|
|
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
|
|
NUT CUTTING WITH WILD BILL SAFIRE
I've always been a big of William Safire's. He's an astute political analyst (trained at the feet of Richard Nixon, the grand master of the craft) and a scholar of the English language. Plus he's a generally cool guy. He's pretty funny, too. How many inentionally funny people can you think of in politics? I always get to Bob Dole then get stuck. So when he has a political pronouncement to make, I generally listen. I may not always agree with the pronouncement or the logic and reasoning behind it but generally, I'll learn something. I like learning stuff. I think it's fun.
Safire has a very interesting theory on Howard Dean's place in the Democratic party and the potential consequences of his not getting the nomination. His basic theory is this: the ABD (Anyone But Dean) forces prevail in the primaries (which I don't think is possible this late in the game) and a petulant Dean says "Fuck it" and runs as an Independent. Safire believes this is a very, very bad thing, particularly when you consider that Ralph Nader is very seriously considering an independent run of his own.
Essentially, this would split the Democratic vote three ways. There would be the party nominee (if not Dean, either Richard Gephardt or Joe Lieberman), an independent Nader and an independent Dean. These competing factions would be facing a unified Republican ticket headed by George Bush and Dick Cheney. Could Bush/Cheney still lose? Sure they could. It's happened before. In 1948, the Democratic party split three ways with the nominee President Truman, the segregatonist wing of the party nominating South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond (yeah, it's always funny how people forget he was a Democrat for a really long time) and the progressive (read: communist) wing nominating former Secretary of Agriculture, Vice President and Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace on the Progressive party ticket.
These factions faced a unified Republican ticket headed by Thomas Dewy and (soon to be Chief Justice) Earl Warren. Truman still won, famously holding up the Chicago Tribune's headline "Dewy Defeats Truman." But those were very different times and very different circumstances. Thurmond was only on the ballot in 11 states. Wallace was widely viewed as a communist puppet and recieved virtually no votes. And Harry Truman was a sitting president and a master at nut-cutting politics. That is not the case this time. I figure Independent Nader and Dean campaigns could on the ballot in about 30 states. Gephardt only has a national record as a loser and Lieberman currently doesn't hold a lead in a single primary state poll.
Following Safire's logic, Bush would would win in a monumental landslide. And landslides are never good for those that win them. In 1936, Franklin Roosevelt won a crushing victory against Alf Landon, carrying 46 of 48 states and proceeded to attempt to destroy the Supreme Court and in the process nearly destroyed his presidency. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson humiliated Barry Goldwater, winnning 43 states and was repudiated four years later as a result of Vietnam. In 1974, Richard Nixon won 49 states against George McGovern and was forced to resign a year and half later. Ronal Reagan left Walter Mondale the state of Minnesotta and his second term was dominated by Iran/Contra. And although he only won 49% of the vote in '96, I think we can all agree that Bill Clinton wishes Monica voted for Bob Dole.
Going all the way back to Ulysses Grant, landslides have been the harbingers of doom.
Under almost any concievable circumstances President Bush will be re-elected comfortably. As things now stand, I figure that he'd win about 35 states against Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee. Against Gephardt or Lieberman, Bush's margin goes down to about 26-30 states. John Kerry isn't just going to lose the nomination, he's about to lose his house. So we can forget he even exists. Unless (and its far too late to even fantasize about this happening) Hillary Clinton jumps in, this election is over.
But I'd be far happier to see an actual race. In the spring, I'll be voting what could very well be my last Canadian election and that race is over too. I've been in love with politics since I was a kid, but it's a hard affair to maintain when elections are so clearly decided a year ahead of time that even a fuckhead like me can tell you how they're going to play out.Labels: Fun With Politics
|
|
|
| |
