|
 he
most dispiriting thing about the off-year elections, for me, was
a statement attributed to White House aides: that Bush “didn’t
want to campaign for losers.” The reference was to the Republican
gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, Mark Earley, and the Republican
gubernatorial nominee in New Jersey, Bret Schundler. (The Republican
mayoral nominee in New York, Mike Bloomberg, turned out to be a
winner, thanks to the dislocation of 9/11 and the Democratic establishment’s
problem with the Democratic nominee, Mark Green — who —
I should say, because I’ve been merciless about the man in
the past — was amazingly gracious in defeat.)
Sorry, where
was I? Oh, yes, Bush’s, or the White House’s, churlishness.
The idea that you wouldn’t want to help a candidate because
he has a poor chance of winning is disgusting. Some people think
that you shouldn’t spend “political capital” on “losers.”
But then, what’s political capital for? To hoard? We should
support a candidate, not because we think he’ll win, but because
we think he deserves to win — because he would make
the best governor, or mayor, or president, or whatever. And for
George W. Bush not to recognize this would be really sad.
I happen to
know some people who up and left what they were doing to work for
Candidate Bush when he was way down in the polls, and given practically
no chance to win. In fact, in September 2000, one prominent political
analyst, writing in Slate magazine, declared Bush “toast.”
But Republicans, conservatives, and idealists gave their all for
Bush because they thought he deserved to win and would be
a splendid president. He pulled off what can be viewed as an upset,
despite losing the popular vote.
A party should
be concerned with winning, of course — but it should be even
more concerned with offering an attractive alternative, with giving
the public the best possible choice (and if the public doesn’t
choose wisely, that’s its problem).
We further
hear — from all quarters — that the Virginia loss was
a “disaster” for outgoing Virginia governor and present
RNC chairman Jim Gilmore. He failed to “deliver” the state,
you see — and I’m here to tell you that “delivery”
is overrated, or rather, over-believed in. Not often in contemporary
America can a man or a machine “deliver” an election victory.
How exactly could Gilmore have “delivered” a Republican
win? By putting a gun to the head of every man or woman who walked
into an Old Dominion voting booth? You make your best possible case
— you shout why your guy is better and the other guy is worse
— and you stand aside.
One former
congressman, Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma, said, “If I were Gilmore,
I’d be very, very embarrassed. When you’re the national
chairman of the party and your state goes to the other party, to
some extent it’s got to be a referendum on you.” Oh, gimme
a break. This is one of those statements that sound smart and savvy
but really belong to cuckooland. Who could have walked into
the booth with Jim Gilmore on his mind? Mrs. Gilmore?
Virginia is
a pretty reliable Republican state in presidential elections, but
it does elect Democrats. Chuck Robb was in the Senate for
years. Doug Wilder was governor. It’s hard to think of a state
that’s strictly Republican or strictly Democratic. Massachusetts
has had a Republican governor for a long time now. South Carolina
— thought of as a cartoonishly Republican state — has
had Fritz Hollings for decades and now has a Democratic governor.
Utah had a Democratic governor a while back, a man who became a
chairman of the DNC. West Virginia is thought of as cartoonishly
Democratic — but it went for W. in 2000 (barely) and until
that election had a Republican governor.
A Democratic
governor in Virginia is not necessarily a Republican failure (though
he can be); a Republican governor in Massachusetts is not necessarily
a Democratic failure. The voting public deserves a little credit,
or blame. Take Bret Schundler in New Jersey. I think he’s a
marvelous public servant, just exactly the sort of thinker and doer
we could use at every level of government. He laid out his case
clearly. It wasn’t a matter of money and tactics — New
Jersey voters rejected him, the dummies. Abortion, in particular,
was an albatross around Schundler’s neck. His loss among women
was lopsided. Many cited abortion. This cramped his fundraising.
Look, just
as the law can be “an ass,” so can the electorate.
It is natural
— or so it seems — for political ops and junkies in both
parties to think of tactics as all-determining, the be-all, end-all,
voter preferences or mood aside. But the people have a say, too
— and at least the Responsibility Party should hold them responsible.
A final note
on this, about something that irks me no end: A Democratic candidate
like the one in Virginia — Mark Warner — campaigns as
a conservative: anti-tax, pro-gun, traditional values, blah, blah,
blah. And the public says, “Okay, I’ll go for him.”
And the “national” Democrats — Terry McAuliffe, Barney
Frank, Ted Kennedy, Al Hunt — say, “We won, we won!”
Well, whaddya mean “we,” exactly? Funny, but when a Connie
Morella-like Republican wins — a Democratic Republican wins
(and there are far fewer of these than there are Republican Democrats)
— Jesse Helms, Bob Dornan, and NR never yell, “We
win!” I mean, if a Republican campaigning for abortion, higher
taxes, and the teacher unions were elected, I wouldn’t consider
it some great reflection on me, I assure you.
