In 1999 I made my first – and still only – contribution to a political candidate. I gave fifty bucks to John McCain for his first Presidential run.
McCain’s policies were not in sync with mine – very few voters get to vote for a candidate they agree with on everything – but I was truly seduced by McCain’s honesty, the Straight Talk Express and all that. After eight slippery years with the Clintons, I was kind of desperate for a politician who seemed to have genuine beliefs, and was unafraid to express them even if it hurt him politically. Further, his extraordinary personal story* told me that his integrity was hard-earned.
* Five and a half years in a POW camp. Whenever I see that number – five and a half years is 2000 days– I’m struck by how long a period a time that is, and how much daily personal suffering he endured. And I bitch and moan when my internet connection is slow.
Bill Clinton, I decided, believed in only one thing: Bill Clinton. He was a skilled politician and incredibly smart; and policy-wise I was nearly as comfortable with him as I was with McCain (Northeast Republicans are more like Southern Democrats than Southern Republicans). But I had reached the point where I needed a breather from the Clinton’s Eternal Campaign style of politics. The Clintons, I thought, would do or say just about anything for one more vote. I wanted someone who believed in his positions, not just his electability.
Well, this week’s election marks the 10th anniversary of the period of True Believers. However different George W. Bush and Barack Obama may be, these are two Presidents who believe in their mission.
Bush fervently believed in the global threat of Saddam Hussein and the transformative power of democracy and aligned his Presidency behind that belief, even as the country turned against him. Obama fervently believes in the necessity for national healthcare and the efficacy of stimulus spending and aligned the power of his Presidency behind that belief, even as the country turns against him.
(I could take this analogy a little further. Both were so convinced that invading Iraq/passing healthcare legislation was vital to the national interest that neither was above stretching the truth to ensure it happened. The interesting thing was that the supposedly inarticulate divisive Bush was infinitely more successful at persuading his political opponents and the country at large that invading Iraq was a good idea than the supposedly eloquent and post-partisan Obama has been at selling his policies. Many Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution and large American majorities supported it, while no Republicans supported Obamacare and a majority of Americans opposed it).
The point is, this whole true believer thing isn’t really working out for us. The war in Iraq proved to be more painful and less necessary than promised. The stimulus bill was the government equivalent of throwing a trillion bucks in the fireplace. And national healthcare – we don’t know what it’s going to be exactly, but we’re pretty certain it’s not going to be what the President promised.
The problem with true believers is that they, far more than practical-minded politicians like Bill Clinton, are victims of confirmation bias. To stay with our current President a moment, the American electorate has been telling the Obama Administration for some time - since at least the stunning election of Scott Brown - that they disagree with his policies. But he won’t be persuaded. He persists in believing that we just don’t understand them, that his only failure was explaining the policies well enough to us (which is kind of ironic, given his allegedly great oratorical skills).
Makes me long for the days of cynical politicians who will do anything for a vote. Slick Willie, where are ya?
Concrete Jungle Where Dreams Are Made
We had an interesting Election Day in my home state of New York. Democrats rolled to landslide victories in the 3 big races (Governor and both Senate seats) but Republicans took 5 House seats. Among the defeated House Democrats was John Hall, the guitarist/songwriter for the band Orleans who had two big hits in the 70’s (Dance with Me and Still the One).
For the first time in my life as a voter I left one column blank. I couldn’t vote for either Andrew Cuomo or Carl Paladino for Governor. I’ve disliked Cuomo since he made his name in politics. He’s a self-righteous screeching moralizer – a pre-scandal Spitzer but without Spitzer’s cunning intelligence. And he’s got his Dad Mario’s faux-populism without the eloquence. Paladino was worse, significantly worse, and would have been an embarrassment to the State. I wish I had the presence of mind to write in a vote for Amare Stoudamire or my dog Finnegan, but I just left it blank.
Another interesting note in New York: Harry Reid’s come-from-behind victory in Nevada was good for the Democrats but bad for New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. Schumer would’ve been Senate Majority Leader had Reid gone down in flames. If that had happened, Schumer would be omnipresent in American politics – it’s said the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera. Chuckie is such a publicity-hound that he held a press conference a few months ago calling on Apple Computer to fix the antennae problem in the iPhone. Thank heaven for small mercies.
That’s No Salamander
Everybody knows the numbers 6 and 60 – the GOP took six Senate seats and sixty House seats. Less known is the number 680. That is the stunning number of State legislature seats the Republicans won, taking over 18 state legislatures. Close readers of FreeTime, and there are at least 3 of you, know my obsession with gerrymandering. Well, state legislatures control the re-drawing of districts, and according to the Washington Post, “When the next round of redistricting -- the decennial re-drawing of all 435 House districts -- occurs next year, Republicans will have complete control over the process in four times as many House districts as Democrats do, districts that comprise nearly half of the entire House.”
