governor Benjamin Barker Odell Jr. would become the Governor and would be more compliant to Platt's political machine. The thinking was that Roosevelt would be rendered inconsequential in that the Vice Presidency has little power. As circumstances would have it, President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, during the first year of his second term in office, and Roosevelt became president. Upon hearing the news, a shocked Platt exclaimed: "Oh God, now that dammed cowboy is president of the United States." To add insult to injury, Governor Odell, similar to Theodore Roosevelt, became a crusader for reform, shunning the Thomas C. Platt political machine.
The name Irvine Lenroot is not exactly a household word, but had the Republican Party high command and the GOP presidential nominee had their way, he may have become president. U.S. Senator Warren G. Harding garnered the Republican presidential nomination in 1920. Harding came from the conservative bloodline of the GOP. The Republican Party establishment wanted to balance the ticket with Lenroot, a U.S. Representative from Wisconsin and a tribune of the party's liberal bloodline. However, conservative delegates to the Republican National Convention rebelled against the high command and nominated Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge was a rising star in conservative circles for his role in standing up to organized labor during the Boston Police Strike. Ironically, Harding died in 1923, allowing Coolidge to ascend to the Presidency, winning a term in his own right a year later. Irvine Lenroot faded back into obscurity. The capstone of his career was not the Presidency, but a judgeship on the United States Court of Customs and Appeals.
Enveloped in the Watergate scandal, President Richard M. Nixon resigned his office in 1974 and was succeeded by Gerald R. Ford, the only man to succeed to the Presidency without ever being elected vice president or president. But, if Nixon had his way, Ford would not have succeeded him as president. When Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign his office nolo contender (no contest) to charges of failure to report income, President Richard M. Nixon's first choice to succeed Agnew was Treasury Secretary John Connally. However, Democratic Congressional leaders told Nixon that they would not confirm Connally. They viewed Connally as a turncoat for his recent departure from the Democratic Party. Nixon resigned his office just eight months later. Ford, not Connally, assumed the Presidency.
This brings us to the meteoric rise of our current president. In 2004, State Senator Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for an open seat in the U.S. Senate. The party's presidential nominee, John Kerry, was impressed with the coalition of upscale independents and African-Americans that Barack Obama had stitched together to win U.S. Senate nomination. Kerry also like Obama's oratorical prowess and took a gamble when he asked Obama to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Obama delivered an electrifying address and became a national figure overnight. Democratic Party activists immediately floated his name as a future president. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, Obama became a rock star with the party faithful as he campaigned for Congressional Democrats running for re-election in 2006. Obama saw his opportunity and announced his presidential candidacy in 2007. He was elected president in 2008, just four years into his only term in the U.S. Senate.
Becoming president isn't always the result of years of strategic maneuvering and winning over a widespread section of constituencies and benefactors. As odd it may seem, sometimes becoming president can simply be the result of being in the right place at the right time.
If Hillary Were a Republican She Would Have a Better Chance at Winning Her Party's Presidential Nomination
If Hillary Clinton chooses to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, she will be in the catbird seat, at least on paper. Hillary presently holds a commanding lead over all other prospective Democratic presidential candidates. Although it might appear likely that she will be coroneted by the Democratic Party and that her nomination will be a mere proforma exercise, this may be an illusion.
The problem Hillary has is that she is running as a Democrat. Although it is almost standard operating procedure for the Republican Party to nominate the early frontrunner (usually the one who came in second place in the prior nomination sweepstakes), the Democrats are more likely to nominate an insurgent candidate who catches fire in his or her maiden political race.
On the GOP side, George W. Bush is the only president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 to win the nation's highest office in his first attempt. In Bush's case, he garnered high name recognition as the son of a former president. In addition, the preponderance of the GOP establishment supported him.
With few exceptions, the GOP nomination process is remarkable consistent. A candidate runs, finishes in second place, and then musters his party's nomination the next time it is open.
In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford won the Republican presidential nomination. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan came in second. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the nomination with former CIA Director George H.W. Bush finishing in second place. In 1988, George H.W. Bush garnered the party's nomination with U.S. Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-KS) coming in second. In 1996, Robert J. Dole mustered the party's nomination. Breaking the pattern, former Republican presidential advisor Patrick J. Buchanan finished in second place in 1996 and did not win the nomination in 2000.
The nomination instead went to Texas Governor George W. Bush, with U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) coming in second place. The pattern continued in 2000, with John McCain winning the GOP nomination in 2008. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came in second to McCain then won the GOP nomination in 2012.
Unfortunately for Hillary, Democrats do not fall in line in this relatively predictable manner. The early front runner is far from assured of the Democratic Party's nomination, and candidates who finished second in the prior election are not assured of the nomination the next time around.
In 1972, the early frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination was U.S. Senator Edmond Muskie (D-ME). Muskie had afforded himself well in 1968 as the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. Polls as late as August of 1971 showed Muskie defeating Republican President Richard M. Nixon. Yet the campaign of U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) struck a resonant chord with the vociferous activist wing of the Democratic Party. They were adamant in their opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam and McGovern was bold in stating without reservation that as President he would "announce a definite early date for the withdrawal of every American soldier." Muskie had been a supporter of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and his subsequent opposition was too late for these activists. McGovern, an early opponent of the war, ran under the slogan "Right from the start" and secured his party's nomination. Muskie was never again a presidential candidate.
Four years later, the Democratic Party once again turned to an insurgent. The early frontrunner for the 1976 Democratic Party nomination was U.S. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. He had the support of many party regulars and wealthy benefactors. Jackson enjoyed great name recognition among Democratic voters. However, Jackson, a career politician, was running in the wake of Watergate. The Democratic Party wanted a voice from outside the beltway. By running as a Washington outsider, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter was able to capitalize on this discontent with the political establishment. In 1974, Harris Interactive released a poll of potential Democratic Presidential candidates in 1976. Thirty-five potential Democratic candidates were identified in the poll. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter's name did not even show up on the list. Carter went on to win the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination and was elected president.
After the Democratic Party nominated the establishment candidate, former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984, the party twice nominated first-time candidates with little national name recognition: Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and 1992. In fact, Bill Clinton scored just 3 percent in a Gallup poll taken in July of 1991.
Of course no one knows more about the potential for an insurgent to rise from the ashes than Hillary herself. She was the preponderant frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination throughout 2006 and 2007. The Democratic establishment came out in droves to endorse her candidacy. Yet she had one underlying vulnerability, her 2002 vote for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq. While Hillary castigated George W. Bush for his handling of the war and opposed the president's plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq, she never disavowed her 2002 vote. A young charismatic U.S. senator representing Illinois named Barack Obama (D-IL) exploited this vulnerability, appealing to the activist bloodline of the Democratic Party on that issue. Obama was an opponent of the war and excoriated Hillary for giving Bush "the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day." Hillary could not recover from that vote and Obama defeated her for the Democratic nomination.
Ironically, Hillary's main point of vulnerability, should she run in 2016, could be the former U.S. Secretary of State's association with the Obama administration. She is now associated with the policies of the administration. There is a developing fissure in the Democratic Party between the center-left Democratic establishment (who would likely be Hillary's base of support), and the activist wing of the party.
As in 2008, Hillary will likely garner the support of party regulars, yet may have a problem propitiating support from activists who have become disenchanted with the administration for policies supported by Hillary. These include the troop surge and the protracted U.S. presence in Afghanistan, use of drone warfare, debilitating sanctions leveled on Iran, and support for the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.
In addition, many on the left are dismayed at the administration for its pragmatic approach in the legislative arena, including abandoning the public option to get the requisite votes needed to pass Health Care Reform and accepting an extension of the Bush era tax cuts. In addition, the administration continues to support the drug war, widely unpopular with activist Democrats.
