After the death of author Richard Ben Cramer at age 62 on January 7, 2013, I downloaded the first two chapters of his classic, What It Takes: the Road to the White House, published in 1992, for a re-read. Many critics have said it's the best book on presidential politics ever written, and required reading for students of history and politics. Cramer selected one of the dullest and most uneventful election years, 1988. In the general election campaign, George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, two charisma-challenged candidates, argued about almost nothing of significance. Why would anyone want to relive that campaign in a book?
Yet Cramer produced a fascinating book of significance. How? He went on a quest to determine WHY anyone -- in particular the six men he profiled -- would endure the humiliation, embarrassment, uprootedness (years of sleeping in hotels), obnoxious reporters, routine invasions of privacy, enormous sacrifices of time, attention and family, sleep deprivation, and objectification for years, on the off chance that lightning might strike and one of them might be elected president of the United States and might become a figure of historical consequence?
Cramer employed something exceedingly rare in political journalists these days -- empathy for politicians. And yet he didn't write puff pieces. The first chapter of What It Takes, about "Poppy" Bush, captures Bush's way of speaking, and some paragraphs read a lot like the text of Dana Carvey's Saturday Night Live impressions of Bush. "No can do...Wouldn't be prudent." Still, Cramer illicits sympathy for the humiliations Bush 41 endured as a candidate. Throwing the first pitch at a Houston Oilers game, the Secret Service forced him to wear a bullet-proof vest underneath his clothing. An accomotionalist by nature, Bush stifled his discomfort, looked ridiculous and botched the pitch. The angle of the TV cameras make him look like a buffoonish out-of-shape sixty-something man. In reality, Bush in his early sixties was still an athlete in great physical condition. But what filtered through to the public was a cardboard caracature to be largely mocked.
So it is with most of the major candidates. Larger than life, in many cases noble forces of nature up close, they come across as small, craven, opportunistic, soap opera characters from the distance of daily political journalism.
In addition to "What It Takes," the other political campaign classics are, of course, Theodore White's Making of the President 1960; Making of the President 1964, 1968 and 1972. I'm glad to see that new editions of these books have been released (including as ebooks) and they are still required reading by students of politics and history.
White portrayed American presidential campaigns as heroic quests of public service in an ennobling democracy. While today's cynical journalists, and a far more cynical public, may consider White naive and too close to his subjects, his books endure while scandal-mongering quickly fades into trivia. Yes, White's techniques did raise questions about how protective a journalist should be of candidates and how much he inflated the images of candidates to make them appear wiser than ordinary mortals. But his larger theme, that power transfers peacefully in America after the voice of the people is heard, can still inspire awe.
After all the online post-mortems on the Romney-Obama race, one has to ask: Is there really anything left to say? Judging from the 10 books or ebooks publishers are churning out, multiple volumes on the 2012 campaign remain to be consumed by eager political junkies. No matter that we have already endured at least 18 months of moment-by-moment coverage of a campaign that held few surprises.
The glut of 2012 campaign books seems to be a classic example of an over-saturated market. And publishers' mistakes seem to be even worse than 12 years ago, when well-regarded political analyst Gary Wills, reviewing four books on Campaign 2000, wrote:
"THE campaign book deserves to die, and it is doing its duty...Admittedly, we may have forgotten that Orrin Hatch ran for president, but why disturb such a blessed oblivion?"...The genre has entered "not only its decline but its decadence."
"Double Down: Game Change 2012," a book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, is in the works, due out in September, amid promises of headlines, revelations and backstage gossip. You may remember Halperin and Heilemann as the authors of the bestseller "Game Change" about the 2008 campaign, from which we learned that Republican operatives had serious doubts about Sarah Palin's fitness for office, and Democratic operatives dished on what an awful marriage John and Elizabeth Edwards had, and how Hillary Clinton couldn't control what Bill said or did on the campaign trail. At the same time, it raised serious questions about whether loyalty and discretion still exist among political aides and consultants. I guess "Double Down" will leave no doubt as to the answers to that question, at least among the losing candidates and their self-serving advisors.
Not to be outdone, Dan Balz and James Silberman in August will release Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America. The book promises to "put the race for the White House in context and explores just what the election means for the future of the democratic process and America."
Most of these books seem to start with the premise that presidential campaigns are entirely a game, or a great sporting contest. If only the candidates employed different strategies and tactics, emphasized different issues, or made fewer mistakes, they could have won.
This is hogwash. If political authors draw on a knowledge of history, track long-term trends and patterns, they recognize that only rarely is the course of history altered because of the personal foibles of the candidates. The sweep of history is generally larger than any one individual's triumph or tragedy. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the authors of these "instant history books" can muster much historical perspective.