That may be the worst news of the day for Democrats.
Occasionally Right
Mind if I point out a few instances in which I was right?
After Obama's election - when many pundits were proclaiming this was the beginning of an enduring alignment in American politics - I wrote a not-so-fast piece entitled A Sea Change Election. Very few American elections are truly transformative - by my count only three in American history - and it is usually a mistake to overread the results of a single election.
Republicans would do well to remember that now.
I also wrote a couple of pieces (see here and here) arguing that the passionate faith of Obama's followers put unreasonable expectations on him, ones that would be difficult to meet. I think that proved true.
I may have been wrong about a couple things, but you'll have to find those yourself...
Jekyll & Hyde
I’m trying to imagine what the city of San Francisco was like on Tuesday. I’ve spent a lot of time in Frisco* through the years, and it is a freakishly liberal place (I say that with affection for my liberal San Francisco friends, some of whom will read this). It was a sad day for liberals, and SF’s own Nancy Pelosi lost her gavel, of course. But (speaking of freaks) Tim Lincecum and the San Francisco Giants won the World Series! That must have been a seriously bi-polar city this week.
* San Franciscans hate the nickname Frisco, and if you use it you are disdained as an outsider who doesn’t know the city’s ways. But why? It’s a cool nickname – much better than San Fran or SF, and shorter than the full San Francisco. Come on, Friscans, embrace the Frisco!
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Friday, October 31, 2008
Ventured Guesses
It takes some combination of guts and foolishness to make predictions. The world moves so fast now that anyone who climbs out on the prognostication limb gets it sawed off right behind him.
You want proof? How about The Tampa Bay Rays, Sarah Palin, and Bear Stearns. Anybody see those 3 coming?
In an unpredictable world only fools make predictions.
However, some of us cowardly online pontificators like to venture a guess once in a while. And while it might be seeking credit a bit too early, a couple of my recent ventured guesses seem to be coming to fruition.
1. McCain Plays Security Card
Last week, I wondered why McCain hasn’t made terrorism more of an election issue – specifically, that he hasn’t claimed Republican credit for a total absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
I wrote:
"McCain’s image as a maverick has taken a hit these past few months, but anyone who has followed his career knows he can go wildly off-script at any moment. His campaign has clearly decided not to make this (9/11 and security) an issue, at least not a big one – but maybe he’ll try in the coming weeks, as desperation sets in."
Well, he tried. McCain made a speech in Tampa this week in which he said:
“Barack Obama has displayed some impressive qualities. But the question is whether this is a man who has what it takes to protect America from Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other grave threats in the world. And he has given you no reason to answer in the affirmative.”
"We will finally finish the fight and snuff out Al Qaeda and bin Laden, those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11."
So as I predicted (or at least, wondered aloud….), September 11 is now part of the campaign.
[By the way, notice how McCain says the full "Osama bin Laden" and Obama just says "bin Laden". Think that's by accident?]
2. How ‘Bout Them Patriots
When Tom Brady went down, I wrote a piece about how Brady's injury gives us a chance to test a few theses - the first being "Can Belichick win without Brady?" I suggested he could:
"With Belichick coaching, Moss receiving, and the rest of that well-run machine that is the New England Patriots, I’m betting they are playing football this January."
New England fans like the Sports Guy, all of whom think Brady is much better than he actually is, thought the season was over. Well, the Patriots are 5-2 and tied for first place in the AFC East.
Okay, I'm done congratulating myself now. You can go back to what you were doing.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Dog That Didn't Bark
I appreciate that this election is based entirely on the premise that the United States of America has done absolutely nothing right these past 8 years.
George W. Bush gets most of the blame, but as Tom Cruise said in Top Gun, it’s a target-rich environment. Approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are even lower than Bush’s (some trick, that). The Secretaries of State and Defense have been humbled. The CIA and the FBI are considered bastions of incompetence. FEMA took a beating. The Treasury Department and the Fed recently joined the list of major offenders. Respect for the news media is at an all-time low. Wall Street shat the bed, with the help of millions of Americans who bought houses they couldn’t afford.
As Casey Stengel said of the 1962 Mets, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”
[I think this is why Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are the brightest stars of the political season. The only politicians the electorate can stomach are ones that haven’t done much of anything at all – they are blank slates for each side to imprint their hopes and dreams.]
But it got me wondering....why don't the Republicans ever talk about the one truly remarkable achievement of the past 8 years – the total absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?
September 12, 2001
I work in Manhattan and was in town on September 11. From my office on 19th Street, you could for weeks after see the smoke billowing out of lower Manhattan. The newspapers were filled with reports of anthrax attacks via mail. It was a time of great confusion but there was one thing that nearly everyone in New York and perhaps the rest of the country could agree on: this would happen again.
