And now a word from a blogger we followed closely last year.
Hillary v. Condi in ‘08? Don’t Count On It!
By: The Horserace Blogger · Section: Democrats
redstate.org
Intent upon never letting us take a break from presidential campaigns, the media lately has been prattling on about this dream match up. The fact that Condi explicitly denied any intentions for our land’s highest office seems to have not affected this phenomenon at all. On a 24 hour news network, with a slow news cycle, what else are they going to talk about?
Allow me to pour some much-needed cold water on the fantasies the media is having about this scenario. Before that, though, let me just say something about speculating about elections three years out. It is generally a waste of time.
Print This Story
Mar 17th, 2005: 17:41:40, Rated: 5.00/1
Why is this the case? Well, there are many different reasons. The primary reason is that, since the 1970s, the parties started moving rapidly toward primaries/caucuses. This means that the power of political insiders -- state party officials, Congressmen, prominent elites in Washington -- to select the next nominee has declined drastically. (This is one reason political scientists have seen the “decline of American political parties” -- in Ben Wattenberg’s phrase -- over the last forty years.) At this point in time, the media’s “front runner” for either party is really just the choice of a plurality of these elites. And these elites just don’t matter as much as they used to. It is the public that matters; more specifically, it is the voting publics in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan that matter. And these publics are not thinking about whom they will choose.
Secondary to this reason is that when a politician says that they haven’t made up their mind on whether they will run, they really mean it. This includes the Machiavellian Hillary Clinton. She, like every serious candidate, is primarily concerned about winning. And, so, even if a politician really wants to be president, if they think they cannot win, they will not run. Nobody will throw their hat in the ring if they think they cannot win. And, at this point, there are simply too many unknown quantities for any politician to determine whether or not victory is possible. Yes, Hillary -- and others -- are thinking about it; however, nobody has made any concrete determinations, even for themselves.
At this point, we can only say anything substantive if our comments are strictly negative. In other words, we cannot say whether somebody’s calculations will induce them to run. However, we can say whether somebody’s calculuations will induce them not to run. For some people, like myself or (most likely) you, the math just does not, and never will, add up.
So, with that said, what can we say about the aforementioned dream matchup? We can say that it definitely will not happen.
The reason for this is quite simple: Condoleeza Rice will not be a presidential candidate in 2008. It will never happen, provided she is a “rational utility maximer” (in her case, a safe assumption). There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, a candidate for the White House must start campaigning 18 months before the general election, and must do serious exploratory work for about 6 months before that. For many politicians, i.e. Senators and Governors, this is not problematic. Many of their official duties can be shunted aside (as with John Kerry, who did not show up in the Senate for about two years). However, Condoleeza Rice is Secretary of State. She cannot do that job on a part-time basis. It is too demanding, and simply too unseemly for our nation’s top diplomat to have a perpetual conflict-of-interest.
This means that, if she decides to run for the presidency, she would have to resign her post in January, 2007. Does anybody think she really wants to do this? This is a dream job for her. Why would she give this up to go to Portsmouth, NH and Cedar Rapids, IA to suck up to the local GOP city councilmen?
This is, to be sure, an unfortunate situation for the public -- as that position frequently is held by the person most qualified for Chief Executive. In the early days of our Republic, the Secretary of State was a quadrennial contender for the top job (James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams all held this position). However, there was really no personal campaigning at that time, let alone 24 months of personal campaigning. Times have changed, and this position is no longer a viable springboard for the top job.
Second, Condoleeza Rice has never been a candidate for any office. In this day and age, you simply cannot compete for the top job without having a few lesser victories under your belt, regardless of how superb your advisors are. Think of all the first-time candidates in the last 13 years -- Ross Perot, Steve Forbes, Wes Clark, Elizabeth Dole. How well did they do? The inexperience of the rookie is devastating. They are inexperienced at “politician speak,” they are bad tacticians, they need an incredible amount of help at organizing, etc. And, Rice, as an intelligent woman, is likely aware of her political ignorance. Thus, even if she wants the job, and is willing to cut short her time as Secretary of State, she likely knows that she is just too inexperienced to run and win.
(Don’t get me wrong, I wish Rice would win. I like her. And plus, I like imaginging the bitterness the left would feel if our first black president, our first female president, and our first president with a Ph.D. was a Republican!)
We might see Rice as a veep nominee in 2008. However, this will only come if the GOP presidential nominee thinks he can gain a definite advantage from her presence. The “coolness” of her running as veep will not be a factor. If the top guy thinks that he can increase his chance of winning by nominating Governor Uber Bland from Purple State, rather than Rice, he will not even think twice. Uber Bland will be his choice. And the nominee for the top job will be acutely aware that Rice has no prior campaigning experience, and this will count against her in his calculations.
As for Hillary, the likelihood that she will run is much greater. All signs currently point toward yes. However, as I mentioned before, it is objectively true that she has not made up her mind. Furthermore, the presumption of some that the nomination is hers if she wants it is pure, unadulterated balderdash. And Hillary knows it. She has firsthand experience at how unpredictable the Party of Andrew Jackson can be. The rank-and-file Democratic Party, quite unlike the GOP (which has nominated a Bush, Nixon or Dole for either the first or second spot in every election, save one, since 1952), uses its opportunity in the primaries to consistently thwart the conventional wisdom of the party elites. This is the party that nominated McGovern in 1972, Carter in 1976, Dukakis in 1988, and Clinton in 1992. Front-runner status is almost a negative in the Democratic primaries. 2004 was a perfectly delicious example of that. John Kerrry was initially the front-runner, which is why all those Democrats bolted early to the insurgent Howard Dean. When Dean became the front-runner, they bolted right back to the insurgent John Kerry! The Democratic primary voter, God bless him, seems dead-set on defying conventional wisdom.
My honest guess for 2008 is that the candidates will be people very few of us have heard of. I am expecting a surprise.
All of this leads me to a final point, about the media. The emergence of the technological age has gone hand-in-hand with the opening up of the political process. Both have proceeded at a rapid clip over the last 50 years. Both have had the same effect -- more and more, the public has gained a measure of control over the political system. It has more opportunities to make its voice heard, through political polls which capture the attention of every election-obsessed politician as well as more elections in which it can participate. The public is also much better informed. Today, the public is more influential in our political process than at any time in our nation’s history. The decisions about who shall represent the parties in the general elections used to be determined by party elites, whose opinions were generally gaugeable. No longer is this the case. It is now up to certain publics, who now have the power and the knowledge to make these decisions on their own. These publics are unpredictable three years in advance.
The media has helped create this situation, and yet they are completely unaware of it. They presume that they can say something affirmative about 2008 in 2005. However, because of the process that has enhanced the power of the electorate, a process which they have helped animate, they really cannot say anything. Thus, when you read all of those articles and watch all of those shows that presume to provide insight about the next presidential election, just remember that the media is so unaware, they are not even self-aware. Just as you would not take seriously personal advice from somebody who does not even have a handle on their own life, so you should not listen to the media about ‘08.
My advice: instead of watching Shepherd Smith talk to Bob Beckel about ‘08 on Studio B, turn on FX. Chances are there is a great episode of King of the Hill on! Personally, I cannot get enough of the timeless political wisdom of Hank Hill: “If Ronald Reagan did dye his hair, and I’m not saying he did, he only did it to strike fear in the hearts of the Communists!”
Jay Cost, a graduate student at the University of Chicago, is creator of The Horserace Blog. He may be reached at jay_cost@hotmail.com. |