Adding to the uncertainty of the prospect Hillary pocketing the nomination is the fact that there could be an opening for a charismatic candidate new to the national political stage. This candidate might advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy, a respect for civil liberties, and a more progressive domestic agenda. Like Obama in 2008, this candidate would style himself or herself as a new voice, with a new progressive agenda which takes into account the contemporary concerns of the activist Democrats. Running against Hillary for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination is not an enviable position, but she is not immutable and has vulnerabilities to be exploited. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, do not simply nominate the candidate whose turn it is. If Hillary decides to run, she will not have a cakewalk. She will have to work assiduously to garner the Democratic nomination.
Democratic and Republican Ideologies Undergo Dramatic Role Reversal
The Democratic and Republican Parties have undergone a long transition from their founding ideological principles. The Democrats started out as the conservative party but are now the liberal party, and the Republicans were once the liberal party but are now the conservative party.
The Democratic Party we know today evolved from the conservative Democratic-Republican Party of the 1790's. The first contested Presidential election was in 1796. The Democratic-Republican Party nominated the conservative Thomas Jefferson as their first presidential nominee. Party members were anti-federalists who favored state sovereignty, free markets, a decentralized federal government, and an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights. The Democratic-Republican Party also supported the institution of slavery.
Democratic President Martin Van Buren presided over the panic of 1837, and during that time he was steadfastly opposed to using the government as a means of employing workers on public works projects. In fact, during this economic depression Van Buren literally sold the federal government's tool supply so that the government could not use the tools for public works projects. This ideological mindset is diametrically opposite of the economic stimulus proposals that contemporary Democrats now support and advocate for, especially during periods of economic morass.
Similarly, the Republican Party has also experienced significant ideological alterations. Founded in 1856, it was the liberal counterweight to the conservative Democratic Party, opposing the expansion of slavery, supporting more money for public education, and advocating a more liberal immigration policy.
The original liberal bent of the Republican Party is especially evidenced by the 1888 Presidential election where Republican Benjamin Harrison was elected President by advocating a liberal platform. He favored expanding the money supply, expanding the protective tariff, and allocating munificent funding for social services. Harrison lost his re-election bid in 1892 to Democrat Grover Cleveland, who advocated a conservative platform, including maintaining the gold standard, reducing the protective tariff, and supporting a lassie faire approach to government intervention in the economy.
Then in 1896 as the country was mired in another depression, there was a move afoot in the Democratic Party to abandon the conservative orthodoxy of Van Buren and Cleveland, and to undertake a radically different ideological approach. To the chagrin of the Democratic high command, the party took a leap of faith when it nominated the 36-year-old firebrand populist William Jennings Bryan. Nicknamed "The Great Commoner," Bryan advocated a liberal platform. He opposed the gold standard, advocated an interventionist role for the government in the economy, and supported an expansion of the money supply. He was the first liberal to win the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. This represented a radical departure from the conservative roots of the Democratic Party.
In response to the nomination of Bryan by the Democrats, the Republican Party countered by straying away from its liberal beginnings and nominating the moderate-conservative Ohio Governor William McKinley, who, like Harrison, was a proponent of a strong protective tariff, but who, unlike Harrison, favored the Gold Standard. This incensed many old-line progressive Republicans. Some even defected to the Democratic Party to support Bryan. McKinley won handily and was re-elected in a rematch with Bryan in 1900.
The paradigm of the Democrats being the center-right party and the Republicans being the center-left party remained for much of the nineteenth century. However, this all changed when the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, ushering in a transitional era where both parties had a significant liberal and a significant conservative bloodline.
Nomination battles within both parties were usually battles between conservative and progressive wings of each party. In 1912, the Progressive former President Theodore Roosevelt challenged the more conservative incumbent President William Howard Taft for the Republican Party nomination. Though Taft won just one primary, Massachusetts, he garnered the Party's nomination by winning enough delegates at the Republican National Convention in Chicago. Roosevelt, who won nine Republican primaries, bolted the party and formed the Progressive Party, a.k.a. the Bull Moose Party, and won 86 electoral votes in the General Election. Taft won just eight Electoral Votes. The Democratic nominee, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson, mustered 435 Electoral votes and won the Presidential Election in a landslide victory.
Similarly, in 1924 there was opposition from the progressive wing of the GOP when conservative Calvin Coolidge pocketed the Republican Presidential nomination. Coolidge, who assumed the Presidency on the death of Warren G. Harding in 1923, was challenged for the Republican nomination by U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson (R-CA). Johnson defeated Coolidge in the South Dakota primary, but failed to garner much electoral traction. With the Democrats also nominating a conservative, John W. Davis, disgruntled Progressives in both major parties deserted their nominees and supported the newly formed Progressive Party, which nominated Republican Robert M. La Follette Sr. for President and Democrat Burton Wheeler for Vice President. The ticket won a formidable 16.6% of the popular vote. Twelve liberal Republican U.S. House members supported the La Follette Candidacy and were expelled from the Republican caucus by conservative U.S. House Speaker Nicholas Longworth (R-OH).
Liberals and conservatives had an uneasy cohabitation in both parties. In the South, opposition to Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society emanated from what came to be known as "the conservative coalition," consisting of conservative (mostly Southern) Democrats and Western Republicans.
In their 1976 bid for their respective party's nomination, Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat George C. Wallace fought for the same conservative voters. After Wallace lost the Democratic Primary in Florida and his chances at securing his party's nomination were dim, the Reagan campaign ran an advertisement urging Wallace supporters to cross over and vote for Reagan in the Republican Primary. A voter appearing in the advertisement intones: "I've been a Democrat my whole life, a conservative Democrat. As much as I hate to admit it, Wallace can't be nominated, Ronald Reagan can."
Since that time, there has been a gradual ideological homogeneity within both parties. Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republican were either defeated for re-election, retired from office, or became Republicans.
Over the last decade we have witnessed the near end of progressive Republicans. This is evidenced by the defeat of U.S. Representatives Connie Morella of Maryland and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and by the egressing from the GOP of former U.S. Senators James Jeffords of Vermont and Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, both liberal Republicans.
The final nail in the coffin for conservative Democrats occurred in 2010 when the three most conservative Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives (Bobby Bright (AL), Walt Minnick (ID), and Gene Taylor (MS)) lost their re-election bids. All three representatives voted against President Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan, the Cap-and-Trade legislation, and the Health Care Reform package.
With the stock of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats nearly depleted, the Republican Party is now the conservative party and the Democratic Party is now the liberal party. This is an ideological reversal. The U.S. now mirrors many parliamentary systems in that the ideological outliers are de-minimis. Outliers who get elected are also usually the most electorally vulnerable in that they invariably represent states and Congressional districts inhospitable to their party's ideology. The Republican Party, once the liberal party is now the conservative Party. The Democratic Party, once the conservative party is now the liberal Party. The ideological role reversal is now complete
Barack Obama: A Socialist He Is Definitely Not
Critics of Barack Obama often label him as a socialist, a term of derision in American politics. Socialism is viewed by many Americans as an extreme brand of liberalism. Accordingly, as a political tactic, Republicans try to tether Democrats to this label, just as Democrats try their best, equally unfairly, to tether Republicans to the most extreme forms of conservatism.
In the case of Barack Obama, not only is he not a socialist, but in many ways he is the antithesis of a socialist. In fact, self-avowed socialists are less than enchanted with Barack Obama and often protest his policies.
Contrary to popular belief, few economic systems are truly capitalist or socialist. Most are mixed economies with elements of both private enterprise and public ownership. Socialism is a system wherein the population of a nation controls the means of production, not private individuals. There are many socialist elements in the U.S. including public beaches, public transportation, and public parks. Concomitantly, there are numerous capitalist elements, as evidenced by the millions of active businesses operating in the U.S.
An example of a leader who came to office and swung the ideological pendulum toward Socialism was French President Francois Mitterrand who assumed office in 1981. He called his domestic legislative program "the rupture with capitalism." The altarpiece of the Mitterrand agenda was the nationalization of 38 French banks.
