The Parties' Temptations
Ask yourself: Have you ever voted—have you ever met anyone who voted—for a presidential candidate because of his running mate?
By George F. Will
NewsweekFeb. 2 issue - British prime minister David Lloyd George, asked about the probable place in history of one of his eminent contemporaries (Arthur Balfour), replied, "He will be just like the scent on a pocket handkerchief." This is written as New Hampshire is clearing its throat and preparing to roar, which is a good time to remember the evanescence of many political things—candidacies, tactics and promises, too.
advertisement
Some Democrats have been busy counting chickens before they are hatched. Capricious New Hampshire had not yet made its decision when some Democrats began musing about a John Kerry-John Edwards ticket. That, said the musers, would confound Republicans in November by picking the lock the GOP has on most of the 168 electoral votes of the 11 states of the Confederacy plus Kentucky and Oklahoma. There are two large problems with this.
First, the political potency of vice presidential candidates usually is about as minuscule as the formal duties of a vice president. Ask yourself: Have you ever voted—have you ever even met anyone who voted—for a presidential candidate because of his running mate? Perhaps Lyndon Johnson turned the 1960 election by helping John Kennedy carry Texas. But name another time a vice presidential candidate clearly mattered.
The second problem with the Kerry-Edwards scenario is that Edwards represents the Democrats' Southern temptation. The paradox is: If Edwards on the ticket can give the Democrats significant numbers of Southern electoral votes, the ticket will be so strong elsewhere that the Southern votes will not be needed.
Republicans have something comparable to the Democrats' Southern temptation—a California temptation. With Arnold Schwarzenegger bestriding Sacramento, and the state's Democrats demoralized and in disarray, Republicans are daring to dream that they can capture California's 55 electoral votes—more than one fifth of the total needed to win the White House. Without those 55, Democrats have no chance of winning. The Republicans' California temptation is, today at least, more than merely wishful thinking, for four reasons.
First, a George W. Bush campaign aide says Bush's approval among Hispanics in California—and nationally—is as high as or higher than his approval among Anglos. (This might become an argument for Democrats to make New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson, an Hispanic, their vice presidential nominee.)
Second, California's swoon for Schwarzenegger indicates a hankering for forceful leadership. Even most people who dislike the direction in which Bush is leading say he is (alarmingly) forceful.
Third, California's GOP now carries what one Bush aide calls "the Arnold brand." That is hugely advantageous as long as Schwarzenegger's honeymoon lasts. Of course it could end before November.
Fourth, California is changeable. Between 1958 and 1988 it elected as governor Democrat Pat Brown twice, then Ronald Reagan twice, then Brown's son Jerry twice, then Reagan's protege George Deukmejian twice. So perhaps Democratic dominance in California's presidential politics (Al Gore trounced Bush there, 53-42, without making an effort in the state) could end abruptly.
If there were an Ohio Democrat with national stature, he or she would, come summer, rank near the top of the shortlist of potential running mates. If John Glenn were not 82, he would be ideal. This, for three reasons. No Republican has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio. Ohio is the largest non-Southern state that Gore lost. (He barely lost it, 50-46, by 165,019 votes.) Since then Ohio has lost 250,000 jobs.
Advertisement
The Woven Figure: Conservatism and America's Fabric by George F. Will
Other books by George F. Will
Although the makeup of the Democratic ticket is still very much in doubt, two things are certain. Whomever the Democrats nominate will be pledged to repeal the portion of President Bush's income-tax cuts that benefits high earners. And if that Democrat is elected, he will not be able to do that. Not because he will not try, but because presidents propose, Congress disposes, and the Republican-controlled Congress will refuse.
As the campaign unfolds, bear in mind the high—the very high—probability that both houses of Congress will remain in Republican hands. The retirement of five Southern Democratic senators probably presages Republican gains. Gerrymandering by both parties to protect incumbents had gone far to lock in a Republican majority in the House of Representatives even before the Republican-controlled legislature of Texas redistricted for a second time since the 2000 Census, producing perhaps as many as six more Republican seats.
So should Republicans be serene? Not necessarily. Over the past 50 years, voters have more often than not produced a divided government, giving control of the White House to one party, and of Congress to the other. Voters seem to prefer that. Knowing that there probably would be a Republican Congress to restrain a Democratic president might make it easier for some voters to vote Democratic.
But, then, in a few months all of today's speculations might be as forgotten as a long-ago fragrance. |