Maybe not on the scale of 9/11, but surely September 11 was the dawning of a new age of terrorism on United States soil. Like Northern Ireland and Israel, terrorist attacks would become part of the fabric of our lives.
We would speculate what kind of attacks they would be. Not another hijacking – the passengers of Flight 93 made clear that the days of hijack victims waiting quietly for negotiations to set them free were over. The subways would be bombed, perhaps, or Yankee Stadium during the World Series. Maybe some smaller city, like Cincinnati or Memphis, to remind Americans we are all at risk.
But…nothing. At least not in the United States. Madrid was hit, and Bali. England twice. But things were quiet here.
When the 2004 election rolled around, Bush largely refrained from bragging on this, though he would occasionally hint at foiled plots. Democrats, meanwhile, made the words “Bush has made us less safe” part of their liturgy, on the theory that the war in Iraq served as the ultimate recruiting poster for Al Qaeda.
But still…nothing.
Surely this isn’t because Al Qaeda decided we’re not so bad, after all. And I don’t think it’s because they are pacing themselves – that may have been true for a few years but we’re now at 7 years and counting.
So maybe – I know this is crazy but go with me here for a moment – maybe it’s because we’re doing something right.
There are all sorts of theories as to why this is but most of them share a theme – that certain elements of American policy and the execution of that policy are actually working. Bush’s wars may have been disastrous for the U.S. but they weren’t so wonderful for Al Qaeda’s leadership either. And the FBI and CIA must be doing something right.
Which brings me back to my question: why has the Republican Party ignored this as an election issue – especially now that they are deep in the Grasping-at-Straws phase of the campaign?
Knock, Knock, Knock on Wood
Maybe they focus-tested it, and were left with the conclusion that Americans still regard the entire subject as the ultimate jinx. If McCain were to bring it up, he’d have to follow up with a knock-on-wood of epic proportions – we’d expect him to personally tap every tree in the Redwood Forest.
More likely, anything even remotely associated with the Bush Administration is toxic, to be avoided at all costs.
Still...McCain’s image as a maverick has taken a hit these past few months, but anyone who has followed his career knows he can go wildly off-script at any moment. His campaign has clearly decided not to make this an issue, at least not a big one – but maybe he’ll try in the coming weeks, as desperation sets in.
It won’t matter though – in the minds of most Americans, 9/11 was a lifetime ago. Debates over wiretapping and waterboarding are so 2006. The only calamity in lower Manhattan that concerns us now involve subprime mortgages and the Dow Jones index.
Of course, there is one thing that could change that. I'd just prefer not to say it out loud...
George W. Bush gets most of the blame, but as Tom Cruise said in Top Gun, it’s a target-rich environment. Approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are even lower than Bush’s (some trick, that). The Secretaries of State and Defense have been humbled. The CIA and the FBI are considered bastions of incompetence. FEMA took a beating. The Treasury Department and the Fed recently joined the list of major offenders. Respect for the news media is at an all-time low. Wall Street shat the bed, with the help of millions of Americans who bought houses they couldn’t afford.
As Casey Stengel said of the 1962 Mets, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”
[I think this is why Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are the brightest stars of the political season. The only politicians the electorate can stomach are ones that haven’t done much of anything at all – they are blank slates for each side to imprint their hopes and dreams.]
But it got me wondering....why don't the Republicans ever talk about the one truly remarkable achievement of the past 8 years – the total absence of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?
September 12, 2001
I work in Manhattan and was in town on September 11. From my office on 19th Street, you could for weeks after see the smoke billowing out of lower Manhattan. The newspapers were filled with reports of anthrax attacks via mail. It was a time of great confusion but there was one thing that nearly everyone in New York and perhaps the rest of the country could agree on: this would happen again.
Maybe not on the scale of 9/11, but surely September 11 was the dawning of a new age of terrorism on United States soil. Like Northern Ireland and Israel, terrorist attacks would become part of the fabric of our lives.
We would speculate what kind of attacks they would be. Not another hijacking – the passengers of Flight 93 made clear that the days of hijack victims waiting quietly for negotiations to set them free were over. The subways would be bombed, perhaps, or Yankee Stadium during the World Series. Maybe some smaller city, like Cincinnati or Memphis, to remind Americans we are all at risk.
But…nothing. At least not in the United States. Madrid was hit, and Bali. England twice. But things were quiet here.
When the 2004 election rolled around, Bush largely refrained from bragging on this, though he would occasionally hint at foiled plots. Democrats, meanwhile, made the words “Bush has made us less safe” part of their liturgy, on the theory that the war in Iraq served as the ultimate recruiting poster for Al Qaeda.
But still…nothing.
Surely this isn’t because Al Qaeda decided we’re not so bad, after all. And I don’t think it’s because they are pacing themselves – that may have been true for a few years but we’re now at 7 years and counting.
So maybe – I know this is crazy but go with me here for a moment – maybe it’s because we’re doing something right.