Barack Obama has done nothing to move the ideological pendulum in the direction of socialism. In fact, he has been a tribune of private industry, often saving private businesses from bankruptcy. By contrast, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, by establishing Social Security in 1933, and Lyndon B. Johnson, by making Medicare the law of the land in 1965, swung the ideological pendulum in the direction of Socialism.
In his first year in office, Barack Obama authorized $80 billion from the Troubled Relief Assets Funds to loan to General Motors and Chrysler to keep them out of bankruptcy. The result is that two Fortune 500 companies benefited directly from Obama's actions. A socialist would have submitted legislation to the U.S. Congress, proposing to nationalize the nation's automobile industry, putting its ownership into public hands.
One could argue that the bailout was "crony capitalism" in that the two automobile companies, endowed with highly compensated lobbyists, received the loan while many other companies went bankrupt. Shoring up private companies is not socialism. In fact, it is the antithesis of socialism.
One year later, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. The act requires every American to have health insurance. This act does not nationalize the healthcare industry, but instead provides government subsidies to private insurance companies. In effect, the nation's health care industry received about 31 million new customers courtesy of Uncle Sam. Furthermore, the legislation does not eliminate the partial anti-trust exemption that the industry benefits from. In effect, it allows healthcare organizations to operate similar to monopolies in the area of consolidation.
A socialist would have introduced legislation to nationalize the American healthcare industry, effectively eliminating the nation's private health insurance market. Americans would lose the option of purchasing health insurance on the private market, and Medicare would be extended to every American. All Americans would have full dental and medical insurance provided to them by the federal government.
Ironically, Obama's plan is very similar to the one offered by Republican President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. Nixon's plan, like Obama's plan, was a comprehensive Health Insurance Reform Program which would mandate that all Americans have health insurance, with the federal government subsidizing those who could not afford it. Nixon said in his 1974 State of the Union Address: "The time is at hand to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American." Ironically again, the Democratically controlled U.S. Congress did not move on Nixon's plan, arguing that it would be a boon to the insurance industry.
If Obama were truly a Socialist, one would think that actual Socialists would be singing his praises. In fact, the opposite is true. Brian Patrick Moore was the presidential nominee of the Socialist Party USA in 2008. He proudly wears the Socialist label and gets offended when he hears Obama being called a socialist. For Moore, Obama is "an insult to socialism." Moore is one of Obama's most vociferous critics. Moore calls Obama "a corporate lackey owned by interest groups" and says that Obama "supports programs that benefit the status quo and protects the powerful capitalist system."
It is quite evident that private corporations have benefited from the Obama presidency. Alternatively, under a socialist system, these corporations would be nationalized. In reality, Obama's policies are the antithesis of socialism. If one is insistent on labeling Barack Obama, perhaps former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) comes the closest in terms of accuracy. He declares that Obama is not a socialist but a "corporatist." Paul maintains that Obama takes "care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country." That may be rhetorical hyperbole, but the larger point is that rather than working to nationalize the American economy, Obama has ministered to the needs of private corporations, providing them with support and capital.
Not only is Barack Obama not a socialist, he is, in many respects, the antithesis of the ideology of socialism.
RINOS AND DINOS: ALTHOUGH FAITHFUL TO THEIR PARTIES’ ORIGINAL POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, THEY GET NO RESPECT
The terms RINO (Republican in Name Only) and DINO (Democrat in Name Only) are used pejoratively by adherents of contemporary partisan orthodoxy to describe ideological outliers. Partisans often question why moderate and liberal Republicans and moderate and conservative Democrats identify with their respective parties. It is quite ironic that these political positions have come to be ideological outliers. Based on the founding of both parties, the original ideological outliers were Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats.
The Democratic Party we know today evolved from the Democratic-Republican Party of the 1790’s. The first contested Presidential election was in 1796. The Democratic-Republican Party nominated the conservative Thomas Jefferson as their first presidential nominee. Party members were anti-federalists who favored state sovereignty, free markets, a decentralized federal government, and an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights. The Democratic-Republican Party also supported the institution of slavery. Although difficult to fathom today, what we now know as the Democratic Party was the nation’s major conservative party throughout the nineteenth century.
Democrat Martin Van Buren presided over the panic of 1837, and during that time he was steadfastly opposed to using the government as a means of employing workers on public works projects. In fact, during this economic depression Van Buren literally sold the federal government’s tool supply so that the government could not use the tools for public works projects. This ideological mindset is diametrically opposite to the economic stimulus that contemporary Democrats now support and advocate for, especially during periods of economic morass.
The Republican Party has also been through significant ideological alterations. The GOP was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery, supported railroad construction, supported more money for public education, a more liberal immigration policy, and agreed with the sale of unoccupied land to Homesteaders. At the time, the Republican Party was seen as the progressive alternative to the conservative Democratic Party of Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. For much of the latter-half of the nineteenth century the GOP continued to be the liberal party.
This is especially evidenced by the 1888 Presidential election where Republican Benjamin Harrison was elected President by advocating a liberal platform. He favored expanding the money supply, expanding the protective tariff, and munificent funding for social services. Harrison lost his re-election bid in 1892 to Democrat Grover Cleveland, who advocated a conservative platform, including maintaining the gold standard, reducing the protective tariff, and supporting a lassie faire approach to government intervention in the economy.
In 1896, the country was mired in another depression, and there was a move afoot in the Democratic Party to abandon conservative orthodoxy of Van Buren and Cleveland, and to undertake a new ideological approach. To the chagrin of the Democratic high-command, the party took a leap of faith when it nominated the 36-year-old firebrand populist William Jennings Bryan. Nicknamed “The Great Commoner,” Bryan advocated a liberal platform. He opposed the gold standard, advocated an interventionist role for the government in the economy, and supported an expansion of the money supply. He was the first liberal to win the Democratic Party Presidential nomination since the party began. This represented a radical departure from the conservative roots of the Democratic Party.
The nomination of the Liberal Bryan inflamed the conservative establishment of the Democratic Party. In fact, Democrat President Cleveland refused to support Bryan, choosing instead to support the quixotic Third Party Candidate, John M. Palmer of the Pro-Gold Standard National Democratic Party.
In response, the Republican Party countered by straying away from its liberal beginnings and nominating the moderate-conservative Ohio Governor William McKinley, who, like Harrison, was a proponent of a strong protective tariff, but who, unlike Harrison, favored the Gold Standard. This incensed many old-line progressive Republicans. Some even defected to the Democratic Party to support Bryan. McKinley won handily and was re-elected in a rematch with Bryan in 1900.
The paradigm of the Democrats being the center-right party and the Republicans being the center-left party remained for much of the nineteenth century. The Bryan nomination ushered in a period of ideological bifurcation within the two major parties, resulting in an era where both parties had a liberal and a conservative bloodline.
Liberals and conservatives had a long cohabitation in both parties. In the South, for much of the twentieth century, the Republican Party was near dormant. Winning the Democratic nomination in the South was tantamount to winning the election. Yet most Democrats who were elected to office in the South were conservatives. Much of the opposition to the New Deal and the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson derived from what came to be known as “the conservative coalition” consisting of conservative (mostly southern) Democrats and Western Republicans.
Two of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate were Democrats James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi. In 1972, Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace, who railed against “pointy headed intellectuals,” welfare, and big Government, won six Democratic Presidential primaries including Florida where he won all 67 of the sunshine state’s counties before being shot at a political rally.
Liberal Republicans were once a respected part of the Republican establishment. For example, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller increased welfare spending and raised taxes to pay for it. He was the party establishment’s favorite for the GOP Presidential nomination in 1964. However, he lost to conservative insurgent Barry Goldwater. As recently as 1976, Ronald Reagan announced that if he garnered the Presidential nomination, he would select U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker (R-PA), a moderate, as his running mate. Schweiker scored a 90% positive rating from Americans For Democratic Action. Reagan lost that race to the moderate Gerald R. Ford. On the state level, Massachusetts elected liberal Republican Governors Christian Herter, John A. Volpe, and Frank Sergeant, and elected liberal Republicans Leveret Saltonstall and Edwin Brook to the U.S. Senate.
