- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
June 25, 2008
Exclusive: A One-Term, Non-Incumbency Pledge by McCain?
It is hard in American politics for a party to win three consecutive national elections. This is true even when the party is viewed favorably, the incumbent administration is popular, and the general mood of the electorate is optimistic. Al Gore's loss in 2000 is a case in point. Today, however, conditions for the incumbency are even worse. The Republican Party is viewed unfavorably, President Bush is incredibly unpopular, and most Americans think we are headed in the wrong direction.
So how can Sen. McCain possibly win the election in November? The Bush team won twice in 2000 and 2004 by solidifying the Republican base and "getting out the vote" in certain swing states. This will naturally be harder this time around, not only because the Republican base has historically been at odds with McCain, but because less people today identify with the Republican Party than four or eight years ago.
Thankfully for Sen. McCain, even though the title "Republican" means less than it once did, more Americans still consider themselves "conservative" than "liberal" - and by a notable margin, too. Another saving grace for McCain is the fact that he, as an individual, is viewed far more favorably than his party as a whole. Nonetheless, McCain has to find a way to placate the conservatives of the Republican Party while appealing to independent-minded voters, as well as Reagan Democrats.
There are millions of blue-collar Democrats - unionists and middle-class workers in the Midwest - who do not identify with, say, Noam Chomsky; who do not approve of MoveOn.org's character assassinations of Gen. Petraeus; who do not wish to submit to autocrats abroad; who do not aspire to turn this into an overtly socialist country.
Just as conservatives have grown disenfranchised with the Republican Party's spending, government programs, and amnesty bills, so too many moderate Democrats have grown disillusioned with the Leftward shift of the party that once gave them Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. Most of these moderate Democrats voted for Sen. Clinton in the primaries, and today, after a bitter fight with Sen. Obama, upwards of 36% of Clinton-backers say they will vote for McCain over Obama.
It will be the task of McCain's strategists to win over some of these Democrats and independents while keeping the conservative base of the Republican Party enthusiastic. This may prove to be a daunting task. Many of McCain's environmental policies and economic nomenclature runs in direct opposition to conservative beliefs. Even if McCain and conservatives agree that a problem exists, much of the time they differ on solutions (like climate change or drilling in Alaska, for example).
With the cards already stacked against him, Sen. McCain must run an unconventional campaign if he wants any shot at all to win in November. He should be campaigning heavily in traditionally Democrat states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Michigan. He should be "dual campaigning" with the likes of Steve Forbes and other well-known economists and businessmen, who can help allay economical worries. He should also continue to have "biography tours." (While McCain cannot make his candidacy entirely about his life experiences, he should certainly introduce his amazing biography to those who are unaware of it.)
He should also find a way to get Obama in a forum where there is no teleprompter, like those town hall meetings McCain seems to relish. No moderators, no script... just a gentlemanly arrangement where the two candidates talk and discuss the country's problems with a small, intimate crowd of both Obama and McCain supporters - who are free to challenge and argue with either of the candidates.
But there is another option McCain might want to consider: a non-incumbency, one-term pledge. Whether or not McCain is elected this November, he should consider promising not to seek reelection in 2012. And to top that off, he should select a running mate who has no further presidential ambitions, as well.
There is some evidence that McCain might end up serving only a single term anyway, so if this is the case, if Sen. McCain is already privately considering this possibility should he be elected, he might want to announce such intentions now. This could have a multi-pronged effect.
It could please independents and Clinton Democrats, many of whom are hesitant to vote for Obama but are equally hesitant to vote for McCain because they might fear the prospect of another eight long years of Republican rule. Independents might hold off on all that "change" - surrendering in Iraq, electing the least experienced and most liberal member of Congress to the presidency, etc. - for another four years, but not the possibility of eight.
For instance, 49% of Americans think "victory" in Iraq is possible if McCain is elected; only 20% think the same is possible if Obama becomes president. If, while making a single term pledge, McCain can convince the electorate that success in Iraq (while ending U.S. casualties there) is more important than bringing the troops home regardless of the consequences, and, at least right now, the two are mutually exclusive, he would be on good footing with many nonpartisan and thoughtful voters. McCain's evolving slogan seems to be "Reform, Prosperity, Peace." Altering it to "One Term to Win the War and Achieve Energy Security" would appeal to a broad spectrum of people. He might even be able to replace "win the war" with "end the war," since the two, now, are one in of the same.
The issues of offshore drilling (which Obama opposes), continental drilling (which Obama opposes), and building nuclear power plants, as well as other forms of exploration (which Obama opposes), gives McCain the opportunity to combine the issue where he is seen as strongest (national security) with the issue he is seen as weakest (the economy). Winning in Iraq, undermining our foreign enemies by drilling for oil offshore, and moving to a flex-fuel economy to lower the price of gasoline (and thereby lowering the price of everything else, essentially saving the economy) would provide a large contrast between the two candidates.
It'd be a winning theme, and it's a rare opportunity McCain may not get again.