Living outside the US, I did not follow the 2012 presidential campaign as obsessively as I have followed previous elections. Well before Mitt Romney secured the GOP nomination, it seemed obvious to me there was little drama to this election cycle, and little doubt about the outcome: the Republican was going to lose the presidency, like the Democrats lost the presidency in 2004, due to the challenger's inconsistent, incoherent message and his party's weakness; and the incumbent's organizational strengths and historical advantages.
I had a few days of doubt about that thesis after the first debate, but it held up in the end.
Just as John Kerry never really had much of a chance against George W. Bush, Mitt Romney never really had much of a chance against Barack Obama, for several reasons.
1) "I Was For It Before I Was Against It."
Kerry, as senator, voted to authorize the war in Iraq. He said he was for the war before he was against it, which made a great attack ad, and therefore looked inconsistent and cravenly partisan in his turn-around on Iraq. Romney championed health care reform as governor of Massachusetts, including an individual mandate. He was for health care reform before he was against it, and looked inconsistent and cravenly partisan in his turn-around on health care. When the US Supreme Court, led by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, ratified the constitutionality of Obamacare, it took an important issue away from the Republicans.
2) Not Enough Crossover Appeal.
Both Kerry and Romney were patricians -- wealthy men without much of a common touch. Kerry came from a state, Massachusetts, that was so solidly Democratic Kerry rarely had to develop cross-over appeal.
As a Republican governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, Romney established a moderate record, worked with Democrats to get things done and developed at least some cross-over appeal. But this proved to be a weakness in the Republican primaries: the base didn't trust Romney, and they were in no mood for compromise. Many conservatives felt betrayed by George W. Bush's fiscal policies -- interfering in the free market with a big bank bailout and by John McCain's support of the bailout. Romney felt he had to bend over backwards to mollify these people, to become "severely conservative" -- and to reverse himself on issues like abortion, gun control, gay rights, immigration, health care reform, global warming, deficit reduction and raising taxes. He raised numerous fees as governor, but insisted he would never raise fees or taxes as president. Apparently insecure that he might lose the Republican nomination to a more conservative candidate like Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, Romney felt he had to tack to the right. But this hurt him in the general election. By the time he was nominated, thanks in part to Obama attack ads running all summer, Romney had little crossover appeal to moderate swing voters.
3) Fomenting Hatred, Dislike Or Dissent Against the Incumbent Is Rarely A Winning Strategy
One of my rules of successful presidential campaigns is you have to persuade people to vote FOR something, not just against something. Ronald Reagan offered a positive vision in 1980 -- he didn't just harness discontent against Jimmy Carter. He wanted to cut taxes, reduce domestic spending, unleash the American economy from regulation, hold up entrepreneurs and volunteers as heroes in a free market economy, and return the American military to former glory. In 2004 and 2012, sure there was popular discontent against the incumbent president. Sure, the Democratic base detested George W. Bush, and the Republican base detested Barack Obama. In 2004, there was outrage over the Iraq war and failure to find weapons of mass destruction. In both election years, there was frustration over relatively slow economic growth. But neither Kerry or Romney communicated positive, distinctively different visions for the country nor persuaded swing voters they could make their visions a reality.
4) Incumbent Presidents Usually Have Far Better Organizations. Several articles have been written about the Obama campaign's highly sophisticated voter contact and get-out-the-vote campaign, built on data the campaign began collecting after Obama announced his candidacy in 2007, and refined constantly since then. Similarly, as I wrote before, the Bush campaign in 2004 was far more sophisticated in using the tools of technology than the Kerry campaign.
Neither Kerry nor Romney should feel too bad. I remember seeing one poll indicating that the only Democrat who could have beaten Bush in 2004 was Bill Clinton, who was constitutionally prohibited from running. I doubt any Republican could have beaten Barack Obama in 2012.
George Will: "The Republicans have now nominated someone from the financial sector at a time when the financial sector is in extremely bad odor. Hardly a day goes by, the LIBOR scandal, TARP, that conditioned the country to believe that we're allowing the banks to keep profits private and socializing losses."
May wonders never cease. Since I opened this blog in 2004, Ron Moore has appeared in the comments as a vociferous voice of conservatism and lifetime NRA member. But now Ron writes me that he can't think of any circumstances in which he'll vote for Mitt Romney. He says he will probably hold his nose and vote for Barack Obama. This is a man who says he hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since the 1960s or 1970s:
"When the GOP changed its policies to cut taxes no matter what, I bailed. Who wouldn't?...Unless there is a revolution at the GOP convention and someone worthwhile is nominated instead of Romney, (it's) not likely" that Ron will vote for the Republican nominee. "Romney is a chameleon" -- he has changed his positions 180 degrees on health care reform and the individual mandate; on abortion; on an assault weapons ban; on economic stimulus; on tax cuts and a myriad of other issues. "The GOP leaders are anarchists who don't know the history of the Constitution they revere. Guess I will have to vote against them....another 'lesser' vote...I have not changed much...it is the GOP."