Today, there is a perceived ideological homogeneity regarding the two major parties. Democrats must be liberals and Republican must be conservatives. But this is a recent phenomenon. The few remaining Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans are ostracized. And giving the demeaning monikers of “RINO’s” and “DINOs.” This is not based on history but on a contemporaneous view of the two parties. The founders of both parties would not recognize the modern incarnations of their two parties. In both cases the opposite ideology now commandeers the political platform of their party. RINO’s and DINO’s have evolved into the ideological outliers, fully supplanting the Conservative Democrats and the Liberal Republicans of the past two centuries.
The Miracle of Political Resurrections
Easter is upon us, a time when Christians celebrate their belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. In the political sphere, there are also resurrections. Politicians sometimes peak early in their career and then fall into the political abyss. Some then miraculously rise again.
In 1824, at age 29, Democrat James K. Polk was elected to the United States House of Representatives. In 1835 he was elected Speaker of the House. In 1839 Polk was elected governor of his native Tennessee. However, with the proliferation of the Whig Party in the state, Polk lost his bid for re-election in 1841. In 1843 Polk sought the governorship once again but lost. Having been summarily rejected twice by voters in his own state, it appeared that Polk was a middle-aged politician with a great career behind him.
Undeterred by these past defeats, Polk attended the Democratic National Convention in 1844 hoping that his party would remember his many contributions as Speaker of the House and award him with the vice presidential nomination. As luck would have it, the Convention became deadlocked, and on the eighth ballot the Convention chose Polk as a compromise candidate. Miraculously, Polk went on to win the general election. Oddly, the man who could not maintain the governorship of his home state of Tennessee rose from defeat to win the presidency.
Richard M. Nixon was once a rising star in California politics. In 1946, the 33-year-old former Navy Lieutenant Commander defeated a 10-year House incumbent Jerry Voorhees. As a freshman House member, Nixon rose to national prominence for his role as a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee as the committee investigated whether Alger Hiss, a State Department official, was a Communist. In 1948, Nixon won both the Democratic and Republican Parties' nomination for re-election. Ironically, he was running against himself.
In 1950, Nixon was elected to the U.S. Senate, and just two years later he was elected vice president. Nixon served eight years as vice president. In 1960, Nixon won the Republican Party nomination, but failed to secure the presidency in a close election that some still believe he won. Two years later, Nixon made the politically dicey decision to run for governor of California against the popular incumbent Pat Brown. Nixon lost the race by over 300,000 votes. This loss caused many political observers to conclude that Nixon's political carrier was behind him. The defeated Nixon told the members of the press: "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."
However, reports of Nixon's political demise were premature. Nixon spent much of 1964 and 1966 barnstorming the nation, collecting chits by campaigning for Republican candidates. By 1968, Nixon had re-secured his political standing and won the GOP nomination. Nixon went on to win the presidency, capping an implausible political comeback that many characterized as nothing short of a miraculous political resurrection.
In 1974, a young state legislator named Michael Dukakis defeated Republican Governor Frank Sargent of Massachusetts. Dukakis ran a brilliant campaign by running to the right of liberal Republican Sargent.
However, Governor Dukakis tried to balance the state's budget through "root-canal" economics. He cut social services, alienating his party's liberal base. He then broke his promise not to raise taxes, disenchanting moderates who had voted for him thinking he was more conservative than the Republican Frank Sargent. These actions led to Dukakis losing his own party's nomination for re-election. Massachusetts Democrats selected conservative Democrat Ed King as their nominee instead of Dukakis.
Dukakis did not go quietly into the night. While in exile, he taught at the Kennedy School of Government. Dukakis came back to defeat King in 1982 by exploiting King's conservative record by highlighting the praise King had received from the Reagan administration. Dukakis then went on to defeat a formidable Republican opponent (former Boston City Councilor John W. Sears) in the General Election. Dukakis was re-elected in 1986 with 69 percent of the vote, and quite miraculously just two years later rose to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
In 1978, a 32-year-old political dynamo named Bill Clinton was elected Governor of Arkansas. Clinton was a political wonderkid, a superlative retail politician with seemingly boundless oratorical prowess. However, Governor Clinton lost political support when he signed into law an unpopular increase in license plate fees. In addition, President Jimmy Carter, a close ally of Clinton, had federalized Fort Chaffee in Arkansas, sending Cuban refugees there for processing. As a result, the "boy governor" became the youngest "ex-governor" in American history.
Like Dukakis, Clinton did not exit the political stage. Instead, he learned from his defeat and rose again. Clinton barnstormed the state, asking voters why they rejected him. Clinton won his old job back by taking the unusual step of appearing in a television advertisement in which he apologized for raising the license plate fees. He said: "You can't learn without listening." Miraculously, the voters accepted Clinton's apology, and he went on to be re-elected governor three more times, and was elected president in 1992.
This brings us to the current president. Barack Obama was elected to the State Senate in 1996. Obama then managed to forge a close relationship with the powerful State Senator Emil Jones Jr. His political star was now on the rise. He became a prominent voice on issues involving campaign finance reform, social justice, and welfare reform. In 2000, Obama gambled his political fortune by challenging U.S. Representative Bobby Rush in his bid for re-election. However, Obama's message of bipartisanship and unity did not resonate in the heavily Democratic South Chicago-based Congressional district. Rush succeeded in casting Obama as a resident of the elite Hyde Park section of the district, and as such, out of touch with the needs of the district. Rush mocked Obama's "Eastern elite degrees." The result was an electoral shellacking. Rush trounced Obama by 31 percentage points.
Obama remained in the State Senate, until 2004. His political resurrection began in 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate and won. Somewhat miraculously Obama then won the Democratic nomination for president and subsequently won the presidency, completing a phenomenal political resurrection.
In the world of politics, resurrections and miracles apparently never cease.
The Counterproductive Effect of Leveling Sanctions on Iran
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama boasted that the U.S.-sponsored economic sanctions against Iran were "crippling the economy." He also stated, "their economy is in shambles." Ironically, Mitt Romney shares this view about the efficacy of sanctions. This is why the subject of sanctions was a virtual non-issue during the recent presidential campaign.
There appears to be an inherent bipartisan belief in the U.S. that sanctions should be employed to destabilize the Iranian regime, forcing the Iranians to acquiesce to the demands of the U.S and its allies, and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its investigation of its alleged nuclear program. There is a corresponding bipartisan belief on the part of U.S. government officials that Iranian citizens will become so inflamed by the effects of the sanctions that they will rise up and topple their government.
The regime in power rarely feels the effects of sanctions. Instead, it is the average citizen who bears the burden of sanctions. Ironically, the Iranian regime uses the sanctions as a scapegoat, blaming the United States Government for their country's economic woes.
U.S.-supported sanctions are a major factor contributing to the hyperinflation plaguing Iran. In fact, the Iranian currency, called the rial, is becoming increasingly worthless. It has dropped 80 percent in just the past year. This is not an abstraction. It has real-world implications for the Iranian people.
This debasing of their currency is making it hard for Iranians to procure medicine from overseas. The Associated Press recently reported that the price of an imported wheelchair has increased ten-fold in just a one year period. The price for a cancer patient to receive chemotherapy has nearly tripled, and filters for kidney dialysis are up by 325 percent.
The failure of economic sanctions is clearly illustrated by the tragic failure of the U.S.-sponsored sanctions leveled on Iraq between the Gulf War of 1991 and the Iraq War of 2003. The intent of the sanctions was to enfeeble the regime and its leader, President Saddam Hussein. However, throughout the 12-year period when sanctions were in effect, Hussein enjoyed life to the fullest in his extravagant palaces and aboard his 269-foot yacht. Sadly, the only major ill effect caused by the sanctions was a precipitous drop in the standard of living for the Iraqi people.
