Presidential politics in 2000
by Thomas E. Cronin
and Michael A. Genovese
It looks as if election 2000 could take some unexpected twists and turns in the coming months, putting conventional election-year wisdom on the shelf, and introducing a few major surprises to the public.
These surprises and the uncertainty of electoral outcomes can best be put in focus by the answers to three "what ifs." What if George W. Bush takes a nosedive and John McCain becomes the Republican front runner? What if Bill Bradley knocks Al Gore out of the race, but must confront additional health problems/questions? What if the Reform Party nominates Jesse Ventura and he attracts greater media and public attention that the pundits anticipate?
Any or all of these "what ifs" could dramatically undermine the results expected from conventional wisdom.
For instance, the conventional wisdom only a few weeks ago held that George W. Bush was all but unstoppable. He cornered the market on money and endorsements, and had celebrity, name recognition, family lineage and enough momentum to make the nomination appear inevitable and the election probable. Conventional wisdom was so set on him, that otherwise respectable candidates such as Liddy Dole and Lamar Alexander dropped out of the race even before it had formally begun, unable to generate financial support or voter enthusiasm. The Republican establishment, accepting conventional wisdom and tasting victory in November, rallied behind Bush, suspended the usual litmus tests (e.g., abortion) and all but handed Bush the party's nomination.
Conventional wisdom for the Democrats was more grim, but still seemed fairly well entrenched. While the economy remained strong, the country suffered, we were told, from "Clinton fatigue," too much of a good, or bad, thing. Likewise, fallout from the impeachment process still tarnished the president and his sometimes excessively loyal vice president. Gore, too, seemed his party's anointed nominee, but there was no joy in Mudville. Gore, despite his impressive advantages of experience, expertise and intelligence, was seriously vulnerable. "Wooden" often preceded mention of his name in media commentary. He seemed sage but unexciting--perhaps unelectable, but still the nominee of conventional wisdom.
Conventional wisdom also held that a third party could not mount a serious challenge for national office. So accustomed are we to the two-party system that even when we become suspicious of politics as usual, as many voters today seem to be, we are unwilling to move far beyond the familiar. The conventional wisdom of this election year told us, "look not to third parties for political salvation."
As soon as the conventional wisdom became conventional it was turned upside down.
George W. Bush now faces a serious challenge from a maverick, plain-speaking American hero and compelling questions about whether he possesses enough "gravitas" to be president.
Al Gore is enmeshed in a tight primary challenge from a man who seems hard to distinguishfrom Gore himself. And Jesse Ventura continues to capture the imagination of the media and public as he pontificates from the governor's office in Minnesota. So much for the conventional wisdom.
What if?
What if George W. falters and falls by the wayside? His leading challenger, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who has become the darling of the media and independent Republicans, then becomes the front runner of a party whose establishment simply doesn't want him! McCain rankles Republican party regulars because of his independence, his advocacy of tough campaign finance reform legislation, and his stand against the tobacco lobby--all issues that endear him to independents, but prove poisonous within his party.
If McCain is unacceptable to the party establishment, yet no other challenger possesses the weight to mount a credible challenge to his candidacy, what will the party hierarchy do?
Where will the Trent Lotts, the Tom DeLays, the George Patakis, the Mitch McConnells and the Dick Armeys turn?
In their effort to undo John McCain, they would be forced to reach out to alternatives not yet on the conventional wisdom's radar screen. But who? Governor Whitman of New Jersey? A woman, but too liberal. Governor Thompson of Wisconsin? Too risky. Liddy Dole, Lamar Alexander or Dan Quayle? Already proven losers in race 2000. An elder statesman like Jim Baker or Donald Rumsfield? Not enough name recognition. What's a Republican to do?
Colin Powell. If handed the nomination, Powell might be persuaded that it is his duty to respond to the call. Absent the risks of a nomination race, Powell just might venture in, immediately making him the favorite for the White House. While more moderate than many Republicans might prefer, Powell would be able to draw large numbers of independents and some Democrats to the Republican ticket.
And what of the Democrats? If Gore is knocked out by Bradley, but questions about Bradley's health resurface, he too might face the opposition of the party establishment. To whom could the Democrats turn? Ted Kennedy? Too liberal and too many liabilities. To Kerry or Kerrey? Both represent risky choices. Gray Davis, the effective if uninspiring governor of California? Not seasoned in national politics. Other Democratic governors? Here's the pop quiz: Name three other Democratic governors. It is hard to do; most all of the big, important states have Republican governors.
Other possibilities? How about Cuomo? Mario Cuomo, despite his enormous talents, is probably past his prime. But take a look at Clinton Cabinet member Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo. He has done a fine job, has great political instincts, and is becoming as splendid a political speaker as his father, plus he has married into the Kennedy family. While maybe he is not ready for the presidential nomination, he could well be on a short list for the vice presidency. In fact, the Democratic bench of other possibilities is thin. Thus the Democrats seem destined to go with Gore or Bradley.
And what if Jesse Ventura, to head off a Buchanan nomination, enters the fray and captures the Reform Party nomination, and, faced with confusion in the ranks of Democrats and Republicans, begins to emerge as a viable alternative to politics as usual? With the added bonus of federal matching campaign funds, Ventura could, due to his buoyant personality and unorthodox message, compete with the major party candidates and, like a magnet, draw young, disgruntled and angry voters into a process they have dropped out of. A Ventura run could alter the electoral mathematics.
The electorate can be divided into three groups: Democrats, Republicans and Independents. In recent elections, the two major parties have each relied on a solid base to about thirty-five percent of the voters. Elections, therefore, were based on holding the base together and winning over independents in the general election. But if any of these "what if" scenarios develop, and increasingly it appears as if one or more might, the old electoral math may come unhinged, leading to one of the more unorthodox elections in memory.
While the safe bet is that the conventional wisdom will hold sufficient strength to win the day, and a Bush-Gore contest will lead to a "throw the Democrats out/shift to the right" (Bush) versus a "stay the course" (Gore) campaign, the political landscape is cluttered with enough land mines--and what ifs--that we would do well not to settle in too complacently with the expected.
Thomas E. Cronin in President of Whitman College in Walla Walla, Wash. He is coauthor of "Government By The People," and "The Paradoxes of the American Presidency" (Oxford University Press, 1998). Michael A. Genovese is professor of political science and director of the Institute for Leadership Studies at Loyola Marymount University. He is coauthor of "The Paradoxes of the American Presidency," and author of "Power and the American Presidency," to be published by Oxford University Press this summer.
345 Boyer Ave.