Facebook
Twitter
Ten Miles Square
Blog
The New York Times reports that the Republican presidential field is caught in a “you first!” death spiral in which good candidates won’t commit to running without support from big-money paymasters and big-money paymasters won’t open their wallets until good candidates commit to running. As a result, when the South Carolina Republican party threw a presidential debate last week, the only people who showed up were Tim Pawlenty, a well-known nutty libertarian, an unknown nutty libertarian, a pizza baron, and Rick “Santorum” Santorum.
Given the nine percent unemployment rate and the fact that the Democratic incumbent is a liberal black man, many political observers are wondering if the vaunted Republican political machine has slipped a gear. I don’t think that’s likely. Instead, they’ve run up against the laws of probability at the best possible time for Barack Obama.
That’s because sometime during the last half century, the guardians of conventional wisdom decided that only three kinds of people are qualified to run for President of the United States: those who are (or recently were) senators, governors, and Vice Presidents. So instead of finding the best candidate among 300 million people every four years, we’re only allowed to choose among about 200.
And actually, a lot less than that. There are 100 Senators but most of them are disqualified from running for obvious reasons. Nobody would seriously consider Senator Sanders (socialist), Vitter (hookers), Ensign (cheater), Akaka (ancient), Kerry, McCain, and Alexander (had their shot), Lautenberg and Coats (recycled), Hatch and Lugar (imminent primary victims) or Lieberman (retiring, plus, come on) to be viable candidates. America still hasn’t really gotten on board with the idea of a female president (Hillary Clinton ‘08 was sui generis) so that knocks out 17 more. Senate leaders come to symbolize all that’s wrong with the archaic upper chamber, which is why Senators Reid and McConnell are widely disliked. Some are too new or obscure (Coons) while others (Mikulski, Rockefeller, Ben Nelson) have been around for a long time and have clearly gone as far as they can go.
Governors have the advantage of holding an executive branch job that’s a closer fit to what voters envision leadership to be. But again, it’s not like everyone can run. Some (Schwarzenegger, Granholm) are constitutionally ineligible. Others are disqualified for obvious reasons (Jerry Brown, old and recycled; Jan Brewer, governor of crazy town) or have no realistic chance of raising money and a national profile, or are women. Only current or recently former governors who also happen to be white men from southern, Midwestern, or reasonably large states are allowed in the door.
All of which means that in any given election year, each major party only has about 20 people from which to choose. At that point, the population is so small that the laws of probability come into play. Some cold feet here, a sex scandal there, a couple of unknown skeletons in the closet, a few ill-considered remarks about Civil War, and eventually a year will come when there is simply nobody left. 2012 is looking like that year for Republicans. They have mountains of corporate cash, an army of well-trained political consultants, and a structurally winnable race. But the candidate pool dice roll has come up snake eyes. Thus, the increasing possibility of a Pawlenty vs. Mitch Daniels race that broadcast networks will be unable to televise due to the risk of viewers having their souls erased by the creation of an anti-charismatic vortex of absolute personality zero.
This is bad for democracy, and America. One of the biggest problems with starting with such a small pool of candidates is that after the disqualification process is finished, everyone left over is considered a viable candidate by default. The paltry news coverage of Senator John Ensign’s sordid adultery scandal never failed to mention that his cheating had derailed aspirations for a presidential run. The key thing is that those aspirations were taken seriously, despite the fact the Ensign’s sole qualifications for the job were being the right gender, race, and age, holding a Senate seat, and looking the spokesmodel for a Cialis campaign. John Thune was a leading contender because he is a senator, handsome, and tall. Haley Barbour’s governorship meant he was taken seriously as a candidate despite various outstanding issues involving white supremacy and them Duke boys.
And while Sarah Palin could never have run for president prior to August 2008, the vice presidential corollary to the de facto presidential eligibility rule meant that John McCain was able (at first) to present her as a legitimate choice to be his backup. Despite her manifest shortcomings, she was a governor, which mean she had actively disqualify herself from consideration.
On the flip side, we find Barack Obama, who has proved to be a smart, bold, and decisive commander in chief. Those—and I’m one of them—who still have enormous enthusiasm for Obama should consider that he was only allowed to run for president on a technicality, by virtue of a short stint as senator from Illinois. Nobody voted for him because of what he learned in the Senate—he spent half his time there running for higher office. They voted for the man who gave the iconic convention speech in 2004, for his charisma, intelligence, and vision. Those qualities were all in place before Obama won a Senate race that depended in no small part on his main opponent’s candidacy collapsing after revelations of a sex scandal that involved (oddly enough) not cheating on his ex-wife. Obama the U.S. Representative or state senator or author or constitutional scholar or community organizer couldn’t have run, even though he would have been essentially the same person. That’s too important to leave to chance.
Rich on May 10, 2011 3:59 PM:
It isn't that the initial pool is small, it's the devolution of the various streams that produce GOP candidates. There have been cycles with multiple viable candidates, even given the constraints you mention and they were people with credibility, not the sketchy characters and panderers in this round.
What's interesting about the Right is that the people who attempted to modernize it and/or give it intellectual gravitas are dead (e.g., Buckley), truly elderly and cranky (the old line neocons), or simply vapid shadows of themselves (e.g., George Will, Krauthammer). The younger wingers who are seen as advancing ideas seem to be nutty cultists (the various Randians), nepotists with no ideas of their own (Kristol), and so forth. Clinton neutralized welfare as an issue and the fall of the Soviet Union ended the Cold war--all the Right can do is try to recycle these themes in less credible war (Sharia Law, Medicare as welfare) and the brass knuckle tactics have gotten less and less credible. the result is the hacktackular selection of people we have this year. The other dynamic is the MSM search for semi-authroitarian or at least pseudo-moderate mancrushes, as well as their inordinate love for chowderheads like Gingrich and slimeballs like Barbour. they'll easy give Daniels a pass for his fiscal responsibility and they'll treat Newtie's tehatrics as serious politics.