The U.S.-sponsored sanctions dramatically debilitated Iraq's economy. UNICEF, for example, contends that the sanctions led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis, including more than a half million children due to malnutrition, lack of medical supplies and diseases caused by the lack of clean water. In 1998, Denis Halliday, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, resigned in protest, complaining: "I don't want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide." Former House Democratic Minority Whip David Bonior (D-MI) called the sanctions on Iraq: "infanticide masquerading as policy."
Osama bin Laden opportunistically used the suffering of the Iraqi people in his FATWA to justify the indiscriminate killing of Americans: "What is the evidence against the people of Iraq to warrant their blockade and being killed in a way that is unprecedented in history?"
Both Hussein and bin Laden used the effects of the sanctions to advance their own political agendas. Hussein used them as a foil to stay in power, blaming the sanctions for the country's economic predicament. Bin Laden used the sanctions as a recruiting magnet for al Qaeda.
We face the same risk today in Iran as we faced in Iraq. The Iranian regime has a convenient scapegoat. They can point to the effects of the sanctions as the reason for their nation's economic morass. The sanctions also play into the master narrative of al Qaeda and their coefficients that the U.S. is at war with Muslims.
In spite of the sanctions, the Iranian people are not intrinsically hostile toward the American people, but to the foreign policy of the U.S. government. In fact, after the September 11th hijackings, many Iranians participated in vigils in support of the victims.
U.S. intervention in Iran's affairs reached their high-watermark in 1953 when the U.S. and Great Brittan sponsored a coup d'état to oust Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq because he nationalized the oil fields. The coup restored Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the "Shah of Iran," to supremacy. Unfortunately, under the Shah's iron-fisted rule, secret police tortured and killed political opponents, causing many Iranians to become hostile toward their own government.
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan administration delisted Saddam Hussein as a state sponsor of terror so that the U.S. could send military and economic aid to Iraq. In taking this position, the U.S. turned a blind eye toward the chemical weapons Iraq was using against the Iranians.
Amazingly, the Iranian people do not hold a collective grudge against the American people for its government's support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Why, then, alienate the Iranian citizenry by inflating their economy and making it difficult for the Iranian people to subsist?
The direct effect of sanctions on populations often flies under the radar screen, perhaps because it is less graphic than the immediate deaths caused by war. The result, however, is the same. This is why President Woodrow Wilson branded sanctions: "The Silent, Deadly remedy."
By using economic sanctions to attempt to deter Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, the U.S. might actually be playing into the hands of both Iran and al Qaeda. By exacting collective punishment on the people of Iran, we fortify the argument made by the demagogues in the Islamic World that the U.S. is at war with Islam.
The Odd Position of Vice President
President Barack Obama was recently elected to a second term, joining the elite club of two-term Presidents, which includes the likes of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. In sharp contrast to this, Joe Biden joined a club of two-term Vice Presidents that weren’t quite as prestigious. This club includes the likes of Daniel Tomkins, Thomas Riley Marshall, John Nance Gardner, and Spiro Agnew.
The Vice Presidency is a very peculiar office. John Adams, the nation’s first Vice President, called the office “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived of his imagination conceived.” The only official duties of the Vice President is to assume the Office of the President in the event the President becomes incapacitated or dies, and to serve as President of the U.S. Senate. In that capacity, the Vice President can preside over the U.S. Senate. However, the Vice President rarely presides over the Senate, delegating that duty to the Senate President Pro Tempore. He does however attend sessions wherein his vote would break a tie.
Over the past two centuries, the nation has had some very colorful Vice Presidents. One such Vice President was Daniel D. Tomkins (1817-1825). Tomkins suffered from alcoholism which was thought to be the result of a decade-long struggle to get the U.S. Congress to reimburse him for money he used from his personal account to fund his state’s militia. At the time that Tompkins made the loan, he was Governor of New York. Tompkins would often preside drunk over the U.S. Senate. Then there was Richard M. Johnson (1837-1841). Faced with financial turmoil, Johnson took a leave of absence from the Vice Presidency to open a tavern and spa.
In 2008 Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate to appeal to middle-class and blue-collar voters. Biden is the product of a middle-class upbringing and his orations often strike a resonant chord with middle and working class voters. Biden was also selected for his foreign policy prowess, having chaired the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
As Vice President, Biden has been a loyal foot-soldier for Obama. He has been an ideological compatriot, fully supporting the administration’s agenda.
While it is considered commonplace today for the President and Vice President to have a harmonious relationship, and see eye-to-eye on most major issues, this was not always the case. Charles Fairbanks for example was nominated as Vice President in 1904 to complement Theodore Roosevelt. Fairbanks was an old guard conservative while Roosevelt hailed from the progressive bloodline of the Republican Party. Fairbanks opposed much of Roosevelt’s domestic agenda, which was known as “The Square Deal.” When Fairbanks sought the Republican Presidential nomination to succeed Roosevelt in 1908, Roosevelt gave his coveted endorsement to his Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, who eventual won the Republican nomination.
President Calvin Coolidge and Vice President Charles G. Dawes also had an antagonistic relationship. It began in 1925 when both Coolidge and Dawes were inaugurated. At that time in history both the President and Vice President gave Inauguration Addresses on the same day. Dawes’ Inauguration Address took the form of a fiery and controversial lecture about the fecklessness of the U.S. Senate rules. The press gave Dawes’ Inaugural diatribe almost as much coverage as Coolidge’s Inaugural Address. Dawes added to the tension by sending the President a letter stating that he would not be attending Cabinet meetings.
Vice President John Nance Gardner (1933-1941), who served with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a business-oriented Democrat from rural Texas. Gardner came to think that Roosevelt had veered too far to the left ideologically. He even called his domestic programs “foolishness.” Vice President Gardner sought the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1940, only to be resoundingly defeated by Roosevelt, and in turn, Roosevelt selected a new Vice Presidential running mate, U.S. Agricultural Secretary Henry A. Wallace.
Newly re-elected Vice President Joe Biden has hinted that he is likely to seek the Democratic Party nomination for the Presidency in 2016. However, unlike recent Vice Presidents George H.W. Bush and Al Gore, Biden is not the favorite of rank-and-file Democrats, nor is he the favorite of the party’s high command to succeed Obama. While it is true that most Democrats view Biden favorably, polls show U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be the overwhelming frontrunner, despite the fact that Biden has formidable favorability numbers (over 70%).
It is of particular interest to note that there is a striking similitude between Joe Biden and Alben Barkley, the Vice President under Harry S. Truman. Like Biden, Barkley was a long-time U.S. Senator and loyal polemicist for the Democratic Party’s ideology. Barkley, like Biden, came from a humble background, and Like Biden, was known for his oratorical prowess. Barkley had represented Kentucky in the U.S. Senate for 22 years, rising to the position of Senate Majority Leader. Like Biden, Democrats viewed Barkley favorably. In fact, he delivered the keynote address at the Party’s national convention on three separate occasions. In 1952, at age 75, Barkley sought his Party’s nomination to succeed President Truman, but was unable to translate his loyal service to the Democratic Party into frontrunner status. Barkley ran a redoubtable campaign, securing endorsements from prominent members of the Democratic establishment, but suffered an immutable blow when prominent labor leaders claimed that he was too old to be President. Barkley was not able to salvage his candidacy and came in fourth place at the Democratic Convention.
Biden will likely barnstorm the nation campaigning for Democratic candidates in the 2014 mid-term elections, collecting chits and showing the Democratic Party that he has the vigor and stamina to be their nominee. He will not be alone, as a cavalcade of prospective Democratic Presidential candidates will likely join him on the hustings.
VOTING: In a Time When Politicians are Held in Such Low Esteem, A Case can Still be Made for Voting
Robo calls, negative attack advertisements, and political propaganda are enough to make us all sick of the election process. Many Americans have come to the conclusion that all candidates for public office are crooks, liars, and opportunists. As the old saying goes: “Why vote, it only encourages them.” Yet the best way to express your frustration with the process is to actually participate in the process and vote.
