| « | Of Wasps and Romans |
»
|
|
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Thinking About Fred
With the passing of Labor Day and Fred Thompson’s declaration, we now finally have a complete picture of the Republican field, at least in terms of the candidates it will contain when the primaries begin. No doubt the speeches, debates, and polls over the next week will tell us exactly what effect Thompson’s late entry will have on the structure of the field, and that makes prognosticating a bit of a risky business at this point. So, instead of offering you the predictions you might find on less reputable websites than Eternity Road, I want to offer some thoughts on Thompson himself and the rationale for his candidacy.
Stylistically, there is much about Thompson that reminds me of Bush - his folksy manner, his thick accent, and the plodding pace at which he speaks and articulates. Having been born in Tennessee and having spent a fair amount of time traveling around and visiting family in the South, I am not necessarily put off by this. I think it will, however, make trouble for Thompson in some of the early primary states like New Hampshire and (apparently) Michigan, as well as in the general election. I think this because it seems to me that if there is anything that one can be sure of about the American political landscape, it’s that we’re tired of Bush, and long before people tired of Bush’s policies, they tired of his style. For the staunch Republican states in the South, Midwest, and West, this likely won’t matter, but for more independent/libertarian leaning states where voters are likely to associate “Southernness” with Bush (and particularly religious conservatism), Thompson may be prejudged before he has a chance to introduce himself
Thompson will also have a more difficult time than average with the media. The media relentlessly attacked Bush for his Southern style during both of his presidential campaign runs, and during office they were perhaps even worse. To a profession used to spending summers in cushy New England estates, there was nothing more infuriating than having to go down to Crawford, Texas during August in order to cover Bush’s meetings with foreign leaders and the like. The prospect of another four or eight years of summers spent in the muggy and hot climes of the American South may cause more than a few journalists to suffer brain aneurysms, and they will take out this frustration on Thompson in a way they wouldn’t for a New Englander like Giuliani or Thompson. Of course, Bush’s two successful campaigns show that one does not necessarily need a friendly media in order to win an election, but at a time when Bush himself is so politically radioactive, I honestly don’t know if there can be a third time with the media working overtime to make Thompson look like Bush II.
Thompson’s resume is another interesting facet of his candidacy. It is substantially thinner than Giuliani’s, McCain’s, and arguably, Mitt Romney’s (Thompson spent more years in public service than Romney, but much of the rest of his time acting). Does this matter? His opponents will likely try to make it an issue, but in some ways I think it is actually helpful. Unlike McCain, Thompson left the Senate right before the Republican brand began to take a nosedive with both independents and Republican voters themselves, so he won’t have to be tarred with the failures of the GOP majority from 2004-2006. Furthermore, what makes for “presidential qualifications” these days is very unclear. In times past, having held a governorship was seen as a big boost. But of the seven frontrunners of both parties (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards), there is only one who can claim that. Among the other six we find a mayor, three sitting senators, and two former senators. Even lack of legislative accomplishment seems to matter little. Of the five senators in this group, only McCain stands out to me as having been behind lots of major legislation or congressional actions, and many of these like McCain-Feingold, the Gang of 14, and comprehensive immigration reform have actually hurt his prospects. As for the Democrats, Clinton put her name on an Iraq withdrawal plan, but seems to have virtually forgotten it as of late.
Of course, whether or not a senator proposes major legislation, they still must make many, many votes, and it is these votes our current crop are being judged by. Thompson’s record is mostly unremarkable for a conservative, except for a few standout issues like campaign finance reform and tort reform. Thompson has explained his vote against tort reform was on federalism grounds (this is notable, and I want to address it later), and he has mostly disavowed his previous stance on McCain-Feingold, now arguing it went too far. Normally, such an unremarkable voting record would likely not immediately propel a candidate into the top tier, but this year it is paradoxically notable in its unremarkability because none of the major frontrunning candidates can claim as consistent a record. It seems obvious that dissatisfaction with these candidates has propelled Thompson near the top, and if Thompson manages this dissatisfaction skillfully, he can ride it all the way to Minneapolis next year. On the other hand, there is great risk in being the one everyone looks to ask to the prom because the other available choices are so disappointing. Warts are initially overlooked, desires that might be impossible to satisfy are often projected, and there is always the chance one’s suitors might arbitrarily decide the rest of the field wasn’t so bad after all. Thompson has to some extent already been the victim of the first two forces. Warts like lobbying work done for a pro-abortion group and his disappointing performance on the panel investigating Bill Clinton’s campaign finance improprieties have started to sift into the circles of elite conservative opinion and may soon make their way into the minds of primary voters. Conservatives’ desires for a perfect conservative candidate who can effectively communicate as Reagan did may have also transfigured Thompson’s image into one the real man can never live up to. As for voter arbitrariness, that is a perennial problem for any candidate, and one “outsiders” are particularly vulnerable to, as the flattening of Obama’s numbers indicates.
All of that has left me skeptical of Thompson as a candidate, but what about Thompson as a policymaker and thinker? I am speaking to the rationale of his candidacy, the central issue that he believes qualifies him for the presidency. Here, as I mentioned above about Thompson’s vote against tort reform, Thompson has taken a most unusual tack. He has decided to emphasize a return to federalism. No other candidate this cycle has done that, and Thompson cannot be basing his position on poll numbers, as no pollster even bothers to ask anymore about federalism. It will certainly differentiate him from the field, even more so than his record has, but will it be successful? I honestly don’t know. Do Republican voters have an appetite for a federalist candidate, or are they satisfied with the more conventional approach of Giuliani or Romney? Will anyone in Congress listen to a president who says they don’t have the authority to pass a given program? Is a federalist platform, in other words, theoretically and practically viable?
Thompson’s candidacy perhaps gives us a chance to find out, assuming Thompson sticks to his federalist theme. That alone will be interesting, as will the question of whether Thompson as a candidate will appeal to primary voters. With McCain perhaps resurgent and Romney and Giuliani holding tight in their respective positions, Thompson will certainly have his work cut out for him.
Comments
Is a federalist platform, in other words, theoretically and practically viable?
It is with this voter.
My wife likes him as well.
I live in Wisconsin but I’m from Oklahoma - the accent doesn’t turn me off at all. From what I have seen he’s a far better speechifier than Bush ever was.
That may not matter for voters who automatically associate ‘Southern’ with retarded.
Interesting times.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on 09/11/2007 at 10:14 PMFrom what I have seen he’s a far better speechifier than Bush ever was.
One advantage of being a lawyer—whether for good or ill depends on the practitioner, sadly, but there’s reason to hope, with Fred.
Posted by McGehee on 09/12/2007 at 03:21 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