A one-term pledge might also assuage some worries regarding McCain's age. McCain would be 72 years old on the day of his inauguration, which would make him the oldest U.S. president ever elected to a first term. Reagan left office at 77 years old, which makes him the oldest president of all time, but he came into office at the age of 69. If McCain were to serve two full terms, he'd start his second term at 76 years old and end his presidency at the ripe age of 80.
Some may have forgotten that Churchill battled Nazism in his 70s and finally left office in his 80s. Adenauer became Germany's first postwar chancellor at 73 and left office at 87 years old. A liberated France elected de Gaulle at 68 years old, who was 78 when he retired. South Africa elected Mandela at 75, Golda Meir led Israel throughout her 70s, and Reagan, too, happened to accomplish quite a lot during his time in office.
Nevertheless, McCain's age gives many voters pause. By forswearing an attempt at reelection, Americans might feel more confident, sensing they were voting for an elder statesman - the "old war horse" as Victor Davis Hanson admiringly called him - rather than a potentially octogenarian president. McCain likes to say he's been an "imperfect servant of America for a very long time," before humbly asking voters the chance to "serve just a little while longer." A one-term pledge would underscore the sincerity of this request.
It would also emphasize the stark contrast in ambition between himself and Sen. Obama. It would remind voters of the differences between the two men; one, a seasoned veteran, putting the interests of his country over his own interests - as he has always done - and the other, a political novice, ambitiously seeking the land's highest office, in a brazen manner, just a few years removed from being an unknown Chicago "community organizer."
On the flip side, a one-term pledge by McCain might also excite the conservative base of the Republican Party in ways a conventional McCain candidacy could not. Some conservatives have expressed to me privately that they are wishing for McCain's defeat in November - the logic being that a McCain loss in 2008 would allow the conservative movement to find a better, more conservative candidate for the 2012 election. The possibility of eight McCain years frightens many of these voters, who fear McCain's ideological apostasy may not only rewrite conservatism for the worse - bringing it Leftward, away from its roots - but would also bring about long-lasting damages to the party. "At least with a Democrat administration, we can blame a Democrat," their thinking goes.
In a year where "change" seems to be the big buzzword, McCain should instead champion himself as a modest Teddy Roosevelt-like reformer, not a transformative political figure (which would terrify, not excite, the base of the Republican Party). By not running for reelection, McCain would be giving Republicans and the conservative movement a huge olive branch; they would be able to vote for McCain this year, while detaching themselves from a hypothetical McCain administration, and redefining modern-day conservatism on their own.
And to make the deal ever sweeter, McCain could make his entire presidency one of non-incumbency by picking a running mate who swears off running for president in the future (or, at least in 2012). Should McCain select a successor, or "heir apparent," the Republican Party institutions would be obliged to support that candidate in the 2012 primaries. But by selecting someone who makes a Cheney-like promise never to run, McCain will be in essence giving the GOP a wide-open field race for the next primaries. Republican heavy-hitters like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani could all vie for the nomination - watch for the "Draft Petraeus" and "Draft Gingrich" movements to begin sometime around 2010 - while being free of association to the incumbent McCain administration entirely.
So, who fits the model of the ideal one-term, non-incumbency candidate?
Since the primaries ended, too much speculation regarding McCain's "veep" slot - as well as for Obama - is centered on perceptional, and ultimately unimportant, notions. Thus such rumors of Gov. Crist of Florida, or Gov. Huckabee of Arkansas, or Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota, or Gov. Sanford of South Carolina, or Rep. Watts of Oklahoma, or Gov. Palin of Alaska, or Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, along with a slew of other nationally unknown political figures, joining McCain's ticket simply because they are young, or black, or female, or "more Christian," or Indian-American. (In the case of Jindal, there is something odd, for me at least, about a man one heartbeat away from the presidency who was all but in eighth grade when I was born.)
This is all nonsense. McCain can only win this election if "serious" beats "cool," thereby every decision McCain makes ought to be made from this orientation. Selecting a running mate for superficial or demographic purposes - race, gender, age, looks, etc. - would be a monumental mistake. The vice president, preferably, ought to have bipartisan appeal, credibility, and in this scenario, no presidential aspirations - all the while still being experienced enough and capable enough to assume the office of the presidency in the event of a tragedy or national emergency. A running mate should also be able to help a candidate get elected and govern efficiently if elected.
Only a few names come to mind.
Joe Lieberman, the ex-Democrat, has been McCain's confidant and wartime consigliere for years. His selection would underscore McCain's bipartisanship, and could assist him in the Northeast. Lieberman could also help with independents, national security hawks, Reagan Democrats, and the like. But it might alienate conservatives.
Tom Ridge, too, would be an interesting choice. He's had a very successful record in Congress as a two-term Republican governor in Pennsylvania, and as the country's first chief of the Department of Homeland Security. Ridge, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran like McCain, has been considered to take over the Pentagon on more than one occasion, and was seriously considered for the vice presidency by Dole in 1996 and by Bush in 2000. He remains one of Bush's few cabinet members to emerge from the Bush years with an unscathed reputation. Ridge is a highly respected and non-polarizing nationally known figure.
