Election gripes, Clinton gripes, “public service” gripes, &c.

November 12, 2001 9:05 a.m.

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?