Bush Should Watch Out For Wesley Clark...
dailygusto.com
Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare
by Lowell Feld
Throughout its history, in times of war and in times of peace alike, America has turned to generals and other military men to serve as their president. Some, like George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower, turned out to be excellent in the job. Others -- Ulysses S. Grant, William Henry Harrison, Andrew Johnson -- are considered by most historians to have been miserable failures. In and of itself, therefore, being a general certainly does not guarantee that one will make a good president.
On the other hand, having little or no military experience doesn't necessarily make someone a bad president. Take Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for instance, one of our greatest war-time leaders, with no military background to speak of except for his service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson. Or, how about Ronald Reagan, also with minimal military experience -- he was stationed on the bloody Hollywood front during World War II -- who conservatives credit with having restored America to greatness and winning the Cold War?
The idea of electing a general, or a military man in general, as President of the United States has had an enduring popular appeal. Including America's first president, General George Washington, the United States has had 12 generals (including two who served in state militias), five colonels, three majors, four lieutenant commanders, three captains, four lieutenants, and one private as president. That's a total of 32 military veterans (31 officers) out of 36 Presidents, or nearly 90 percent of the total. Strikingly, every single president elected during the Cold War, a time of war and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, had previously been an officer in the U.S. military. And now, after a decade of peace and prosperity, we are, de facto, at war again.
For Democratic presidential candidates in an era of war and terror, military experience may prove to be crucial, because for years now -- justifiably or not -- Democrats have been widely perceived as far weaker than Republicans on national security matters. In times of peace and tranquility, this might not have mattered very much. Bill Clinton, for instance, was elected in 1992 (and reelected in 1996) shortly after the Cold War ended, despite having dodged the draft in Vietnam. In times of war like the present, it's a different story.
It may be as much a matter of perception as reality, but after 9/11, in the midst of war (against terror, Iraq, and possibly North Korea and Iran) and economic tough times (unemployment 6.4 percent in June, its highest level since 1994), Americans today rightfully feel anxious and vulnerable. They crave security, both against being killed by terrorists as well as against losing their jobs, their pensions, and their health care. Today, Americans are yearning for a president who can protect and reassure them in these fundamental areas.
All this bad news is starting to show up in U.S. public opinion. According to the latest Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report (July 22-24), only 40% of Americans believe the country is on the "right track." This compares to a 70 percent "right track" response in December 2001, just three months after 9/11. And the latest Zogby poll (July 16-17) has President Bush's "favorability rating" down to 57 percent, from a high of 82 percent in April 2002, with only 47 percent of Americans now saying Bush is someone they "can trust" (Time/CNN Poll, July 16-17). Finally, for the first time since 9/11, according to Zogby (July 16-17) fewer Americans (46 percent) now say that Bush "deserves reelection" compared to those who say they would prefer "someone new" (47 percent).
President Bush appears politically vulnerable now, for the first time since 9/11. But, even if the polls are accurate, and Bush remains vulnerable through November 2004, how do the Democrats convince Americans that they are tough enough to deal with the challenges that lie ahead, that they offer a worthy alternative, that they have a plan and vision of their own? Even more crucially, in this time of war, terrorism, and economic anxiety, how do the Democrats dispose of their "wussiness" image and convince people they're up to the job of leading America?
Two possibilities spring to mind. First, the country could win the "war on terrorism" quickly and decisively, allowing it to return to its big 1990's party and to forget all about terrorism and threats from abroad. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening over the next 15 months are about as high as the current price of Enron stock. That leaves option number two: the Democrats get a backbone and a vision.
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, it is unlikely that any of its current presidential candidates have this combination of backbone and vision: the sharp-tongued "Vermont Liberal" (Howard Dean); the aristocratic "Massachusetts Liberal" (John Kerry); the inexperienced, poll-driven, trial lawyer (John Edwards); the left-wing, pacifist flake (Dennis Kucinich); the totally unqualified rabble-rouser (Al Sharpton); the crowd of old guys with the charisma of cold Velveeta (Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, Bob Graham); or the woman in search of an even semi-plausible rationale for being a presidential candidate (Carol Moseley Braun).
Let's be blunt here. After the carnage of 9/11, the only Democratic presidential candidate with a prayer in hell of beating George W. Bush in November 2004 is going to have to be irreproachable on military and national security matters. Being tough, smart, southern, mainstream, no-nonsense, distinguished-looking, and skilled on TV would be nice, too. Yeah, right, you say, good luck finding all that! Well, how about if we add that the person must have a vision for America, significant "real world" experience, and a heck of a lot more brain cells than George "Dubya" Bush?
Well, you say, call the election for George W. Bush right now, because nobody, certainly not a Democrat, could possibly be that great. Or could he? Well, cue the drum roll please, because now, ladies and gentlemen, we are pleased to introduce an Officer and a Gentleman, a man with a plan, a brain, and control over his zipper, your next president, General Wesley K. Clark! (wild applause)
All kidding aside, who is this guy, Wesley Clark, who for months now has been toying with throwing his hat in the presidential ring, sparring with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," and accepting interviews with numerous leading newspapers and magazines? Aside from Clark's stellar resume -- Rhodes Scholar, first in his class at West Point, four-star general, wounded and highly decorated in Vietnam, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe during the successful Kosovo campaign -- what does he stand for exactly?
