Bush's Worst Nightmare
___________________________________
By Stephen K. Medvic
tompaine.com
[Stephen K. Medvic is assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, is the co-editor of Shades of Gray: Perspectives on Campaign Ethics (Brookings Institution Press, 2002).]
General Wesley Clark has finally announced his candidacy. Democratic rank-and-file know very little about Clark's positions, and today's press conference in Little Rock shed no new light on his policy stances. But most Democrats will, no doubt, quickly realize that he has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates have -- he's George Bush's worst nightmare.
I can almost hear the Dean supporters expressing Dean-like righteous anger. Their guy, they'll claim, is the most electable Democrat. I've been amused by this argument since they started making it (though it's no more of a stretch than the argument that Dean most embodies true Democratic principles). Let's face facts -- Bush will skewer a candidate who has built an entire campaign around opposition to war, or who has at least allowed himself to be portrayed as such.
Sadly, elections aren't about who has the better argument -- they're about images created by the campaigns in a dynamic process of emphasizing issues and personality traits. In this process, perceptions of the parties are important lenses through which the typical voter views the candidates. Democrats are generally seen as better at handling education, the environment and health care; Republicans are thought to be better on taxes, crime and upholding traditional values. Each party packs a punch that, if landed right, can deliver a knockout blow. For Democrats it's jobs, for Republicans it's national security.
In next year's election, crucial swing voters will make up their minds based on a combination of vague impressions they have of the candidates and their senses of the issue agendas developed by both parties. In the end, Bush will have Karl Rove and about $200 million to make sure that security is foremost in the minds of the voters. Rove's team will do its best to create the impression that the Democratic nominee is soft on security. You might call it a process of Dukakisification -- and there is no candidate riper for being Dukakisified than Howard Dean.
Which candidate is least susceptible to such an attack? Gen. Wesley Clark. Indeed, it's difficult to even conceive of how the Bush team could use the security issue against the likes of a West Point grad, Vietnam veteran, four-star general, and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. I imagine the first thing they'd do is mothball the footage taken when Bush played dress-up on the aircraft carrier.
Obviously, electability isn't the only criteria to consider during the nomination phase. If it were, both parties would identify the candidates most attractive to moderate swing voters and bless them. But ideology matters too; that's why Lieberman won't win the nomination. And, although it's true that Clark's positions aren't widely known, those that are fit nicely with core Democratic principles.
Like Dean, Clark opposed a pre-emptive, unilateral war in Iraq. Unlike Dean, however, his stance could never be used to suggest that he is unwilling to use military force when necessary. He seems to favor lifting the ban on gays in the military and he clearly supports affirmative action. He's pro-choice and appears to be generally progressive on women's issues (e.g., he proactively addressed spousal abuse in the military in the early 1980s). Though his positions on many environmental issues aren't clear, he has said he opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Though there aren't many specifics about his positions on economics, education and health care, his general statements obviously lean in a leftward direction.
Does this mean that Clark would definitely beat George Bush? Of course not; there are too many unknown factors. The economy could pick up and the United Nations might bail Bush out in Iraq. Nor does it mean that only Clark has a chance to beat Bush. If there are hundreds, maybe even a thousand American deaths in Iraq by next November, and if the economy doesn't turn around at least with respect to employment, Bush might be vulnerable against any of the top three or four serious Democrats.
Furthermore, it's not even clear that Clark can get the nomination. Winning a series of caucuses and primaries requires more than enthusiastic support in the polls. You need money and volunteers to run ads, pay for infrastructure and travel, and get people to the polls. With a process more front-loaded than ever before, Clark's late entry might make it impossible to catch up. He could win Iowa or New Hampshire, as McCain did in 2000. But when multiple states, spread out across the country, hold nomination events on the same day (as six do, including South Carolina, Missouri and Arizona, on February 3), you need a full-blown organization to carry you through. That's why McCain, who got in on September 28, couldn't compete with Bush in 2000.
Still, it might be possible for an enormous groundswell of support to push Clark ahead of the pack. If Democrats were wise, they'd coalesce around the candidate who not only neutralizes the security issue but may very well capture it -- and the White House -- for the party.
Published: Sep 16 2003 |