Unfortunately, at the Presidential level, at least 35 states are not “battleground states”, meaning that, barring a cataclysm, we can predict with near certainty who will win these states’ electoral votes. Voters in Idaho, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for example may interpret this to mean their vote does not matter. However, this is a false supposition. Your vote can matter in two ways. First, while the popular vote is irrelevant to the actual winner of the Presidential election (the winner of the electoral vote is declared the President), it can determine how much of a mandate the winner has. That mandate can determine the extent to which the U.S. Congress will be pressured into passing the President’s agenda. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson, on the heals of a 60.6% electoral landslide, was able to get Congress to pass 84 of his 87 proposals into law, including the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and a significant reform of the immigration system.
Many Americans have become disaffected with both major party candidates and decry having to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” There are actually other choices that should be considered. The high commands of the two major political parties use the hypnotic technique of repeating the line that “a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote.” In reality however, a vote for a third party candidate sends a message. It highlights a discontent with the choices of the two major parties, and if enough disaffected voters shed this Wasted Vote Mentality, there could be a potential electoral revolution. We saw this in Minnesota in 1998 when Jesse “The Body” Ventura shocked the system by defeating the two major party candidates to be elected Governor of Minnesota.
Besides the Presidential race, there are “down ballot” races, which also have real consequence. Your vote for congressional candidates will determine if the new President will assume office with a friendly legislative majority, or if the nation will have a divided government.
State legislative races may seem trivial, but they too can have a huge impact on the future of your state. For example, at the end of 2010, Louisiana State Representative-elect Noble Ellington announced that he was leaving the Democratic Party to become a Republican. His defection handed the Louisiana House of Representatives to the Republican Party for the first time since Reconstruction, making it easier for the state’s Republican Governor, Bobby Jindal, to enact his legislative agenda.
With politicians registering astronomically low job approval ratings, we must remind ourselves that we are the ones who put them into office, and we can in fact vote them out. Elected officials are just that: WE elect them. They are not inserted into our political system by extraterrestrials, nor do they take power by coup d’état. Rather, they are a reflection of the citizenry. The only way to supplant a politician we do not like is to vote them out of office. As former U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster prudently asserted: the American Government is “ . . . the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.”
Unlike many other countries, if we do not like the trajectory our government is taking, WE have the power to change it, all by the simple process of voting.
Libertarian Presidential Nominee Gary Johnson is Trapped in the Wasted Vote Conundrum
In past years, the Libertarian Party has nominated Presidential candidates with little political experience. This year the situation is different. The Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson, is a former businessman who turned a one-man handyman operation into a business with over 1,000 employees. A Republican, Johnson served two terms as Governor of New Mexico, a state where Democrats hold a considerable plurality in voter registration. He left state with a $1 Billion surplus. He even climbed Mount Everest.
Johnson’s credentials would be formidable had he been the nominee of a major party. Yet, his campaign is rarely taken seriously. When he is able to secure media interviews, the first question is often not about his policy prescriptions, but who he thinks he will take away votes from.
This is a shame. Johnson, with his formable resume, offers an alternative vision to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. He is the only candidate who advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy. He favors a 43% truncation of the military budget. Johnson favors an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, and is the only candidate who opposes the war and drugs, and pledges to balance the federal budget his first year in office.
Johnson’s problem is that Americans are increasingly told that he can’t win and that a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote. To maintain hegemony, the bipartisan political industrial complex will keep repeating the fiction that a third party candidate cannot win. By employing the “Wasted Vote Syndrome” strategy, the two major parties are telling voters to eschew their conscience and vote for the candidate they find least objectionable. They are, in effect, telling voters that they should look at the roster of candidates and immediately eliminate the one who they tell us cannot win. Johnson has earned ballot status in all fifty states. Accordingly, just like Obama and Romney, if Johnson garners enough votes, he can win.
At a time when many Americans are disillusioned with the current crop of Presidential candidates, and disenchanted with the entire political system, there is another voice with an alternative vision. Johnson represents that alternative. However, Johnson has a daunting task of making the case that voters should mark their ballot for him despite the long odds that he will be competitive in the election. Unfortunately, Johnson is trapped in the “wasted vote conundrum.”
Challenging the Myth that Only Big Cities will Benefit from the National Popular Vote Initiative
Opponents of the National Popular Vote Initiative (NPVI) (a interstate compact, where states agree to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote) fear that it will result in Presidential candidates allocating their time and resources to densely populated urban areas, while ignoring voters across the rest of the nation. This fear is unfounded. The nation’s large urban areas comprise only a smidgen of the total electorate. In fact, the nation’s top 25 cities comprise only 12% of the electorate. The nation’s five largest populated cities constitute just 6% of the electorate. Accordingly, to win the national popular vote, a candidate must appeal to the large majority of Americans who do not live in these urban centers.
We see the ineffectiveness of this argument at the state level. In 2010, Texas Governor Rick Perry was re-elected by 13 percentage points, despite being overwhelmingly defeated in the state’s two largest cities, Houston and Dallas. In fact, these two cities are two of the highest populated U.S. cities. George Pataki served three terms as Governor of New York, despite being wiped out in the nation’s largest city, New York. Finally, California has elected four Governors in the last 46y ears who did not come close to carrying the state’s largest city, Los Angeles.
In state elections, smaller populated areas of the state are not ignored. For example, on the last day of campaigning in the hotly contested 2010 Massachusetts Governors race, incumbent Deval Patrick and his Republican challenger Charlie Baker barnstormed both urban and rural areas. Patrick appeared in Boston and Marlborough, a city with a population of under 40,000. Baker made stops in the state’s largest urban centers, Boston and Worcester, as well as Wakefield, and his hometown of Swampscott, both with a population of less than 25,000. Clearly their campaign consultants have done the electoral calculations and realized that elections are not settled in urban areas alone.
In each of the aforementioned elections, candidates cultivated support across their state’s geopolitical landscape. Small towns, rural areas, and exurban enclaves all received electoral attention. There is a cap on votes a candidate can muster from urban areas. To be victorious, he/she must appeal to voters throughout the state. Under a national popular vote, we would see the same scenario. It would be politically foolhardy, if not politically suicidal for any candidate to focus solely on urban areas.
Does Your Vote Count? Maybe Not!
Under the current winner-take-all electoral scheme, millions of votes across the nation are not being counted in the official national tally. In the 2008 Presidential election, Republican nominee John McCain received more than five million votes in the state of California. Despite this achievement, all 55 electors in California cast their vote for Democrat Barack Obama. This inequity occurred solely because California uses the winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, meaning that despite how close the popular vote may be, the winning candidate takes home “all” the electoral votes of that particular state. Similarly, more than 3.5 million Texans marked ballots for Barack Obama, yet because John McCain won the state, those 3.5 million votes were disregarded. Again, because Texas also uses the winner-take-all system of electoral voting, the winning candidate, John McCain, was able to take home “all” of Texas’ 33 electoral votes. This all-to-common outcome disenfranchises voters from “safe states” (non-battlefield states) and discourages them from going to the polls. They know that their votes are not likely to even be figured in the final national tally.
In addition, non-major party candidates who appeal mainly to just one region of the country can take full advantage of the winner-take-all system. Their vote totals are magnified in the Electoral College. In 1948, Strom Thurmond, the nominee of the States Rights Democratic Party, captured just 2.4% of the national vote, yet he received 39 electoral votes from four southern states. This scenario repeated itself in 1968 when American Independence Party nominee George Wallace, who won just 13.5% of the national vote, won 46 electoral votes because he managed to win five southern states.
Alternatively, those who vote for centrist Independent candidates who appeal to a more widespread cross-section of constituencies and garner votes from all regions of the nation, have seen their votes completely nullified by the Electoral College. In 1980, Independent Presidential candidate John B. Anderson garnered 6.6% of the national vote, yet the over 5.7 million people who voted for him were not counted in the final tally because he failed to win a single state.