There are all sorts of theories as to why this is but most of them share a theme – that certain elements of American policy and the execution of that policy are actually working. Bush’s wars may have been disastrous for the U.S. but they weren’t so wonderful for Al Qaeda’s leadership either. And the FBI and CIA must be doing something right.
Which brings me back to my question: why has the Republican Party ignored this as an election issue – especially now that they are deep in the Grasping-at-Straws phase of the campaign?
Knock, Knock, Knock on Wood
Maybe they focus-tested it, and were left with the conclusion that Americans still regard the entire subject as the ultimate jinx. If McCain were to bring it up, he’d have to follow up with a knock-on-wood of epic proportions – we’d expect him to personally tap every tree in the Redwood Forest.
More likely, anything even remotely associated with the Bush Administration is toxic, to be avoided at all costs.
Still...McCain’s image as a maverick has taken a hit these past few months, but anyone who has followed his career knows he can go wildly off-script at any moment. His campaign has clearly decided not to make this an issue, at least not a big one – but maybe he’ll try in the coming weeks, as desperation sets in.
It won’t matter though – in the minds of most Americans, 9/11 was a lifetime ago. Debates over wiretapping and waterboarding are so 2006. The only calamity in lower Manhattan that concerns us now involve subprime mortgages and the Dow Jones index.
Of course, there is one thing that could change that. I'd just prefer not to say it out loud...
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The GOP's Run
The Spanish philosopher and poet George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.” I would add that those who cannot remember history are condemned to be baffled by current events.
Take the Presidential election. There is a lot of hand-wringing among Democrats these days. They are mystified – utterly mystified – that the Republican candidate for President is even remotely competitive in this race, despite the widespread belief that the Bush Presidency has been disastrous. They are like Jets fans who can’t understand why, even after Tom Brady got hurt and the Patriots went with some near-sighted high school kid at quarterback, they still lost. (I could probably push this metaphor with a Favre/Obama comparison, but I don’t want to lose my international readers…)
When asked to explain why this race remains competitive, most Democrats have theories that range from the inherent racism of America to the treachery of Republican party operatives. I don’t quite buy into either of these theories but that is a subject for another day.
I will, however, explain why the Obama coronation has been delayed.
If you’re a regular reader of FreeTime, you've guessed my theory will be historical and statistical in nature. It’s really quite simple: in Presidential politics, the United States is Republican.
I was born in 1966, and there have been 10 Presidential elections in my lifetime. The Republican party has dominated those elections, even more than people realize. Here are the stats:
+ Republicans are 7-3.
+ Two of the Republican victories were huge landslides – Nixon in ‘72 and Reagan in ‘84.
+ Two others were near landslides – Reagan in ‘80 and Bush 41 in ’88. In each of these elections the Republican candidate received more than 400 electoral college votes.
+ Democrats, meanwhile, are 3-7.
+ None of those wins were landslides, or near-landslides. The most electoral votes won by a Democrat in my lifetime is 379 (Clinton ’96).
+ In two of those wins – the Clinton elections – the Democrat failed to win 50% of the vote. In fact, if Ross Perot doesn’t win 18% of the vote in ’92, George H.W. Bush likely wins reelection.
+ And in only one of those wins – Jimmy Carter in 1976 – did a Democrat win 50% of the vote. In 1975 Republican Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, a catastrophe for the Republican party. Still, Democrat Jimmy Carter only barely managed to eke out 50.1% of the vote and a 297-240 electoral college vote.
To sum up: Republicans win every Presidential election, sometimes by wide margins, unless some fluke event (Perot, Watergate) tips it to the Democrats.
The Lesson of ‘32
Of course, things change. From 1860, when Lincoln became the first Republican President until 1932, when FDR took office, the White House was nearly the sole property of the Republican party. During that 72 year period, Grover Cleveland was the only Democrat who won a head to head election against a Republican*. 72 years! That's as long as John McCain has been alive!
How did this extraordinary electoral run end? Calamity struck Wall Street, Democrats took the White House, and held it for 7 of the next 9 elections.
Hmmm...what was it that Santayana guy said?
* A little detail here...Lincoln, a Republican, chose Andrew Johnson, a Border State War Democrat, as his VP in 1864, to prepare for the healing with the South. Upon Lincoln's assassination, Johnson became President. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran a 3rd party campaign against his former VP, William Taft, which lifted Democrat Woodrow Wilson to the White House. Wilson won reelection in 1916. Republicans won the other 12 elections. All of which makes Grover Cleveland's accomplishment one of the great electoral victories in American history.
Update (9/25): I've gotten a few emails about the 2000 election, in which Al Gore out-polled George Bush in the popular vote. The score was 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,445,002 (48.4%), but Bush won the electoral vote.
