Should the Democrats Draft a General?
By Franklin Foer
The Washington Post
Saturday, July 12, 2003
According to a recent Washington Post poll, 72 percent of the public trusts President Bush to handle terrorism better than the Democrats. Republicans have held an advantage on national security issues for two generations, but 9/11 instantly magnified both the size of the gap and its political consequences. The extent of the problem this poses to the Democrats' chances of winning back the presidency in 2004 has not yet penetrated their minds. It's not remotely comparable to mistrust of Republican health care or education policies, as many Democrats seem to believe. It reveals a fundamental worry that voters have about the party, one that cannot be overcome with small measures.
Some of the presidential contenders have a better chance of minimizing this problem than others because of their biographies, expertise or hawkishness. But it's an Achilles' heel for all of them. The good news is that an ideal solution has landed in the Democrats' laps: Wesley Clark. The bad news is that because so few Democrats recognize the scale of the problem, not many of them grasp the solution.
For the past several months, retired Gen. Wesley Clark has been campaigning for the post of reluctant warrior. He has tirelessly dropped hints that he would enter the race. It seems that he's just waiting for the party establishment to rally around him and begin clearing the field.
In fact, Clark's shot at beating Bush is exponentially better than those of any of the other contenders.
Nobody could possibly take Clark, the former NATO supreme commander, for a McGovernite pacifist -- even when he makes his critique of Operation Iraqi Freedom. When the press refers to him, his first name will always be "General." Without being the least bit exploitative, his ads will feature him with stars across his shoulders.
But Clark's virtues go beyond foreign policy concerns and his jacket full of medals. When he articulates mainstream Democratic issues, as he does on abortion, affirmative action and taxation, he manages to sound like a centrist maverick. In part, he benefits from a southern accent and a cool demeanor. But he also approaches politics as an outsider. This isn't to say that he is a policy ignoramus. On the contrary, he talks about domestic issues with a surprising proficiency. (He didn't finish first in his West Point class for nothing.) Clark's appeal is that he intelligently veers from traditional Democratic rhetoric to make the party's case. Take the gun issue. Instead of hemming and hawing about the Second Amendment, he says, "I have got 20-some-odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life, but people who like assault weapons, they should join the United States Army -- we have them." In a flash, he could reverse the damage of 30 years of Republican culture warmongering.
Or consider taxes, on which he uses a straightforward formulation, "The American people on the one hand don't like taxes. None of us do. But, on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us." When these calm explanations come out of his mouth, they sound derived from common-sense consideration, not fidelity to a party line.
The only other candidate with anything like Clark's personal history is Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. For that very reason, much of the Democratic establishment has backed Kerry in the belief that he would have the best chance of countering Bush's national security advantage. This is a mistake. Kerry's military service was followed by a largely dovish career of protesting wars and opposing weapons systems. And Kerry has a bundle of other disadvantages -- being a Northeastern liberal, and perceived as arrogant -- that would likely doom him in the general election.
There's an important precedent for Democrats -- and not the obvious example of Dwight Eisenhower. In 1995 Colin Powell toyed with the idea of a second career, in presidential politics. It seemed an ideal opportunity for Republicans. Bob Dole had infrastructure but no oomph. Powell had a great chance of beating Bill Clinton. And even if he flamed out, he would have permanently altered perceptions of the party. But when presented with this amazing opportunity, the Republican establishment behaved like, well, an establishment and declined to give Powell substantial enough assurances of support. Twelve months before the election, they sealed their own defeat.
Some Democratic consultants have told reporters that it's too late to draft Clark. Seven months out from the Iowa caucus, this warning doesn't make sense. At this date on the calendar 12 years ago, Clinton had barely registered in the polls. Besides, the date shouldn't be an excuse for dismissing Clark but rather a reason for the establishment to coalesce forcefully behind him.
After 1996, Republicans learned their lesson. Four years later, recognizing a winning horse in George W. Bush, the party establishment rallied around him and muscled his less-electable opponents out of the race. Democrats might ponder whether they want to endure a 2004 drubbing before they learn the same lesson.
__________________________
Franklin Foer is a staff writer at the New Republic.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