His likely downfall, unfairly I feel, would be his pro-choice position. This can be addressed should Ridge promise to support whatever Supreme Court justices McCain nominates. The upside potential, though, of having Ridge, who is wildly popular across blue-collar Pennsylvania, campaigning across his home state - a state Bush narrowly lost to Kerry in 2004, a state Obama lost badly to Clinton in the primaries, and a state Ridge could deliver to McCain - might cause too much salivation to pass up. Stealing Pennsylvania would effectively seal the deal for a McCain victory, or at the least, keep it close late into election night should McCain lose Ohio or another important swing state.
Throw in Ridge's forceful but reverent demeanor, his friendship with McCain, the personal camaraderie the two have, and Ridge's own lack of political ambition and this choice makes all the more sense.
One more possibility still yet exists, however unlikely: Colin Powell.
I have my own personal misgivings with Powell's policy recommendations on Iraq and the Balkans, dating back to the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. Powell has been the embodiment - along with James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and others - of the realist school of foreign policy thought, which I consider archaic and static. If Powell and I were to sit down and talk about the world, we wouldn't agree on much.
With that said, Gen. Powell's qualifications to hold high office - National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State - are almost unequaled. However in error some of his positions may be, Powell's career is the personification of integrity. And compared to the specter of an Obama administration, a Powell vice presidency - or, in the event of McCain's untimely resignation or death, a Powell presidency - would allow many Americans, including myself, to sleep well at night. He'd manage international affairs much the way George H.W. Bush went about it; unnecessarily risk-averse, reluctant to gamble, lacking in grand vision, but at least pragmatic and steady-handed. If he were to assume the presidency, we'd be able to bit our collective lips and endure less than one term of that.
To be sure, there are some problems with putting Powell on the ticket, the first of which would be Powell's continued insistence that he does not want to run for office in any capacity. Secondly, there is a question as to how much "in it" Powell would be. He has consistently praised Sen. Obama, not simply as an individual (which McCain often does), but as a viable choice for president. A friend of McCain's, Powell has still not publicly made up his mind as to who he is voting for. "Both of them certainly have the qualifications," he recently told the press, almost mind-blowingly ignoring Obama's apparent lack of such qualifications. This doesn't sound like someone who is ready to join the opposing ticket.
There is the issue of his age, which is 71 (he is only a half-year younger than McCain). And then, of course, there is his role as Sec. of State during Bush 43's first term. We can only imagine the liberal 527s airing video footage of Powell's 2003 address to the United Nations, holding up fake vials of biological agents, warning the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction. But if that would be the Democrats' strategy, they should be careful, because it could come back to bite them.
There is a reason why a McCain/Powell ticket would have such obvious appeal, and, dare I say, border on unbeatable. For years now, far-Left Democrats have used McCain and Powell, almost exclusively, as examples to prove their assumption that not all Republicans are evil. One sees how hard it is for Democrats to simply tie McCain to Bush in an intellectually honest fashion. Now imagine McCain running alongside someone who is seen, and universally recognized as, the man who challenged Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on Iraq. Far from a political liability, highlighting Powell's dissenting role in the Bush administration could serve as a political asset, and McCain's hypothetical selection of Powell would underscore that he really is different from Bush.
To this day, Powell has a 77% approval rating amongst Americans. By selecting Powell as his running mate, McCain would be opting for amplification over diversification. Rather than "balancing the ticket" with a young, archconservative, economics expert, Powell would highlight McCain's strengths. Envision that image for a moment: Sen. John McCain and Gen. Colin Powell, standing side to side, promising a clean end to the war with honor and credibility - but asking the public for a little more time to do it. At this point, they might be the only two men in public life today with the legitimacy to pull that request off.
The two men are amongst the most respected public servants in contemporary American history; both exemplifying the soldier-turned-statesman transition that so many great leaders of the past have undertaken. The mere ticket itself would have a calming effect on the mood of the nation, reassuring an anxious electorate that the big boys were finally taking the reigns. It would be hard for many nonpartisan Americans to vote against such a ticket, particularly if they both promised to serve only a single term.
Will any of this happen? Probably not. In all likelihood, even if McCain ended up serving only one term, he will not make a one-term pledge today, feeling it would make him a "lame duck" almost as the onset of his inauguration. Rather than articulate his as a four-year "caretaker" presidency, he will most likely not reveal his reelection ambitions until the third year of a theoretical McCain administration. Rather than select a dynamic running mate like Ridge or Powell, which would be a real game changer, he'll probably end up selecting a protégé-type vice president like Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney.
Such a conventional strategy has the least downfall and might be enough to win (Romney could tip Michigan and Colorado in McCain's favor). But it just reeks of unwarranted risk-aversion. Far from pouring salt into the Republican Party's already preexisting wounds, a one-term McCain pledge with a deeply trusted non-incumbent running mate, would guarantee open competition for the Republican nomination next time - allowing the cream of the crop to rise before facing off against Hillary Clinton in 2012. It would also excite most of the country, regardless of philosophy or party affiliation.
It probably won't happen. But if McCain is already resigned to serve just a single term, and in his very gut wants to pick a close friend and comrade as his ticket-partner, he should at least give some serious thought to it.
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Nicholas Guariglia is a polemic and essayist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He can be reached at nickguar@comcast.net.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