But here's the thing about 2000. Putting aside the Florida debacle and the Supreme Court, the election was essentially a tie. But it shouldn't have been. The Democrats had an outgoing popular President. The country was at peace and seemingly prosperous. The Democratic nominee had an impressive record of public service from the military to the Senate, and was unencumbered by his predecessor's scandal; in fact, he was arguably the most effective Veep in history. The Republican nominee was the formerly ne'er-do-well son of a former President who had only recently entered public office.
The Dems should have won easily, as easily as Reagan's Veep won in '88. Instead, they lost on a questionable call in the bottom of the 16th inning.
Take the Presidential election. There is a lot of hand-wringing among Democrats these days. They are mystified – utterly mystified – that the Republican candidate for President is even remotely competitive in this race, despite the widespread belief that the Bush Presidency has been disastrous. They are like Jets fans who can’t understand why, even after Tom Brady got hurt and the Patriots went with some near-sighted high school kid at quarterback, they still lost. (I could probably push this metaphor with a Favre/Obama comparison, but I don’t want to lose my international readers…)
When asked to explain why this race remains competitive, most Democrats have theories that range from the inherent racism of America to the treachery of Republican party operatives. I don’t quite buy into either of these theories but that is a subject for another day.
I will, however, explain why the Obama coronation has been delayed.
If you’re a regular reader of FreeTime, you've guessed my theory will be historical and statistical in nature. It’s really quite simple: in Presidential politics, the United States is Republican.
I was born in 1966, and there have been 10 Presidential elections in my lifetime. The Republican party has dominated those elections, even more than people realize. Here are the stats:
+ Republicans are 7-3.
+ Two of the Republican victories were huge landslides – Nixon in ‘72 and Reagan in ‘84.
+ Two others were near landslides – Reagan in ‘80 and Bush 41 in ’88. In each of these elections the Republican candidate received more than 400 electoral college votes.
+ Democrats, meanwhile, are 3-7.
+ None of those wins were landslides, or near-landslides. The most electoral votes won by a Democrat in my lifetime is 379 (Clinton ’96).
+ In two of those wins – the Clinton elections – the Democrat failed to win 50% of the vote. In fact, if Ross Perot doesn’t win 18% of the vote in ’92, George H.W. Bush likely wins reelection.
+ And in only one of those wins – Jimmy Carter in 1976 – did a Democrat win 50% of the vote. In 1975 Republican Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, a catastrophe for the Republican party. Still, Democrat Jimmy Carter only barely managed to eke out 50.1% of the vote and a 297-240 electoral college vote.
To sum up: Republicans win every Presidential election, sometimes by wide margins, unless some fluke event (Perot, Watergate) tips it to the Democrats.
The Lesson of ‘32
Of course, things change. From 1860, when Lincoln became the first Republican President until 1932, when FDR took office, the White House was nearly the sole property of the Republican party. During that 72 year period, Grover Cleveland was the only Democrat who won a head to head election against a Republican*. 72 years! That's as long as John McCain has been alive!
How did this extraordinary electoral run end? Calamity struck Wall Street, Democrats took the White House, and held it for 7 of the next 9 elections.
Hmmm...what was it that Santayana guy said?
* A little detail here...Lincoln, a Republican, chose Andrew Johnson, a Border State War Democrat, as his VP in 1864, to prepare for the healing with the South. Upon Lincoln's assassination, Johnson became President. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt ran a 3rd party campaign against his former VP, William Taft, which lifted Democrat Woodrow Wilson to the White House. Wilson won reelection in 1916. Republicans won the other 12 elections. All of which makes Grover Cleveland's accomplishment one of the great electoral victories in American history.
Update (9/25): I've gotten a few emails about the 2000 election, in which Al Gore out-polled George Bush in the popular vote. The score was 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,445,002 (48.4%), but Bush won the electoral vote.
But here's the thing about 2000. Putting aside the Florida debacle and the Supreme Court, the election was essentially a tie. But it shouldn't have been. The Democrats had an outgoing popular President. The country was at peace and seemingly prosperous. The Democratic nominee had an impressive record of public service from the military to the Senate, and was unencumbered by his predecessor's scandal; in fact, he was arguably the most effective Veep in history. The Republican nominee was the formerly ne'er-do-well son of a former President who had only recently entered public office.
The Dems should have won easily, as easily as Reagan's Veep won in '88. Instead, they lost on a questionable call in the bottom of the 16th inning.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Warriors & Civilians
I am a fan of the counterintuitive. I’m attracted to counterintuitive ideas and intrigued by counterintuitive events and trends.
This election season a fascinating counterintuitive trend will get another test. For four consecutive Presidential elections, the candidate with the superior military background has lost to the candidate with a questionable military background. In three of them, a decorated combat veteran lost to someone who clearly went out of his way to avoid combat.