Let's start with domestic issues. On health care and education, Clark waxes rhapsodic that in the U.S. military, "everyone [gets] healthcare, and the army care[s] about the education of everyone's family members." Does this mean Clark would support some form of national health care and expanded educational opportunities for all? Sure sounds like it.
On two hot-button social issues, Clark's views are eclectic, and that's not necessarily a bad thing politically. On abortion, Clark is pro-choice, although he hasn't spoken much on this issue (strategically the less said, the better?). And on guns, Clark believes -- like Howard Dean, incidentally -- that gun ownership is mainly a local issue. In fact, Clark is a hunter, which may endear him to many in rural America.
On economic policy, Clark is a strong opponent of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy because they "weren't fair." More broadly, Clark appears philosophically to be strongly in tune with the "Teddy Roosevelt Progressive" tradition, championing the principle that "the more [money] you make, the more you give" in both absolute and relative terms. But before anyone concludes that Wesley Clark is a "tax and spend liberal," it is important to note that Clark is a fiscal moderate who questions whether running long-term deficits is "wise, long-run policy."
On the environment, Clark has opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and has even articulated the visionary concept that "100 years out, the only things we leave behind that will matter are the environment and constitutional legitimacy." Imagine George W. Bush saying something like that? How about any U.S. president? Well, Teddy Roosevelt, whose face happens to be on Mount Rushmore, not only made statements like that, he acted on them.
In stark contrast to George W. Bush on foreign policy, Clark is a firm believer in the importance of cooperating with allies, having actually done so as Commander of NATO forces in Europe. Not surprisingly, then, Clark has criticized the Bush administration strongly for its bullheaded unilateralism and utter ineptitude in working with U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere. In September 2002, for instance, Clark wrote in "Washington Monthly" that Bush's failure to work with our allies, NATO in particular, means that "we are fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind our back."
On homeland security, Clark is certainly a patriot who believes in protecting our country, having taken a few bullets himself, but he also, unlike Bush, is wise enough to treasure the values upon which this country was founded. Clark is skeptical and suspicious, therefore, of shortsighted, Orwellian measures enacted in the name of national security, like the Patriot Act. Specifically Clark worries that we're "giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law."
So, there you have it: Wesley Clark is a political moderate, a war hero, a smart-as-hell, telegenic, electable Southerner with "General" for a first name and a vision for America. Another way of looking at Clark is that he's potentially Bill Clinton in all the good ways (smart, centrist, and charismatic), but without Clinton's problems (wine, women, and bad sax playing). And the four stars on each of Clark's shoulders stand in stark contrast to George W. Bush, who went AWOL from his National Guard duty. Can we start the Presidential debates right now?
One problem, though: although Clark has hinted broadly at his interest in running, he has not yet declared formally that he is running for President. How to rectify this situation? Enter the large, energetic, and vocal "Draft Clark" movement that has sprung up across the country in just the past few months. As John Hlinko, founder of DraftWesleyClark.com and one of the top leaders in the nationwide effort to "draft the General," puts it, "[General Clark] is the kind of guy who we were promised, as kids, could be a president. And now, with our nudging, he might be."
Overstatement? Maybe, but without even having entered the race, Clark has attracted a loyal group of supporters. At the July 7 Draft Clark "Meetup" held in Washington DC, just one of the many cities hosting these meetings, dozens of Clark supporters expressed their strong desire to replace George W. Bush, while describing Clark as "intellectually gifted," with a "plan and a vision," who "knows how to work with -- not alienate -- our allies," while "not preying on people's fears." They also believe he "can cut through the whole 'Red America/Blue America' divide," and -- last but not least -- beat Bush.
If Clark does decide to run, we can just imagine the thoughts that might go through White House political guru Karl Rove's brain as he tries to sleep, tossing and turning: "No, not a 2004 match-up of a war hero, four-star General from the South against my guy -- AWOL "pilot" George Dubya! My God, I can see Clark pounding Bush relentlessly in the final presidential debate on what were supposed to be George's strong points-foreign policy and homeland security! Uh oh, now we're onto economic issues, and Bush is floundering, sinking fast. And now it's election night, and Clark is winning all the "blue" states that Al Gore won in 2000, plus some "red" states too-including his home state of Arkansas. And, horror of horrors, Fox News just called Florida, and the election, for Clark by a landslide, with no chads or recounts this time. As Rove wakes up in a cold sweat, and as we leave his brain forever, we hear him muttering, "What a nightmare! what was that about?"
Well, Karl, it's about the threat General Wesley Clark poses to your candidate's reelection chances. It's also about the potential for a veritable epidemic of cold-sweat syndrome breaking out amongst Republican politicians and political consultants all over America. To put it bluntly, Clark could kick George W. Bush's butt in 2004. Regarding a Bush-Clark matchup in 2004, and paraphrasing the immortal words of that "straight shootin' Texan," George W. Bush himself: "Bring It On!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
