Why Clark?

Why I recommend General Wesley Clark in ‘04.

Authored January 10-11, 2004.

Summary:

With the huge campaign coffers of the Republican Party, I do not know if President Bush is beatable.  But I desire to win this year.  My take, prepare for the worst, but work like a crazy person to make sure it doesn’t happen.  The two most viable candidates are Dr. Dean and General Clark. Modern Presidential elections are won in the Center, not on the sidelines of Right and Left. Dr. Dean is too far left, his antiwar stance echoes McGovern, and his early energizing of the far left, and the statements made at that time, will make him unable to capture Centrists ... guaranteeing a sizeable loss. The belief by some, of a “Miracle” turnout of Leftists overpowering Center and Right voters is impossible. General Clark is the best choice for opposing George Bush, his military background automatically guaranteeing Center appeal, and is the best candidate to counter Administration on foreign policy, and War issues.  His run would put the Bush Administration immediately on the defensive ... a incalculable advantage.  Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, broken multinational treaties, rebuilding UN support ... all are major issues of the day, and General Clark’s the man to handle them. If we’ve ever needed an individual with extensive military experience in the Executive Office, time is now.

Background:

If you’ve read on this weblog for a long period, you’ll know I’ve been leaning towards General Clark prior to his announced candidacy. That early opinion was based upon the Bush Administration’s military entanglements, the shredding of international agreements which will need to be renegotiated, and our now-limited options in regards to North Korea. I saw General Clark as the best candidate to handle these situations.

Since then, I’ve done much more thinking, and had many conversations with other webloggers ... which, of course, spurs my itchy-finger Google research reflex, digging into my personal reference library, and subsequently encouraging a trip or two to the library or bookstore.  My opinions are my own; noone is required to ‘buy into’ anything I say here.  I think it’s time to stop practicing ‘ambush linkage’ on a daily basis, something many of us have seemed to fall into (myself included), and put our personal integrity behind our daily snippets. Time to broadcast what I stand for.

Let me make clear that I have nothing personal against any of the candidates. They all have made statements and have platforms I could endorse.  Sharpton’s got an attractive no-nonsense speaking style, Kucinich appeals to the romantic [idealized] Left that attracted me so in college, etc. etc.  I could as easily get on board with Dr. Dean as General Clark, Left vs. Left/Center ... but I am sacrificing pie-in-the-sky idealogy for the cold, hard reality that we must unseat the Bush Administration bucking bronco.

I want to win in 2004.  Period.  All my concentration is focused on that goal.

Specifics:

1. The Democrats have boldly [guffaw] fielded a ‘circus wagon’ of candidates. Coldly pragmatic ‘electability’ eliminates the minorities [color, sex, youth] and, I dare say the Congressional incumbents [sitting ducks due to years of public legislative and campaign finance records, some with horrifyingly mundane political careers].  This is a crisis election ... we have no room for experimentation, or rewarding longtime Congresspersons for services rendered [no repeat of the Bob Dole ‘payback’ candidacy].  That leaves two candidates: Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.  The large crop of candidates, exercising their freedom of speech and giving us the facets of the Democratic Party philosophy is not necessarily a negative [it seems to be supplying entertainment and greater focus on the Democratic contest] ... but as soon as the direction of the caucuses becomes clear, the others should swiftly move out of the way for the good of the party, for the good of the country, and sharply cease any character sniping. I admire General Clark for refraining from personal attacks in the debates I’ve watched, particularly.  Objectivity, and especially an optimistic tone in the face of assaults will take a candidate farther than pointing out the smudges on other’s shoes [Martin Seligman, ‘Learned Optimism’ has a specific chapter on Presidential elections and optimism that I highly recommend].