A quick run-through:
1992
Bill Clinton: No military background; used a variety of methods of avoid being drafted, including reneging on ROTC commitment
DEFEATED
George Bush: Enlisted in the Navy on his 18th birthday; flew 58 combat missions in World War II; won Distinguished Flying Cross, among other decorations
1996
Bill Clinton: see above
DEFEATED
Bob Dole: Enlisted in Army in 1942; served as 2nd Lieutenant in 10th Mountain Division; severely wounded in April 1945; won 2 Purple Hearts and Bronze Star (with “V” for valor)
2000
George W. Bush: served in Texas Air National Guard; probably used connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam; shirked some of his duties with National Guard
DEFEATED
Al Gore: turned down National Guard position; enlisted in Army; served in Vietnam in non-combat role (was a journalist)
2004
George W. Bush: see above
DEFEATED
John Kerry: enlisted in Navy Reserve while at Yale; served as Lieutenant in Vietnam; won Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts
The 2008 election will pit John McCain (Silver Star, Bronze Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the most celebrated prisoner-of-war in U.S. history) against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama – neither of whom served, but neither of whom went out of their way to avoid military service.
History as a Guide?
A look at Presidential elections makes it difficult to draw solid conclusions. It is true that the most prominent General in many of America's wars made it to the White House: Washington (Revolution), Jackson (War of 1812), Taylor (Mexican War), Grant (Civil War), and Eisenhower (WWII). And in the years after the Civil War and World War II, many Presidents were veterans.
[Sidebar: Civil War histories occasionally have passages like this one, from Bruce Catton's account of the Battle of South Mountain in Mr. Lincoln's Army: "Then the 23rd Ohio came up to help, and the two regiments went storming up the hill, firing as they went. The lieutenant colonel of the 23rd, a promising chap named Rutherford B. Hayes, was shot down, wounded; William McKinley, sergeant in the same regiment, was unhurt."]
But very often, civilians have defeated former officers. John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson in 1824; Martin Van Buren beat William Henry Harrison (whose nickname, Tippecanoe, came from his victory in a battle with Indians) in 1836; Lincoln defeated George McClellan in 1864; and so on.
The most interesting 19th century election is 1852 when Winfield Scott, America's greatest soldier between Yorktown and Fort Sumpter, was defeated by Franklin Pierce. Pierce served under Scott in the Mexico City campaign (Halls of Montezuma and all that), but was wounded when he fell off his horse. In the '52 election he was accused of cowardice in that war, but he still went on to defeat Scott.
What Does It Mean?
It's easy to read too much into this. One might think that after Vietnam, American voters had become so ambivalent about the military that we began choosing draft dodgers over war heroes. But if you look closely at the last four elections, you'll see that is an oversimplication
Bush 41 (certainly) and Bob Dole (probably) would have defeated Bill Clinton if not for the 3rd party candidacy of Ross Perot (US Naval Academy; used connections to renege on his commitment to the Navy).
As befits the agonizing closeness of the 2000 election, the military careers of Gore and Bush 43 probably didn’t seem that different to many voters. Gore was in Vietnam, but his fingers pressed typewriter keys rather than triggers, and Bush flew jets over Texas, which didn't seem so bad after Clinton. Both men were sons of prominent politicians and both wore uniforms, but neither saw combat.
John Kerry was forced to fight off the attacks of fellow Swift Boat veterans who questioned everything about Kerry’s military service. By 2004, Bush's National Guard story was old news, and attempts by 60 Minutes to resuscitate it backfired.
This election is much more of a straight-up race between a genuine war hero and someone who didn’t serve but has no military skeletons in their closet either.
Conclusion
This election season a fascinating counterintuitive trend will get another test. For four consecutive Presidential elections, the candidate with the superior military background has lost to the candidate with a questionable military background. In three of them, a decorated combat veteran lost to someone who clearly went out of his way to avoid combat.
A quick run-through:
1992
Bill Clinton: No military background; used a variety of methods of avoid being drafted, including reneging on ROTC commitment
DEFEATED
George Bush: Enlisted in the Navy on his 18th birthday; flew 58 combat missions in World War II; won Distinguished Flying Cross, among other decorations
1996
Bill Clinton: see above
DEFEATED
Bob Dole: Enlisted in Army in 1942; served as 2nd Lieutenant in 10th Mountain Division; severely wounded in April 1945; won 2 Purple Hearts and Bronze Star (with “V” for valor)
2000
George W. Bush: served in Texas Air National Guard; probably used connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam; shirked some of his duties with National Guard
DEFEATED
Al Gore: turned down National Guard position; enlisted in Army; served in Vietnam in non-combat role (was a journalist)
2004
George W. Bush: see above
DEFEATED
John Kerry: enlisted in Navy Reserve while at Yale; served as Lieutenant in Vietnam; won Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts
The 2008 election will pit John McCain (Silver Star, Bronze Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the most celebrated prisoner-of-war in U.S. history) against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama – neither of whom served, but neither of whom went out of their way to avoid military service.