This scenario was experienced on a larger scale in 1992, when Independent Presidential candidate H. Ross Perot mustered a very respectable 18.9% of the vote. Despite the fact that nearly one in five American voters cast their vote for Perot, Perot received “0” votes in the Electoral College. In this situation, the votes of nearly twenty million Americans were totally disregarded at the conclusion of the electoral process.
Under the National Popular Vote Initiative, the vote of the diary farmer from Cambridge, Wisconsin would be equal to the vote of the College Professor from Cambridge, Massachusetts. The vote of the steel worker from East Chicago, Indiana would be no more important than the vote of the locomotive engineer from Chicago, Illinois. The vote of the Fire Fighter from Columbus, Mississippi would be commensurate with the vote of the Systems Analyst from Columbus, Ohio. Strom Thurmond in 1948, 2.4%
Mitt Romney: The Republican’s Jimmy Carter
The conservative base is panicking at the prospect that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney might garner the GOP Presidential nomination. They view Romney’s conversion to conservatism as insincere. In the past, Romney questioned the Republican Contract With America, supported Abortion rights, said he would be better on Gay rights than Ted Kennedy, supported a regional initiative to mitigate greenhouse gases, supported gun control, and signed a law mandating Massachusetts residents to have health insurance.
There is a similitude with Democratic Jimmy Carter in 1976. Like Romney, Carter was a former Governor of a state (Georgia) less ideologically kindred with the National Party. Like Romney, Carter used much of his second two years in office barnstorming the nation campaigning for Democrats, and building a national profile.
As Carter scored victories in the primaries, liberal U.S. Senator Frank Church (D-ID) and newly elected California Governor Jerry Brown threw their hats into the ring. Both won five states, but their late entries were not able to stop the Carter juggernaut.
Carter opposed federal funding for abortion. He favored fiscal austerity over Great Society liberalism. In 1972, Carter backed Vietnam War supporter U.S. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson over liberal stalwart and eventual Democratic nominee U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD).
Carter went on the muster the Democratic nomination, and win the Presidency. However, liberals were lukewarm toward Carter throughout his presidency and many supported his primary opponents, U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Jerry Brown, when Carter sought re-election in 1980.
The liberals and Carter never reconciled. The question now is: Will Romney ever establish a rapprochement with the conservatives?
What Rick Santorum Fails to See (or Acknowledge) in Ron Paul’s Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy
I have heard some news commentators suggest that U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) justified the 9/11 hijacking in the September 12 CNN/Tea Party Debate. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) demagogued the issue by arguing that Paul is “parroting on his campaign website what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11.” With nothing to substantiate his allegation, Santorum suggested that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 because: “We have a civilization that is antithetical to the Jihadists.”
To suggest that Paul is a tribune for Osama bin Laden and his coefficients is absurd at best, and malicious at worst. Paul suggests nothing that justifies the attacks. The article Santorum sights explicitly says: “This action demanded retribution and retaliation.”
Paul has been impavid in pointing out that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 because of its interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, some jump to the fallacy that this is tantamount to justifying the attacks. Paul is simply pointing to facts. Osama bin Laden used U.S. foreign policy as a recruiting magnet for al-quada and as casus belli for ordering the attacks.
The blowback U.S. foreign policy can cause is not a novel concept. In 1953, the U.S. and the British sponsored a coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq after he nationalized oil fields. The coup restored Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the "Shah of Iran," to supremacy. Under the Shah’s iron-fisted rule, secret police tortured and killed political opponents. Fed-up with his oppressive rule, the supporters of fundamentalist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power in 1979. Still inflamed at the U.S. for its role in the coup, Iranian students took 52 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days. Khomeini’s successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues to excoriate the U.S. for its role in the coup, and the country celebrates "Death To America Day" on February 6 to mark the day the U.S. embassy was seized.
Michael Scheuer, the chief of the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996-1999, maintains that: “bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.”
In justifying the attacks, bin Laden bemoaned the presence of the U.S. troops on Saudi Arabian soil during and after the Gulf War. To bin Laden and many Muslims, the presence of secular troops defiled Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. Profit Muhammad warned, “Two Religions may not dwell together in Arabia.” During the Gulf War, 550,000 mostly Christian U.S. Troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, which is home to the Two Muslim Holy places, Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War, 5,000 U.S. troops remained garrisoned in the nation enforcing a no-fly zone and defending the Saudi Kingdom.
Furthermore, bin Laden exploited the enmity that many Muslims felt toward the debilitating effects of U.N. sanctions on Iraq's economy. Former U.S. House Minority Whip David Bonier (D-MI) branded these U.N. sanctions "infanticide masquerading as policy.” UNICEF contends that the sanctions led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis, including over half a million children due to malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases caused by a lack of clean water and chlorine. Dennis Halliday, the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, resigned in protest, saying: “I don’t want to administer a program that satisfies the definition of genocide.”
Moreover, bin Laden cites U.S. financial support for the Israeli government ($3 Billion annually) even though the Israelis to occupy West Bank and Gaza Strip, violating UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465 which call for Israel to withdraw from settlements on occupied Arab lands.
Finally, bin Laden manipulated animosity that many Arabs feel toward U.S. support of what they view as apostate and despotic regimes in the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.
Paul did not invent these grievances. He is simply repeating statements bin-Laden used to recruit new members and to galvanize existing ones. By no means is he saying the attacks were justified. He is saying that we must be honest with ourselves in recognizing the deleterious effects of an activist-interventionist foreign policy. Bin Laden promulgates in his fatwa (Declaration of War) "For God's sake, what are the documents that incriminate the Palestinian people that warrant massacres against them, which have been going on for more than five decades at the hands of the Crusaders and the Jews. What is the evidence against the people of Iraq to warrant their blockade and being killed in a way that is unprecedented in history?" This is bin Laden's propaganda.
Again, Ron Paul is in no manner justifying the 9/11 hijackings. He is merely explaining the motivations behind the attacks. There is a direct causal relationship between the U.S. intervening abroad and the resulting blowback. The U.S. sponsored 1953 Iranian coup d’etat epitomizes this causal relationship.
Jon Huntsman Jr
Jon Huntsman Jr: I wonder if Jon Huntsman Jr. has a “Plan B” should he fail to accomplish the political miracle of garnering the GOP Presidential nomination. Might he run for President as an Independent? His message of unity and competence, coupled with his experience in both Democratic and Republican Presidential administrations, is not exactly hospitable to a GOP primary audience, unless of course he relies almost exclusively on moderate Republicans, crossover voters, and Independents. Is Huntsman using this Republican Presidential Primary to garner name recognition to help him re-formulate himself for a run as an Independent Candidate, and then argue that his defeat was at the hands of right-wing extremists? John Anderson took this road in the 1980 Presidential Election.
The Left’s Misconception of Obama
Some on the left have become disenchanted with President Barack Obama for his interventionist foreign policy, and willingness to use military force. I can understand their anger, but not their surprise. Many on the anti-war left, who supported his 2008 Presidential campaign erroneously believed he shared their aversion to military action abroad. They saw him through a jade prism, and did little research as to his past record and his campaign rhetoric. As a Presidential aspirant, Mr. Obama ran for President to the right of George W. Bush on Afghanistan. In fact, he pledged to send three more brigades into the country. In addition, Obama pledged to expand the size of the military, at a time when even some conservatives were calling for truncating military expenditures. The only hint Obama gave of being a dove was a speech in 2002, when then State Senator Obama said he did “not oppose all wars, only dumb wars,” referring to the Iraq War. This was far from a quasi-pacifist position. It was probably more conservative than his predominately Democratic State Senate District in the South Side of Chicago.
While Obama opposed our entry into Iraq, as a U.S. Senator, he voted to fund it. In addition, he was a steadfast advocate of NATO expansion, meaning that if a NATO counterpart like Poland, Iceland, or The Czech Republic were invaded by a non-NATO member, then he would use U.S. military might to defend them.
Obama did not run as a dove, but the intellectual wing of the Democratic Party came to a mendacious conclusion that he was an electable Dennis Kucinich. Obama was translucent on this; his supporters effectuated a romantic mental picture in their minds of a different person than the one they were supporting.