2. The media paints the electorate as red and blue, Bush states, Gore states. Divisive, and ‘thintelligent’ thinking. To better analyze the country, we need one more facet.  Right, Center and Left ... and analyze thusly. Mr. McGovern lost before he started, because he couldn’t capture the Center [Reference on George McGovern]. Mr. Reagan won, by winning the mythical “Reagan Democrats”, in reality merely bodily grasping the Center.  Mr. Clinton won, because he appealed strongly to the Center [to the dismay of most Democrats; he was believed to be way too cozy with big business.].  Third-party candidates tend to hurt Dems more, as Anderson did in ‘80 [Moderate/Left], as Perot [Moderate] and Nader [Left] did in later contests.  Having a strong Center strategy insures against Democratic loss in a Nader run.  It may not make everyone happy, but it’s a smart gamble.  Every Presidential election over the last five elections [at least], have been won over the conquest of the Center [Bottom of page [L/M/C], Who will win?, more to come]. Dr. Dean started far left, and is only now beginning to address center and fringe issues ... but his anti-war stance [and other positions, too] is significantly far left, a repeat of Mr. McGovern, which will permanently poison any overtures made to Center ... as well as make him a sitting duck for the Republicans. We are nothing if we don’t learn from history. General Clark appeals to the Center, just from his background. He has stayed in safe territory so far, and is our Centrist-grabber, if properly managed. Remember that Bush campaigned Center, then moved Extreme Right after inauguration. Clark (or whichever candidate wins) can do the same. There is no law against it; if the Republicans can play a 50% vote into a ‘mandate’ ... anything’s possible with the current passive American voting public.



3. Corollary to the above, the concept that a ‘disaffected Left’ will come out in droves and overcome the votes of the Right and Center, is an enormous and dangerous gamble. The only situation in which this could happen, is some further catastrophe in foreign policy or economic policy that energizes the electorate in the month previous to election.  Highly doubtful, virtually impossible in light of historical turnout numbers [Link on Turnout Numbers].  The reality is, noone gets that excited anymore. We have a crisis in the economy right now, but not even Congress has gotten appropriately jazzed yet. America seems a placid pool of public opinion, and the rocks being dropped are only creating small ripples. Even dropping the cinder block of the current deficit has had a reaction more akin to a pool of heavy oil, rather than water [less and smaller ripples than it deserves].  Stasis. I’m not saying a miracle can’t happen [Who will win, repeat from above], but it might be educational to look at who votes and the overriding trends before fervently proselytizing ‘miracles’ [Who votes?]. Faith or facts; I choose facts. I lean to the pragmatist side, an economy of effort ... and prefer to work on the guaranteed payback: solidly capturing the Center.  I do not believe Dr. Dean can capture the Center, nor do I believe the Left can outvote the Center and Right, therefore my choice goes to General Clark.
   


4. The American public, as a whole, is significantly illiterate [Reading levels in America ], and frighteningly so. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine further erodes any truly objective reporting they might receive.  Fact is, people believe what they hear on the radio, what they read in the news, and especially what they see on television.  The Republicans have a simply staggering ‘war chest’ of funds to wage their election battles on the airwaves and in the papers.  This is our biggest challenge in this election, and it will take every Democrat pulling together, every creative communications strategy we can think of, to help overcome this near insurmountable Republican benefit. Money may not buy everything, but the partisan pundits all carping in harmony, accompanied by the crush of hard copy and video will be devastatingly powerful. Neither candidate has any advantage here, except maybe the fact that Clark is new to politics, without a specific political track record to harp upon.
   


5. According to recent articles I’ve read, Americans are fiscal conservatives, no matter their particular political philosophy [I can’t find the reference! I’ll keep looking.]. So financial policies will be vitally important.  Bush’s overspending gets fiscal conservatives in the GOP angry, so there is significant vulnerability here.  But don’t mention tax increases, and be careful in rhetoric about repealing tax cuts.  Dr. Dean wants to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, which is already being spun as a tax hike.  General Clark ameliorates that to just the rich, a very small voting bloc. That’ll fly, and be harder to counter [’Robin Hood’].
   


