The Corner

1996 and All That

In response to Re: Reagan and Prejudice

The brilliant Sir Charles Cooke has written an un-brilliant post about John Boehner. I’m going to respond, because a) I know Charlie will like it and b) it’s the sort of thing that makes the Corner more interesting, perhaps.

In 1996, Boehner tried to persuade Justice Scalia to become Bob Dole’s running mate. Charlie says this “highlights how astonishingly poor Boehner’s political instincts are” — because Scalia was more valuable on the bench.

On the subject of political instincts: No one — no one — reaches the position of speaker of the House without very, very good political instincts. In fact, the speakers are the wiliest of the wily, politically.

Journalists always think they know more than politicians — than practitioners — about politics. I love what Chris Christie said to a group of reporters in New Hampshire: “You-all are the junior political analysts here. I do this for a living.”

Pundits, bloggers, tweeters, and commenters are always trying to tell politicians about politics. These are people who have never been elected dogcatcher, who have never tried to win a single vote. They just think they know better. Let them throw their hat in the ring and prove it.

As for 1996: We were trying to win the election. By “we,” I mean Republicans. We thought that Bill Clinton was very, very bad. When it came to the vice-presidential nomination, we were trying to think “outside the box.” There was a boomlet for Bill Bennett. There was a boomlet for Scalia.

We thought it was important that Dole beat Clinton. Today, the Right thinks that Dole is a moderate marshmallow. He is barely different from Fritz Mondale. He certainly can’t measure up to that conservative ideal, Donald J. Trump.

In truth, Dole was a rugged Cold Warrior and conservative who was born in Nowheresville, who got shot up in Italy, who struggled to rise from his hospital bed, who never regained the use of his right arm, who entered politics, who was on one national ticket, who became Senate majority leader, and who was on another national ticket. He was arguably the most important American politician of the second half of the 20th century, along with Hubert Humphrey, who did not make it to the presidency.

His understanding of America and the world — and of America’s place in the world — was much better than Clinton’s. Much. The Left hated his guts, and Dole earned that hatred. I think the Right may hate him more now, but it’s a screwy time.

Could Scalia have helped the ’96 ticket? He probably would have been better than Kemp proved. How much difference would it have made? How much good could Scalia have done in government (the executive branch, that is)? Could he have even run for president later? Was America inarguably better off having him write smooth, tart dissents from the bench? Being among the three in 6-3 decisions? Maybe.

But Dole-Scalia was not a stupid idea in 1996. We were trying to think of everything we could, to win. And if one man is indispensable on the Court, we are truly lost, as a country.

I’ll end where I think I began — with John Boehner. His political instincts were good enough to land him in the U.S. House. And eventually in the speaker’s chair. Sure, he fell, ultimately. But he swam with the sharks for a long time, leading the pack of them (swarm of them?), before being bitten.

Politics isn’t easy. And those who really know it — are those who are in it.

Most Popular

Economy & Business

The Swamp: Navarro Nucor Edition

The Wall Street Journal has a story today about the ties between President Trump's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, and the biggest steel company in the U.S. -- Nucor Corp. It is particularly interesting in light of the stiff steel tariffs successfully pushed by Navarro, which he championed ever since he joined the ... Read More


EMPIRICAL   As I can fathom neither endlessness nor the miracle work of deities, I hypothesize, assume, and guess.   The fact that I love you and you love me is all I can prove and proves me. — This poem appears in the April 2 print issue of National Review. Read More

Nancy MacLean Won’t Quit

One of the biggest intellectual jousting matches last year was between Duke history professor Nancy MacLean, who wrote a slimy, dishonest book about Nobel Prize–winning economist James Buchanan and the whole limited-government movement, and the many scholars who blasted holes in it. If it had been a boxing ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Rolling Back Dodd-Frank

The Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would roll back parts of Dodd-Frank. The vote was 67–31, with 17 members of the Democratic caucus breaking party lines. If the legislation passes the House and is signed, it will be the largest change to the controversial financial-reform package since it became law in ... Read More

How Germany Vets Its Refugees

At the height of the influx of refugees into Germany in 2015–17, there was little doubt that mixed among the worthy cases were economic migrants taking advantage of the chaos to seek their fortunes in Europe. Perhaps out of instinctive pro-immigrant sentiment, Germany’s Left obscured the difference. Its ... Read More