History as a Guide?
A look at Presidential elections makes it difficult to draw solid conclusions. It is true that the most prominent General in many of America's wars made it to the White House: Washington (Revolution), Jackson (War of 1812), Taylor (Mexican War), Grant (Civil War), and Eisenhower (WWII). And in the years after the Civil War and World War II, many Presidents were veterans.
[Sidebar: Civil War histories occasionally have passages like this one, from Bruce Catton's account of the Battle of South Mountain in Mr. Lincoln's Army: "Then the 23rd Ohio came up to help, and the two regiments went storming up the hill, firing as they went. The lieutenant colonel of the 23rd, a promising chap named Rutherford B. Hayes, was shot down, wounded; William McKinley, sergeant in the same regiment, was unhurt."]
But very often, civilians have defeated former officers. John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson in 1824; Martin Van Buren beat William Henry Harrison (whose nickname, Tippecanoe, came from his victory in a battle with Indians) in 1836; Lincoln defeated George McClellan in 1864; and so on.
The most interesting 19th century election is 1852 when Winfield Scott, America's greatest soldier between Yorktown and Fort Sumpter, was defeated by Franklin Pierce. Pierce served under Scott in the Mexico City campaign (Halls of Montezuma and all that), but was wounded when he fell off his horse. In the '52 election he was accused of cowardice in that war, but he still went on to defeat Scott.
What Does It Mean?
It's easy to read too much into this. One might think that after Vietnam, American voters had become so ambivalent about the military that we began choosing draft dodgers over war heroes. But if you look closely at the last four elections, you'll see that is an oversimplication
Bush 41 (certainly) and Bob Dole (probably) would have defeated Bill Clinton if not for the 3rd party candidacy of Ross Perot (US Naval Academy; used connections to renege on his commitment to the Navy).
As befits the agonizing closeness of the 2000 election, the military careers of Gore and Bush 43 probably didn’t seem that different to many voters. Gore was in Vietnam, but his fingers pressed typewriter keys rather than triggers, and Bush flew jets over Texas, which didn't seem so bad after Clinton. Both men were sons of prominent politicians and both wore uniforms, but neither saw combat.
John Kerry was forced to fight off the attacks of fellow Swift Boat veterans who questioned everything about Kerry’s military service. By 2004, Bush's National Guard story was old news, and attempts by 60 Minutes to resuscitate it backfired.
This election is much more of a straight-up race between a genuine war hero and someone who didn’t serve but has no military skeletons in their closet either.
Conclusion
There's no question that a succesful military background is helpful in one's political success. Being at the head of an army that won a war is a huge advantage and being a war hero certainly contributes to a story that resonates with voters. Indeed, the political careers of John McCain and John Kerry are almost unimaginable without it.
But ultimately, military service is just one factor among many when voters make their decisions.
If John McCain goes down in defeat this November, it will keep an interesting trend going. But it will have nothing to do with that trend.Thursday, February 7, 2008
In Defense of Divisiveness
A big theme in this year’s election is unity. John McCain, the Republican most beloved by Democrats, and the soothing Democrat Barack Obama, both promise to end the political divisiveness that has plagued our national politics through the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
There is a lot of debate about whether or not they can succeed. But does anyone stop to wonder if, perhaps, unity is such a good thing?
Put differently: has anyone noticed that the list of America’s most successful Presidents is remarkably similar to the list of America’s most divisive Presidents?
The list starts with Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is widely considered to be America’s greatest President…but he’s got the Divisiveness Crown well in hand, too. Lincoln was elected President on November 6, 1860. He was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. In the 4-month interim between election and inauguration, 7 states seceded from the Union. They were so appalled at the idea of a Lincoln Presidency, they chose to leave the Union and start their own nation. Four more would follow.
Obviously, the divisiveness was more tragic than that. The Civil War ensued from the secession, and 600,000 American lives were lost. That, my friends, is divisiveness of the highest order.
While no other example is that stark, most great Presidents have not had the admiration of their political opponents:
FDR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt led a unified country through the Second World War, but his New Deal policies were fiercely contested by his political opponents through the Depression. As FDR began losing those battles in his 2nd term he unveiled his “court packing” plan – the idea was to simply add 5 new Supreme Court justices.
Republicans and conservative Democrats were disgusted at this power grab, and the Democrats were slaughtered in the mid-term elections of 1938.
Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was one of the first master practitioners - and victims - of nasty, partisan politics in American history. We know now the Sally Hemings story is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that his enemies hated him so much that they’d print it.
But TJ was no shrinking violet himself – he even secretly financed a newspaper to attack his opponents. The Federalist-Republican feud in the early 1800’s was a vicious back-alley fight that makes today's feuds seem like high tea at Harrods.