Mitt Romney’s Health Care Conundrum
Today, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney defended the Health Insurance Reform legislation he signed in 2006 as Governor of Massachusetts. The legislation has been derisively labelled as “Romneycare" by many conservatives. The statute requires residents to have health insurance, and if they don't purchase it, they are subject to a fine. Interestingly, in 2008, this was a virtual non-issue, perhaps because Barack Obama had yet to sign the national legislation which included individual mandates. The idea of individual mandates was originally a Republican idea proposed by Richard M. Nixon in his 1974 State of the Union Address, and later proposed by U.S. Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-KS). Conservatives argued that forcing citizens to purchase Health Insurance promoted personal responsibility.
Interestingly, when Nixon proposed a federal mandate, liberal Democrats, including U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), opposed it, arguing that the proposal was a boon to the insurance companies. Kennedy argued for a Medicare-for-all, Canadian-style, single-payer type system. The ideological debate transmogrified when the Conservative movement became more Libertarian-oriented, allowing Americans to chose weather to purchase Heath Insurance. Now support for an individual mandate is considered the center-left position. One can only speculate whether Romney, at the time laying the political spadework for a Presidential campaign, would have signed the legislation if he had known that Republican orthodoxy would materially change on this issue.
Is There Categorical Proof of My Existence?
Here is a question I have been pondering a lot lately. Is there any way to prove that the world beyond me does indeed exist? Let me first preface this by saying that I am taking it on faith that there are indeed people reading this. They are not just figments of my imagination and there is a life beyond me. I am not a solipsist who maintains that they are the only person in existence, and that the world was designed only for that person. Still, I have no way to prove it. I would be curious if anyone has confronted this existential issue. I think that Seventeenth Century French Philosopher Rene Descartes had the best possible argument for his own existence, asserting: "I think therefore I am." But I have never heard a compelling intellectual case that everyone else exists, or that there is a physical world that continues when I walk away. Taking it on faith that there is in fact a physical world, and that the people reading this article are actual beings, I am curious if there is any way to prove that there really is a world beyond me.
RINOS And DINOS: Losing Relevancy
It is time to retire the terms “RINO” and “DINO.” Both have become derogatory abbreviations: RINO meaning Republican-in-Name-Only and “DINO” standing for Democrat-in-Name-Only. The two terms refer to ideological outliers who deviate from their respective party’s contemporary orthodoxy. The founders of both political parties would not recognize the modern incantations. The Democratic Party grew out of the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, which favored a strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, opposed a central banking system, and favored decentralized power. The Democratic Party was the counterpart of the Federalist Party, which favored the more energetic government synomomous today with the Democratic Party.
In contrast, the ideological architects of the GOP never envisioned the Republican Party to be conservative. In fact, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as a liberal alternative to the conservative Democratic Party of Presidents Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan. While most know the GOP was founded in opposition to the expansion to slavery, the Party's platform also included support for railroad construction, Public Education, and a more liberal immigration policy.
For much of the latter-half of the Nineteenth Century, the GOP was viewed as the liberal party. In 1888, Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison won the Presidency by advocating an expanded money supply, a protective tariff, and more funding for social services. This was in sharp contrast to the Conservative Policies of Democratic President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland’s platform would be anathema to today’s conservatives. Even as recently as 1940, the party’s Presidential nominee, Wendell Willkee, said: “The opposition have attempted to picture me as an opponent of liberalism. But I was a liberal before many of them heard the word.”
Perhaps it makes more sense in today’s world to apply the label RINO to conservative Republicans and the label DINO to liberal Democrats.
Would Iraq have been Part of the Democratic Revolution?
I wonder what would have happened in Iraq had the U.S. lifted the economic sanctions instead of invading the country? Would the Iraqis have taken to the streets and revolted like their fellow freedom-seekers in Tunesia and in Egypt, and ousted or forced President Saddam Hussein's despotic regime from power? His government was similar to the two aformentioned, in that it was a secular autocratic regime which oppressed its own people and subjugated the Islamists. Maybe there would have been an internecine revolution instead of what actually happened, which caused 100,000 dead Iraqis, resulted in half a million widows and orphans, 4 million refugees, and 4,400 dead American military personnel and 35,000 Americans wounded.
The Narrowing Political Appeal of Sarah Palin
My overall assessment of Sarah Palin is that she was a reasonably successful Governor of Alaska who challenged the Republican establishment by defeating an incumbent Republican Governor in the 2006 GOP primaries. As Governor, she forged an alliance with reform-minded Democrats and Republicans on ethics reform, and cut capital projects. She was far from the ideologue she became when she entered the national stage. Instead, Palin was an anti-establishmentarian maverick with Transpartisan appeal. She garnered a stratospheric 93% job-approval rating. I have never seen a poll rating for any other politician that high.
John McCain was running for President as a Republican at a time when there was an enormous tailwind against the Republican Party. The Iraq War, which McCain had been an enthusiastic exponent of, was unpopular, and George W. Bush and his sub-30% job approval ratings were an almost insurmountable incubus on John McCain. He needed to do something drastic, so instead of choosing a safe, establishment, predictable pick, like Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, McCain threw a Hail Mary pass and selected Sarah Palin.
However, Palin was well out of her league on the national stage. Rather than projecting the image of a non-ideological pragmatist, she became a doctrinaire conservative, appealing to the conservative base that was lukewarm toward John McCain and his recreance toward contemporary Conservative orthodoxy on a litany of issues from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Campaign Finance Reform to the Bush Tax cuts.
Palin became a doctrinaire conservative and never looked back. Today she speaks only to the conservative base, with little deviation. She challenges the intellectual establishment in a way reminiscent of 1968 Presidential candidate George C. Wallace, mocking “pointy-headed intellectuals who couldn’t park their bicycle straight.”
Today, the right apostatizes her. To her supporters, there is no God but Sarah Palin. She challenges the favorite whipping boy on the right, the “Lame-stream Media” and claims that her ideological brethren represent “The real America.” Her comments accusing the media of “blood libel” will stir up her devoted followers, while further alienating her from the American mainstream.
I fail to envisage a scenario where, if she were to muster the Republican Presidential nomination, Palin would win more than negligible support from voters outside of her conservative comfort zone.
The Left Needs a Reality Check
The liberal intelligencia are voicing disenchantment with Barack Obama. They are arguing that he is betraying progressivism; most recently by his signing a budget with includes an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for upper income earners. Liberals have also voiced disenchantment by the President’s troop surge strategy in Afghanistan, and his signing of Health Insurance Reform Legislation that does not include a public option.
Liberals were deluding themselves if they thought they were electing the incarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt or Lyndon B. Johnson. Since Obama was launched on the national political stage at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, he has branded himself not as a liberal firebrand, but as a moderate conciliator. He was elected not only by consolidating the liberal base, but also by appealing to Independent voters. Obama garnered 52% of the Independent vote in 2008. That was seven points better than John Kerry did in 2004.
To win re-election, Obama will need once again to win a formidable chunk of the Independent vote. He is not likely to face a serious primary challenge, and in the general election, liberals will likely hold their noses and vote for him. However, I cannot see how he can win by being a tribune of only liberal voters.
Obama's Political Pragmatism
The White House is already touting the recently signed budget deal with the Republican Congressional leadership as a political victory. I think this could be to Obama and the Republican establishment what the Balanced Budget deal of 1997 was to Bill Clinton and the Congressional Republicans. Both touted it as a victory and took respective credit for it, while the activist movement wing of their parties excoriated it. For the Democrats, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, at the time a potential candidate for President in 2000, opposed it, while prospective Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes attacked it from the political right as being "pathetic."
Discussing the Issues
To participate in any of the "on-going conversations," just hit the menu tab near the top of the screen labelled "On-Going Conversations" or just hit the following link.
To Post an Article"Political Blogs" Menu Tab near top of screen ), all you have to do is email me the article and I will post it, usually within 24 hours.