6. I fully recognize that the military background of General Clark may make some traditional Lefts uneasy. Yet Mr. Carter was a Naval Academy graduate [oft forgotten in the wake of the Iran hostage rescue debacle], Mr. McGovern was a military man.  We cannot let the myth of the ‘60’s Leftist, and the idealistic notions thereof, override good sense.  Likewise, I have no evidence to support my thought, but I suspect in a contest between Mr. Bush [National Guard] and General Clark [career Army], the military vote will go in the obvious direction.  The fact that other generals may or may not like General Clark is irrelevant, in my mind [General Shelton]. Read your history.  General Eisenhower overran his supply lines, didn’t get along with other generals, yet made a decent President. [Possible exceptions: In the Presidential ‘Hall of Infamy’ one can never forget the mistake that was the Grant Presidency. But as Eisenhower proves, this is not necessarily a malady that has bled into modern times. MacArthur, who briefly contemplated a Presidential run, was a “horse’s ass”; ask any Marine who served in the South Pacific in WW II. Read the last paragraph. Asking the troops who served under General Clark what they thought about him may assuage lingering doubts: Veterans for Clark, Not as fawning, One active soldier’s take.] Clark is strong enough to take the Military vote [active personnel and families] bodily away from Bush.  Another advantage over Dean.
   


7. War. As in 1972 with Mr. McGovern, the battleground of opinion will become Dr. Dean’s anti-war stance, since polls show most of the country supports the War on Iraq [Poll numbers on Iraq]. General Clark’s stance is that Iraq was fought too hastily, that we should have finished in Afghanistan first. We must clean up Iraq in a way that leaves a stable government. That protests the war enough for most Lefts, but will fly with most Centrists, I think.  With General Clark, I believe the battleground will become the Bush Administration’s professionalism on the foreign policy and military front. This removes a whole leg of the Administration’s opposition. I like that.  I like that a lot.
   


8. Presence. In comparing the candidates, I fear Dr. Dean will come off too slick in comparison with Mr. Bush. Remember, our candidates are not ultimately facing off against each other, but our ‘fearless leader.’ Gore came off as too physically aggressive, too verbally aggressive, and finally, just too slick. The polished insider politician against Bush’s plainspoken ‘everyman’ [an aspect that Centrists seem to love]. Dean is a significant risk here. He hits me like the old-fashioned definition of slick politician: the proverbial ‘oiled seal’ [Or was it a penguin? Can’t find the literary reference.]. Stout, rich, well-fed. General Clark may be of small stature, but he’s no Michael Dukakis. There’s no dark dourness. On CNN, as guest commentator, he had a bit of a wax-look, but I deem it’s been changing to a harder, chiseled one ... and he won’t be a physically overbearing presence towering over President Bush.  That one Fox interview, General Clark didn’t take any guff ... the interviewer misinterpreting clarification in a commanding voice for unreasoning anger.  There’s a distinct difference, and the interviewer just didn’t get it, preferring to push a strategy of cheap shots. [My father was a Marine; I know the difference. Oh boy, do I know the difference.] General Clark, I think, learned the Nixon lesson there. “Men are like steel ... when they lose their temper, they lose their worth.” I didn’t see any lost worth, but if repeated too often, it could be misinterpreted. [Personally, I’d like to see the General blast a couple of armor plates off some Texas armadillo hide.] Intellectually-honest and generally softspoken General Clark against plainspoken religious-’code-word’ wielding and word-scrambling Mr. Bush; the debates will be entertaining.  I hope they do more informal ones, so we don’t have to undergo the three- and four-word phrasings from a teleprompter, that we’ve had to suffer the last three-plus years.
   


9. Speaking styles. Clark’s a neophyte, learning fast ... no doubt about it. Remember again, the opposition is Mr. Bush, not Dr. Dean. Dr. Dean comes off as incautious, not detail-oriented, not well briefed. Job, a book of the New Testament? That’s just one ... but a real show-stopper, if uttered a month before elections.  Say goodbye to the Center, and any Rights you might have scooped, in one fell swoop. We don’t need a loose cannon in a race that simply *must* be won. General Clark, on the other hand, has had some consistency problems early on.  But he has repeatedly mentioned things in passing that betray a deep and wide knowledge of history, strategy, diplomacy [a previous link from this weblog highlighting once instance].  One must read his speeches, or listen to him ... it’s like being on the receiving end of a broadside, I just don’t expect intelligence and graceful historical nuance from political candidates anymore. Anyway, the complexity is there, for those who care.  Given that I mentioned the nation’s illiteracy above, this is not a big selling point to the average American ... but it is to me, and I’ll be selfish this once.  Call me elitist, call me a prig. Damned impressed, each time I have the time or opportunity to hear him speak, I prefer Clark by a long chalk.
   