We're stuck with the current field and with characters like DeMint and Ryan because the Right has exhausted itself, but it has apparatus and money. In some quarters, I'm sure there is recognition that its days are numbered and like a neighborhood that's attracting too many Blacks and Hispanics or a corporation that has matured and no longer produces hefty growth, they will cashout anything of value, so they can walk away with as much as possible while they can.
jon on May 10, 2011 8:19 PM:
My uncle who worked in the State Department, Capitol Hill, etc. all his life told be that he didn't think Obama could win because senators don't become presidents. Before Senator Obama there was..
Governor Bush, Governor Clinton, Vice President Bush, Governor Reagan, Governor Carter, Vice President Ford, Vice President Nixon, Vice President Johnson... to *finally* Senator Kennedy after General Eisenhower... but... Vice-President Truman, Governor Roosevelt, another anomaly: Commerce Secretary Hoover, then again it's Vice-President and former Governor Coolidge, but Senator Harding (though he was Lt. Governor), Governor Wilson, and... *technically* Governor Taft (of the Philipines and Cuba) in the last 100 years.
I think it's most accurate to say that Senators become Vice Presidents and *then* may become Presidents.
We've had 3 senators, 8 governors, and 6 vice-presidents, and 2 "other" in the last 100 years.
Maybe we should just ban Governors, Senators, and Vice Presidents from running for President and only allow them to become President upon succession. It's an idea.
Gavin Newsome for President!!
Anonymous on May 11, 2011 1:36 AM:
It was Bill Clinton who once said, when picking a Presidential Candidate Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line. I do agree that a prerequisite for President requires holding office as a Senator, Governor or Vice-President. But the two party's vetting process are completely different, with the Democrats allowing for an occasional fresh blood to entire as a Presidential hopeful, while Republicans have a rigid pecking order that is grounded on maintaining ideological purity. Lets compare the Democratic Presidential field for 2004 and 2008. In total, there were 1 Reverend, 1 General, 1 Hispanic, 1 Jewish, 3 Black, 2 Women, 1 US Representative, 4 Governors total, and 10 Senators total. Lets compare the Republican Presidential field for 2000 and 2008. 1 City Mayor, 3 US Representative, 5 Governor, 3 Senator, and all white males. The 2012 Republican field may seem to be more diverse than in previous years however, the candidates are all ideologically similar, offering very little in diverse background or new vision for a future.
James M on May 11, 2011 2:40 AM:
Alchemy
I agree with the posters above (don't know if I liked the "too many Blacks and Hispanics moving in" analogy but I don't think it was ill-intended.
However, the main problem the Republicans have is that they are essentially alchemists. I am sure many alchemists were great guys: bright, engaging, maybe even handsome and charismatic. However, one day these guys had to wake up and say to themselves, "You know, I have fried 200 salamanders but this alchemy stuff just doesn't work!". They realized they had built their whole lives around a flawed system. I guess the more moral alchemists gave it up and became chemists. The less scrupulous probably became magicians or con men.
The Republican brand of small-government and laissez faire economics had already empirically been proved a failure, and the schizophrenic poliices of the Tea Party are demonstrably loony. Despite the hoards of campaign cash and legions of poltical spin operators, selling this failed system to the American people would be a daunting task for even the most attractive candidate.
Anonymous on May 11, 2011 11:56 PM:
The gene pool is thinner then that. The last winning Republican Presidential ticket that did not have a Nixon or a Bush on it was in 1928.
Rosetta Stone on May 12, 2011 12:07 AM:
Our website offers the Cheap Rosetta Stone on sale,such as these very popular kinds: Rosetta Stone Spanish,Rosetta Stone German,Rosetta Stone Italian and so on,besides,there are many friendly customers who left useful Rosetta Stone Reviews,which maybe the good guide for you!
All the Rosetta Stone language are 100% satisfaction guaranteed,and free shipping.We guarantee its quality,and all money will be refund if the goods are not satisfied.welcome to make a purchase.
Wes F. in Hapeville on May 12, 2011 3:10 PM:
"Haley Barbour’s governorship meant he was taken seriously as a candidate despite various outstanding issues involving white supremacy and them Duke boys."
Thank you for making my day.
WF
goterpsgo on May 13, 2011 12:41 PM:
"Given... the fact that the Democratic incumbent is a liberal black man..."
"...Barack Obama, who has proved to be a smart, bold, and decisive commander in chief..."
Ummmm... I must have been reading something different. Isn't this the same Obama that gave concessions in the form of spending cuts even before negotiations started?!?! Isn't he the same guy who didn't even bother to put in the Public Option or any kind of cost controls into the ACA or even fight for it even in its water-downed form?!?! Didn't he not even whimper ever in the slightest when Walker was trying to ram anti-collective bargaining laws down working people's throats?!?!
If you find that liberal Obama please let me know - I'll vote for him...
Steve on May 15, 2011 7:06 PM:
Too bad about Tim Pawlenty, really. I've got the perfect campaign song for him: "I've Got Pawlenty of Nothin' and Nothin's Pawlenty For Me."
Thank you very much.
I'll be here all week.
Try the veal.