Beating Bush

Discuss this on our boards!

Beating Bush
by James Hall, Senior Associate Editor

May 24, 2003

"Leaning Left"

James Hall It's too early to pick the contender for incumbent George W. Bush among the nine Democrats beginning to slog their way through debates and primary campaigns. But a few historical observations on their ability to run a successful national race are in order.

While Republicans tend to favor the coronation of a front-runner long before the first primary is ever held, Democrats enjoy the messy clash of ideas on the political stage, the candidates strutting their stuff on the political runway, the pressing of flesh and orgy of baby-kissing that occurs before making a choice. But while this clash of personalities is underway, Democrats shouldn't lose sight of their ultimate goal-beating George W. Bush in the fall of 2004 and dismantling a conservative agenda that continues with stealth during the war on terror.

The nine politicians running for the presidential nomination are all stalwart Democrats, each successful in their own right and their own region. But which will be most capable of handling the national stage and winning a national race one-on-one with incumbent George W. Bush?

Considering the past success of Democrats running for the presidency, a Southern Governor like a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton might well be called for. Or a Southern Senator with managerial experience as vice president, like Missouri native Harry Truman, Texan Lyndon Baines Johnson, and even Tennessee's Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000 but lost a close race in the electoral college.

Like it or not, most successful national Democrats have come from the South. You have to go back to 1960 to find the last time a Democrat from another region won national office. And John F. Kennedy barely beat out Richard Nixon, then.

But is it the region of origin that made these Democrats winners, or their ideology? If you look closely at Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and even Carter, what they have in common is that while they were socially liberal for the most part, they were tough on national defense and national security. Harry Truman dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima and fought the Korean War; Kennedy weathered the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin airlift; Johnson fanned a brush-war Vietnam into full flame; and Clinton occupied Haiti and fought in Bosnia and Kosovo. Even Jimmy Carter had his El Salvador.

On the other hand, Democratic losers from Eugene McCarthy to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis appeared weak or suspect on national defense, particularly in contrast to the Republicans running against them. The failure to appear resolute in the face of danger from abroad has always been the kiss of death for a national politician in America. That doesn't mean that Americans elect war-mongers as president: Woodrow Wilson was elected on an anti-war platform, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised to keep the US out of what was regarded as a European and Asian war. But when war inevitably loomed, both of these Democrats were ready to lead a fight.

Like it or not, Americans now see their nation involved in a war on terrorism, and that's likely to be just as true in November of 2004. So while we consider a range of Democratic ideologies in these candidates, from conservatives like New Democrat Joe Lieberman and Southern Democrats Bob Graham and John Edwards to traditional liberals like Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and Al Sharpton, the one indispensable credential that any Democratic candidate must have is a willingness-even an eagerness-to fight the war on terror, and fight it better than George W. Bush. ***

James Hall
Orlando, FL USA

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files