The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a discussion of the wisdom of George Walker Bush. This is not so simply that I could write a sentence that has never been written before, but because a particular quote by W fits quite nicely into a discussion of the diminished expectations that people have for this year’s crop of presidential candidates.
Referring once to education policy, President Bush the Dumber once chastised Democrats for the “soft bigotry of soft expectations.” This phrase perfectly describes the apathy voters feel toward this year’s candidates, although I wouldn’t call it bigotry so much as well- deserved contempt.
Republicans currently have the dilemma of choosing a nominee who can defeat President Barack Obama. While former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has led the field and has won the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, lingering suspicion about his conservative bona fides has left many Republicans longing for a realistic alternative. One by one, the other candidates in the race have gotten their moment in the spotlight, and ultimately been found wanting. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum have been scrutinized and then rejected, to one degree or another. Congressman Ron Paul has chugged along, holding on to a base of rabid supporters but seemingly unable to build upon it. Former Utah governor and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman lingers in the race, hoping to catch on or at least avoid joining Bachmann, Cain and Tim Pawlenty on the sidelines.
Recently, I encouraged several New Hampshire residents in my family to consider voting for Jon Huntsman. I did this not as an Obama supporter, but in spite of my desire to see the president re-elected. I continue to believe that Jon Huntsman, should he somehow secure the Republican nomination, would be the most formidable candidate against Obama.
I say this because history teaches us that re-election campaigns are referendums on the incumbent. In the event that an incumbent president is running for re-election but not generating enthusiasm, the task among his campaign team involves winning a war of attrition. Barack Obama and his prospective performance as president is known to the American people, and divided roughly equally between those who find it acceptable and favor a second term and those who do not and prefer a change. The challenge for Obama is to gain those few remaining undecided voters and shore up a lukewarm base. He cannot do this by generating enthusiasm. Many people have complained that Obama is another Bush. Well, to win re-election he needs to be. Like the son, or the father.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush ran for president as a pseudo incumbent president, the supposed heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. The problem is, most of the American public found Bush far less likable and inspiring than Reagan. Polling indicated that on the issues, voters sided with Democrats and in generic polls, indicated a preference to elect a Democratic president. So Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and the rest of the Bush team proceeded to elect their candidate the only way they could: by making his opponent unacceptable to the voting public. The focus of the Bush campaign in 1988 was not to advertise the virtues of George Bush. It was to make Michael Dukakis look like an unpatriotic weirdo who was completely out of step with traditional American values. Never mind that the origin of the “unpatriotic” tag was Dukakis vetoing a bill requiring students to say the pledge of allegiance. Which is illegal, because you can’t require anyone to take an oath of allegiance. Dukakis vetoed the bill not only on constitutional grounds, but to save the public’s money from being wasted on a useless court defense of said bill. So of course we want to forget that part, since Dukakis was a liberal and liberals want to waste your money.
The point is that there were broad strokes to paint Dukakis with, and the substance found in the smaller details couldn’t save him. This is what Obama must do to the Republican nominee, because the substance of his own record can’t get him a second term, since those important details are lost in a larger, largely false narrative that the Democrats have lost control of.
Even if one does not accept the premise that there is a difference in quality between the perception and reality of Obama’s record, there is still a path to victory for him, and in this case, he would follow the pattern of the son, not the father. In 2004, very few Republicans seriously argued for the re-election of George W. Bush. Instead, they argued against the election of Senator John Kerry. The rationale was, “Okay, so Bush isn’t perfect. But he has kept us safe, has kept the terrorists on the run, and anyway, he’s not an effete wishy washy windsurfer.” I’m just kidding, most Republicans couldn’t come up with a turn of phrase like that. Most Republicans couldn’t read a turn of phrase like that. Anyway, they persuaded enough people to buy into that narrative, and forget about all of those other tiny, insignificant details, like starting an unnecessary war by attacking the wrong country, spending billions of dollars occupying Iraq while Afghanistan slipped out of control, shredding the Constitution for the sake of public safety and cutting taxes in wartime for the first time in American history, producing record deficits that burdened an economy already headed toward a historic collapse. You know, the small stuff.
Despite those issues, ultimately George W. owes his re-election to the supremely important and relevant fact that….black people in Ohio are homophobic. Yes, that’s correct. In a time of war, and great expense of treasure and blood, the Republican Party stirred up so much agita about the prospect of gay marriage that Bush’s vote in Ohio inched up enough to provide his margin of victory over Kerry in the state, and therefore the electoral college. Man, for a guy that could barely count, Georgie sure had a lot of success with electoral math. If you don’t believe me, look it up on the internet, brought to you by Al Gore.
If a candidate for the worst president in American history can crawl to re-election to a second term in that office, then apparently, another president who many think fits that description can do the same. This is why the Republican Party should choose as its nominee one Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr.
In the absolute circus that is the Republican primary, one question should be paramount in the minds of Republican voters. Which one of the guys tumbling out of the clown car is the most acceptable alternative to Barack Obama? Or rather, which of them is the least objectionable? Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Ron Paul? No, it’s Mitt Romney. Unless it’s Huntsman. Let’s pretend that these two are culinary dishes. The recipe for both includes: conservative but not an out and out right winger. Calm demeanor. Equitable balance between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Picture perfect family. Mormon. Former governor. The only difference between these two dishes is that when you want to make a Huntsman, you hold the bullshit.
Remember how much Republicans hated Bill Clinton? Then why did they help re-elect him by propping up old Bob Dole onto the ticket? Mitt is a younger Dole, minus the sense of humor. The other wing nuts running this year would have fit in quite well in that race. At the time, the Clinton White House prayed that one candidate wouldn’t catch on. Who? Boring, plaid shirt wearing, unobjectionable Lamar Alexander. Old Lamar didn’t excite anyone, but he would have been the most formidable candidate against the controversial Democratic president because he didn’t bother anyone either. Huntsman presents the same danger to Obama, but the Republican Party probably won’t recognize it. And Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Wait, why am I telling anyone this? Never mind! Go Romney!
Welcome
