- White House: Obamacare didn’t matter in Florida special election
- Last laugh: Marine vet fires off jokes from the grave with own obituary
- Gas blast destroys 2 N.Y. buildings; 6 people dead
- Suspected drunken driver kills 2 at South by Southwest festival, police say
- Student protester shot, killed amid Venezuela unrest
- ‘Between Two Ferns’ director rushes to Obama’s defense, blasts O’Reilly
- Marine springs into action, runs down and tackles alleged Boston purse snatcher
- Education Department botching loan-amnesty program: GAO review
- Snowden: NSA uses fake Facebook to hack into users’ computers
- Tearin’ up my tweet: ‘N Sync’s Lance Bass promotes wrong Obamacare website
FIELDS: Closing time
Newspaper accounts of past presidential campaigns nearly always reveal the singular moment when the public finally decided who should prevail on Election Day. A foolish remark, a speech not made, an inability to catch an unexpected swing in the public mood. It’s often less that the winner fired the silver bullet than that the loser forgot to duck. Only the hindsight of the historian actually determines the fateful moment.
The greatest surprise in modern times was Harry S. Truman’s upset of Thomas E. Dewey in 1948. Polling was then an “infant science” but common perceptions got it wrong, too. You couldn’t find anybody who thought Truman could win. What emerges most clearly in retrospect is that Truman’s “give ‘em hell” speeches were full of fire and passion and the Dewey speeches were dull, drab and dreary. He was forever caught in the memorable description of Alice Roosevelt Longworth as “the little man on the wedding cake.” Truman loved politics. Dewey didn’t. “Lay it on,” cried the men and women who crowded close to the tracks on the Truman whistlestop tour. The correspondent for New Yorker magazine described the governor as arriving at rallies “like a man who has been mounted on casters and given a tremendous shove from behind.” You couldn’t keep Truman out of the ring; Dewey wanted to hover above the fray. Truman was hot. Dewey was cool. No candidate since has so snatched impossible defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
I thought of that race when I read Fred Barnes’ description in the Weekly Standard of John McCain as the warrior and Barack Obama as the priest (or the professor). These labels were first applied to Teddy Roosevelt (the hero of San Juan Hill) and Woodrow Wilson (who had been president of Princeton). A century earlier, Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans, was the warrior against John Quincy Adams, the “priest” of 1828, and Old Hickory kept his shrewd hand hidden behind the curtain against haughty and mannered Adams. “If my country wants my services,” Adams said, as if everybody recognized his eminence, “she must ask for them.” Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson revealed sharp contrasts as warrior and professor. Ike was president of Columbia University, but everybody knew him as the general who managed the landings at Normandy and led the Allies to Berlin. Adlai was the first “egghead,” eloquent, witty and cool. Americans wanted the warrior, not the egghead, and Ike won by a landslide.
Style counts, but events can blow style away. This year, the warrior McCain is tested and the professorial Obama is not, but we’re a different country now. Mr. McCain is the man we believe will hang tough in tough times, but there’s a yearning, especially among young voters who have never known tough times, for the cooler man who suggests “idealism,” even if the “idealism” is fantasy. The financial mess reveals neither man a profile in political courage.
Mr. McCain the warrior resembles Truman, at least a little, and must keep moving to where the action is, but the action seems to have passed him by. Mr. Obama the priest (or the professor) sounds clueless with cool, offering words without substance. The warrior’s cries to “remember the surge” sound like echoes from distant history, and how soon we forget that Mr. Obama would sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-il without first figuring out what he or they might say.
Mr. McCain’s famous temper and his angry view of the threats against us are counted as risks, but Mr. Obama’s naive view of the world seems far more dangerous. The conventional wisdom holds that the economic crisis favors the naif because he’s for change, whatever that tells us about what he would change (and nobody, certainly not the nabobs of the media, seems in a rush to ask).
The great American public has just about a month to decide whether the times call for a warrior or a priest. Huey Long, who invented the modern campaign, was called the pitchman of “a circus hitched to a tornado.” H.L. Mencken called a campaign “a cross between a revival meeting and a hanging.” Ronald Reagan likened campaigning to show business: “You have a hell of an opening, you coast for a while, then you have a hell of a closing.” The curtain is up now on the last act, and we’re waiting for that “hell of a closing.”
Suzanne Fields is a syndicated columnist.
About the Author
By Emily Miller
Obama is losing the debate on gun ownership, concealed-carry permits
- Oil rig worker says he saw missing plane go down: report
- GOP bill tries to pull courts into fight with Obama on executive power, enforcing laws
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Military families would take a $5,000 hit in benefits with Obama budget
- Inside the Beltway: A new interest in Rahm Emanuel for 2016?
- John Kerry says any resumption of aid to Egypt would depend on reforms in Cairo
- NRA shirt gets N.Y. high school student suspended
- Brennan: Russia 'absolutely' could invade eastern Ukraine
- Dog left in car blasts horn for 15 minutes
Chaos as Manhattan building explodes
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again