"I was watching Romney's bright smiling face on TV when a old movie came to mind, The Manchurian Candidate...I don't think Romney is anyone's agent other than the folks financing his super pacs."
He even praises Bill Clinton, a man that during the 1990s he "viscerally" detested. "I admit Bill Clinton has surprised me. Now it is like a different BC. Working with Bush senior on health issues in Africa and other good selfless acts....180 shift...like a new person appeared after he left office. Have to admire some of the things he and Bush Sr have done."
I have to admire Ron for breaking ranks, stepping off the hyper-partisan bandwagon and calling them like he sees them. Most of us over the course of a long history of observing politics change our perspectives on certain leaders, parties or issues. I know that I have.
Obama's domestic political powers are unlikely to grow in his second term, assuming he gets one. Except for the rare chance that he wins a landslide re-election with long coattails that bring in a raft of new congressional allies, odds are that he'll have to continue dealing with at least one chamber of Congress that's Republican. So, the message to Obama's critics on the left who believe he's weak might be: this is as good as it gets unless you can mobilize more of the public behind a progressive agenda.
Historical odds are against Democrats holding their 53 to 47 majority in the US Senate since far more Democratic seats are up for re-election. They'll be defending 23 seats, while Republicans will be defending only 10 seats.
Historical odds are also against Democrats regaining 25 seats in the US House to retake the majority. The largest seat gain in the House since 1952 when the president's party did not control the House was 21 seats.
The only Republican incumbents in the Senate who look vulnerable at this point are Scott Brown in Massachusetts (expected to be challenged by Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren), and Dean Heller of Nevada, who was appointed to fill out the term of John Ensign, who resigned in 2011. Heller is expected to be challenged by Shelley Berkley. Arizona Senator John Kyl is retiring, and some Democrats hope Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will run for the seat, assuming she has a complete recovery from a gunshot wound to the head, which seems unlikely.
Even if the Democrats won all three GOP Senate seats, they'd still have to sweep 20 out of 23 Senate seats they will be defending, just to maintain their 53 seats. LONG ODDS. There's NO CHANCE of regaining the filibuster-proof majority they had briefly, for about 14 weeks, in 2009.
In the House, Democrats can only dream of a Republican presidential nominee who is such a disaster that he takes the GOP House down with him. That would have to be a repeat of the Lyndon Johnson landslide against Barry Goldwater in 1964.
A landslide for Obama may seem highly unlikely now, given that unemployment is still relatively high and the economy probably won't reach pre-2008 growth levels before the 2012 election. But Obama can take comfort that Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan were not especially popular presidents before they won historic landslides. Overwhelming presidential election victories often depend largely on who your opponent is, how well organized, consistent and broadly popular the opposition is, and whether the opposition party can create a viable, alternative vision for the future.
If you strip away the anti-Obama (and sometimes racist) rhetoric of the Tea Party, and the faux Marxist revolution rhetoric of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd, the essence of both movements is an understandable loss of confidence in the global financial elites and the political establishment.
Indeed, the Tea Party on the right and "Occupy Wall Street" on the left originate from the same place. Both were sparked by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, and the sense that average people were being screwed by powerful elites. "A sense emerged that the financial elite was either stupid or dishonest or both. The idea was that the financial elite had violated all principles of fiduciary, social and moral responsibility in seeking its own personal gain at the expense of society as a whole," as George Friedman wrote in a Stratfor analysis. The Tea Party movement charged that the financial elite avoided responsibility for their own mistakes by getting government (taxpayers) -- establishment Republicans as well as Democrats -- to take on massive debt. They also reacted against what they perceived as excessive state power and intervention in the free market.
The Occupy Wall Street crowd are also angry that the financial and political elite have avoided responsibility for their own mistakes. Beyond that, their message is, so far, a bit muddled. It seems they want more involvement by the state, to cap the power of big corporations, and more taxes on the wealthiest 1%.
The Tea Party crowd demands "no new taxes," a repeal of Obamacare, a much smaller government, made possible by massive cuts in government spending, privatizing Medicare and social security, and a mythical return to reliance on the magical free market.
The video above on RT.com includes a chart showing the similarities between the two movements. Both started as "a joke, an aberration, a bunch of weirdos." Both expressed anger at elites, both expressed concerns about jobs and the economy. Both were repulsed by the Wall Street bailouts. Both are disenchanted by the death of the American dream. Both feel left out of the system. One directs its fury at government, the other directs its fury at corporate America.
Watch on Youtube.com. Hat tip, Andrew Sullivan, "Heightening the Republican Contradiction". The ad is aimed at Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, who describes himself as both a disciple of Ayn Rand and a practicing Catholic. It would be interesting for him to explain why he doesn't seek a stark contradiction in those philosophies.
Recent Comments