10. The South’s political dominance. Seems like every time I turn on the television, every blasted politician has a Southern accent. It’s like the West Virginian drawl in the book “The Right Stuff.” The South has risen again, and they dominate the airwaves. The mythical “Reagan Democrats” were supposedly white Southern union workers. Later, Democratic allegations of Clinton’s pandering to white racists in the South, too [Jackson]. Dr. Dean is a Yankee-boy; impossible for him to corral the herds of Southerners.  Even more impossible after his uncontemplated statements about ‘guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.’ A pandering attempt to talk up the racist white Southern male, from a Union Governor?  A freaking bizarre statement, and one that makes me seriously question Dr. Dean’s suitability.  This is what I mean by a loose cannon we don’t need, in a race that *must* be won.  General Clark is from Arkansas.  Dr. Dean is a Vermonter.  Bush is Connecticut/Texan.  You do the figurin’.  Everyone knows you can’t trust any of them carpetbaggin’ Yankees.
    

General and Illogical Points:

I genuinely like General Clark.  Something about the way he carries himself, the way he speaks, the way he listens.  There’s some commonality with my personal way of doing things.  Unspoken cues that help tip the scales.  Clark strikes me as honorable (as much as I can judge that from written and spoken speeches).  Dean leaves me cold.

This has nothing to do with ‘winnability’, but to make an honest statement of my preference, I felt I should include it.

They say everyone votes as their parents do.  My family has, as far as I know, always voted Democratic.  My adoptive grandfather was a Republican.  For smaller State races, and particular strong local issues, I will cross party lines.  I have curtailed this habit in Congressional elections, since the 1992 election.  Therefore, I am not the ‘swing’ voter the parties need.

Finally:

I don’t claim that General Clark is perfect.  I don’t claim to be any expert political strategist.  In fact, I disdain the entire genus and species of “tribunicia potestas,” politicians as a whole. But I believe, based on the concepts above, that he’s our best hope to win.  The crux for me is the Center vote, above all else.  General Clark is better positioned, in so many ways.  It may be a case of logic overcoming reality, but it’s the best I can do.

I will add to this over time; when I do, I will date the entries and place them below this section.

Updates:

01/12/04: The Washington Quarterly, it seems, disagrees with me on Clark, and the Center [pdf].  Governorship is no more a guarantee of good governance than Generalship.  Experience and skills are supercharged by strong Cabinet choices; to a certain degree, they’re more important than the candidate himself (witness the last three years).  How else would Reagan and Bush have survived?

01/13/04: CNN, America likes Bush’s qualities. More backup for my ‘plainspoken everyman’ opinion above.

01/16/04: In the NY Times, the subject of optimism comes up in two places. I mentioned Martin Seligman’s book above, and through re-reading that chapter, I give you the Dukakis ‘88 acceptance speech.

There is hope and belief in the future, and there is the bathetic, mawkish optimism of the Bush ‘carrier landing.’ Rhetorical skill and image management are required.  The debates will be vital.  But America prefers optimism, and I believe we can tell the real thing from the impostor.

01/18/04: NY Times Op-Ed Contributor from the Pew Research Center, “All the President’s Numbers.” “… on balance the president’s numbers are as good if not better than those of the three presidents who won second terms in recent times.” Reinforces my opening premise, that Bush may not be beatable this autumn.

01/24/04: Philly Inquirer, With doubts on Dean, GOP redraws battle plan. As I mentioned above, the long legislative records of Congressional incumbents will become the battle ground.  They discount Clark, but who has the record for putting foot-in-mouth?  GWB.  Clark’s still our best chance, IMHO.

Comments:

There are no comments at this time for this entry.

 

---