It was reported that Bill Clinton blew up royally at John Sykes,
head of the rock network VH-1, when Hillary Clinton was booed by
firemen and cops at that Madison Square Garden event. Apparently
it was this Sykes who urged Hillary to participate, and the ex-president
lit into him as “naïve.”
A couple of
thoughts: Don’t you think Bill Clinton, the finest politician
of the century (in one sense), could have stopped his wife? After
all, he was right there, back stage, waiting to go on himself. (He
received a warmer reception.) Why isn’t he equally naïve?
Why couldn’t he have seen that she would be booed?
Further: You
have noticed, I’m sure, that Clinton likes to spend most of
his time with entertainment types. His social life seems to be no
different from Johnny Depp’s. When we get a tidbit about him,
it’s usually from some starlet or something, such as the model
Heather Mills, who reported that Clinton had told her at some party
that he’d be a far better president to handle the current war.
I mean, an
ex-president can hang out with anybody. Hollywood types should be
thrilled to meet a president, not vice versa.
Old theme,
I know — I’ll stop now.
Oh, one more
thing: In response to the Hillary booing, one Clinton aide said,
about the firemen and cops, “You have to remember that they
listen to right-wing talk radio all day. They believe that Hillary
killed Vince Foster.” That, or: They dislike lying, hypocrisy,
greed, opportunism, lawlessness, zealotry . . .
The use of the word “firemen” reminded me of something.
Probably the coolest vote I cast on Election Day in New York was
against amending the language of the state constitution to make
it “gender neutral” : “man” to “person,”
“him” to “him or her,” “fireman” to
“firefighter,” etc. It felt deliciously good. The “no”
side lost, but, hey — that’s progress.
More Clinton news, and bellyaching: Harry Thomason and his wife,
Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, are making a “theatrical documentary”
based on Joe Conason and Gene Lyons’s Clinton apologia and
anti-Republican screed, The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year
Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton. An amazing crew:
the Thomasons, Joe Conason, Gene Lyons. Surely there must be room
in this film for Sidney Blumenthal, Susan McDougal, Paul Begala,
and ABC News’s Carole Simpson.
Back to President Bush for a second. In his big Atlanta speech,
he said Americans should serve their country by volunteering —
which is great. But we shouldn’t obscure the point — a
point Bush knows well — that going about our various “selfish”
economic activities is “serving our country” too. Volunteering
at a soup kitchen or the Red Cross is nice; but working like a dog
and opening up a new Burger King or whatever — employing people,
making the economy sing — is nice, too. In fact, it is probably
a greater service.
When I was
a boy, I thought that charitable or “public” service was
the only decent service there was; everything else was grubby, disreputable.
Of course, plenty of adults think this too — that’s why
there’s a Democratic party. Only when I grew up did I realize
that “selfish” economic activity can serve the public
interest as well.
In the last
days of the New York mayoral campaign, Mark Green blasted Mike Bloomberg
for being a businessman and rich. He thundered (I will paraphrase),
“Bloomberg has never spent a day in public life. I have
been fighting for this city and our people for the last twelve
years [in a meaningless post grandly titled Public Advocate].
Bloomberg was just making money.” And Green said “making
money” in roughly the tone he’d use for “molesting
children.”
Of course,
Bloomberg has employed about a zillion people. He has made a very
healthy contribution to what we, in our simpleminded way, call the
“economy.” It’s the Bloombergs who provide the Greens
with all that “public money” to play with, and social-engineer
with.
Why am I going
over this A-B-C stuff, which you know so well? Because it continues
to be astounding how many quite important people don’t
know it.
Allow me to
relate something I spotted in a New York Philharmonic program. (How
could this possibly be relevant? Wait a sec.) Foreign-born orchestra
members were interviewed about Thanksgiving, and one violinist said
that she was thankful “for the beautiful life that America
can offer. Not economically, but for all the richness of experience
that we have here, for the way of life that is unique to America.”
My heart sank
at that “Not economically” — she is only reflecting
her education, our education. Of course, economic freedom and opportunity
is a major part our program and purpose, and no one should
be embarrassed by it. The freedom to live above poverty, to have
the material means to pursue happiness — that must not be dismissed,
but enshrined and exalted in our American thanksgiving!
Would it be
unconstitutional to require all citizens to learn Hayek — or
to talk with Phil Gramm?
Last, I’d simply like to observe that Breguet, the watch company,
is using Arthur Rubinstein in its magazine ads. Yes, there is a
photo of the old lion at the keyboard, with a caption saying, “Arthur
Rubinstein, from 1934, a client of Breguet’s.”
Really, the
old rascal — who adored publicity and style and the high life
— would have loved it. Loved it! Except, where are the royalties?
|