Jackson
Andrew Jackson was more despised by his political opponents than even Bush or Clinton could claim. He was even called a murderer – one campaign bill featured a picture of 6 coffins representing men Jackson had executed in court-martials or killed in duels. The attacks on him were so severe he blamed them for his wife’s sickness and death.
Coincidence?
What does all this mean? Is it merely a coincidence that great Presidents inspire the deepest hatred among their political opponents?
Of course not. Greatness only comes to the bold, to those who have and act upon strongly held convictions. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt were all powerful and effective leaders who had a very strong vision for the United States. They were attacked by those who disagreed. The South, for example, realized that Lincoln's positions on slavery were dramatically different than the wishy-washy compromisers who preceded him.
You want unity? Try Warren Harding on for size. Harding ran on a “let’s all get along” platform. His most famous speech came while running for President, in which he argued for normalcy:
Yawn... But seriously, if you heard Barack Obama give this speech, would you be surprised? (Well, maybe at the use of the words nostrums and equipoise.) Would you nod your head along in agreement?
Harding was immensely popular while in office, but today, historians rank him among our least effective Presidents.
So, the next time you hear one of the candidates tell you that they are going to unify the country, stop to ask yourself if that is all it’s cracked up to be.
Sidebar: McCain may be the Democrat's favorite Republican, but he's the conservative Republican's least favorite Republican. Rush Limbaugh, whom you would assume is dedicating every waking moment to fighting the Clinton Restoration, in fact spends most of his time attacking John McCain. In this respect, McCain is similar to FDR, who sometimes inspired more vitriol from conservative Democrats than from Republicans.
There is a lot of debate about whether or not they can succeed. But does anyone stop to wonder if, perhaps, unity is such a good thing?
Put differently: has anyone noticed that the list of America’s most successful Presidents is remarkably similar to the list of America’s most divisive Presidents?
The list starts with Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is widely considered to be America’s greatest President…but he’s got the Divisiveness Crown well in hand, too. Lincoln was elected President on November 6, 1860. He was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. In the 4-month interim between election and inauguration, 7 states seceded from the Union. They were so appalled at the idea of a Lincoln Presidency, they chose to leave the Union and start their own nation. Four more would follow.
Obviously, the divisiveness was more tragic than that. The Civil War ensued from the secession, and 600,000 American lives were lost. That, my friends, is divisiveness of the highest order.
While no other example is that stark, most great Presidents have not had the admiration of their political opponents:
FDR
Franklin Delano Roosevelt led a unified country through the Second World War, but his New Deal policies were fiercely contested by his political opponents through the Depression. As FDR began losing those battles in his 2nd term he unveiled his “court packing” plan – the idea was to simply add 5 new Supreme Court justices.
Republicans and conservative Democrats were disgusted at this power grab, and the Democrats were slaughtered in the mid-term elections of 1938.
Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was one of the first master practitioners - and victims - of nasty, partisan politics in American history. We know now the Sally Hemings story is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that his enemies hated him so much that they’d print it.
But TJ was no shrinking violet himself – he even secretly financed a newspaper to attack his opponents. The Federalist-Republican feud in the early 1800’s was a vicious back-alley fight that makes today's feuds seem like high tea at Harrods.
Jackson
Andrew Jackson was more despised by his political opponents than even Bush or Clinton could claim. He was even called a murderer – one campaign bill featured a picture of 6 coffins representing men Jackson had executed in court-martials or killed in duels. The attacks on him were so severe he blamed them for his wife’s sickness and death.
Coincidence?
What does all this mean? Is it merely a coincidence that great Presidents inspire the deepest hatred among their political opponents?
Of course not. Greatness only comes to the bold, to those who have and act upon strongly held convictions. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt were all powerful and effective leaders who had a very strong vision for the United States. They were attacked by those who disagreed. The South, for example, realized that Lincoln's positions on slavery were dramatically different than the wishy-washy compromisers who preceded him.
You want unity? Try Warren Harding on for size. Harding ran on a “let’s all get along” platform. His most famous speech came while running for President, in which he argued for normalcy:
"America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality...."
Yawn... But seriously, if you heard Barack Obama give this speech, would you be surprised? (Well, maybe at the use of the words nostrums and equipoise.) Would you nod your head along in agreement?
Harding was immensely popular while in office, but today, historians rank him among our least effective Presidents.
So, the next time you hear one of the candidates tell you that they are going to unify the country, stop to ask yourself if that is all it’s cracked up to be.
Sidebar: McCain may be the Democrat's favorite Republican, but he's the conservative Republican's least favorite Republican. Rush Limbaugh, whom you would assume is dedicating every waking moment to fighting the Clinton Restoration, in fact spends most of his time attacking John McCain. In this respect, McCain is similar to FDR, who sometimes inspired more vitriol from conservative Democrats than from Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)