- The Washington Times - Monday, January 15, 2007

The spotlight this past week has been on George W. Bush. Against the tide of public opinion, and to the rage of congressional Democrats, he has ordered more troops in Iraq to pacify Baghdad and Al-Anbar Province.

No one knows for sure whether this will work — and the metric by which it will be judged. Mr. Bush was careful in last Wednesday night’s speech to warn Americans it may mean more casualties for some considerable time. Both houses of Congress seem likely to pass resolutions disapproving of Mr. Bush’s decision, with significant numbers of Republicans voting against their party’s leader. It will be a difficult time.

For six years now, American politics has revolved around George W. Bush, just as it revolved for eight years before that around Bill Clinton. These two presidents — both born in 1946, the opening year of the Baby Boom, both graduates of the high school class of 1964, the peak SAT-scoring class of all time — both happen to have personal characteristics that people on the other side of the cultural divide absolutely loathe. We are so used to having these divisive central figures that it’s difficult to imagine what American politics will be like without them.

Yet we are coming to that time soon. Next year will see the first presidential election since 1928 in which neither the incumbent president or vice president will be a candidate at any point in the process.

In 1928, both parties nominated candidates who represented a change in course. Herbert Hoover was far less of a free marketer than Calvin Coolidge (who referred to him privately as “Wonder Boy”). Al Smith, the Catholic governor of New York, was culturally distant from the Southern and Border state Protestant Democrats who made up most of the party’s officeholders.

The general election saw sharp shifts in voting patterns. Hoover ran ahead of Coolidge in the progressive Northwest from the Great Lakes to the Pacific coast. Smith ran ahead of previous Democrats in Catholic and immigrant neighborhoods of the big cities.

Thirteen months from now, we are likely to know who will be the nominees of our two major parties.

The current leaders in the polls are in opposition to or in tension with their parties’ bases in important respects. Rudolph Giuliani is way out of line with cultural conservatives on issues like abortion, homosexual rights and gun control. John McCain has been at odds with Republican partisans on issues like campaign reform, detainees’ rights and tax cuts. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been out of line with the antiwar left on Iraq and other national security issues. Barack Obama — if he is to be included on the list — speaks in a tone far less angry and partisan than the enraged Democratic left.

There is no guarantee any of these candidates will be nominated. Many Washington insiders think Mitt Romney, now mostly unknown, and John Edwards, not yet known in depth, will emerge as strong contenders. Both fit more closely the profile of their parties’ bases — but both have records on issues that are inconveniently out of line with the bases. And dark horses could turn out to be strong horses. Who was giving serious consideration to Howard Dean at this point in the 2003-04 cycle?

Still, the likelihood is that the Republicans will nominate a candidate significantly different from George W. Bush and that the Democrats will nominate a candidate whose stands and style will differ significantly from that of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Current polls suggest there will be more moveable voters than in 2000 or 2004. In polls in the 2003-04 cycle, neither Mr. Bush nor various Democrats scored high enough to suggest either party’s candidate would win more than the 51 percent Mr. Bush ultimately got. Movement was minimal. But in polls in this cycle we have seen well-known candidates of both parties run far ahead of little-known candidates of other parties — far enough to suggest they could get over that 51 percent level in general elections. Voters who wouldn’t consider a Republican or Democrat in 2004 seem willing to at least consider one in 2008.

The Karl Rove model of turning out your base may prove obsolete. Some analysts assume Republicans will be weighed down by low Bush job ratings. But that may not be the case. I think we’re entering a period of open-field politics, in which both parties will be defined less by their past leaders than by their new nominees.

Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide