The Tasty Term Politicos Love
A different opinion on the “electability” issue.
By Julie Brinn Siegel, University of Pennsylvania
Thursday June 22, 2006
In his article “Zesty, Sporty…Electable?” Bryan Collinsworth alleges that “electability” is a newfangled concept and word. Bryan is half right — his evidence proves that “electability” is a new term. But I’m a history major, and a debater, so I must split hairs and distinguish between the word “electability” and the concept of electability.
Picking a candidate based on electability is a tactic as old as the republic. Over the last 210 years, there has been an evolution in the methods parties have used to choose their presidential candidates. As the parties and country got bigger, the selection of a party’s candidate went from the parlors of the wealthy founding fathers, to the backrooms of convention halls, and then finally landed in the polling places and caucuses near you. The concept of electability was around during that whole journey.
The first real American partisan presidential election took place in 1796. The Republican Party (which bore little resemblance to today’s Republican Party) had a clear candidate, Thomas Jefferson, but their opposition, the Federalist Party, was a little bit of a mess. John Adams had been President Washington’s vice president, but he was stiff and disagreeable. Another possibility was the dynamic, and polarizing, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had an impressive military record, he was Washington’s aide de camp, and he saved Long Island from the British (yeah, I know, we should have let them have it). Hamilton was also the architect of the whole American financial system and the author of most of the influential Federalist Papers (the exact number is disputed) where he campaigned for the ratification of the Constitution by New York.
So if Hamilton was more of an intellectual heavyweight than Adams, a proven campaigner, and a war hero, why was he not the Federalist presidential candidate? He was not electable!
Hamilton had several problems that made him unelectable. First, his background; Hamilton was born in the West Indies to an unwed French mother and Scottish father. While his foreign origins did not disqualify him (the Constitution allows anyone who was already an American citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which Hamilton was, to run for president), the scandalous nature of his birth precluded him from being an electable candidate to the old fashioned former colonists who made up the American electorate (and, sadly, still probably would today).
Hamilton also had a little bit of a zipper issue. He had a very public affair with a married woman named Maria Reynolds. Infidelity, if it was publicized, could kill a presidential candidacy faster than an endorsement from Al Gore. In contrast, Adams was fiercely loyal to his wife Abigail.
Finally, Hamilton had an affinity — and talent — for ticking people off, especially his colleagues in government. His life ended in a duel with fellow New York politico Aaron Burr, though that rivalry may not have been completely political: Maria Reynolds was also Burr’s special friend. In short, Hamilton was much more dynamic and experienced but was overlooked because of factors that killed his ability to be elected.
The Democratic Party had the opposite problem in 1912. The election of 1912 defied most of the rules of American presidential politics. Republicans had controlled the White House for 16 years, but it seemed their monopoly on power was chipping. The current president, William Howard Taft (of bathtub fame), was the handpicked successor of the enormously popular populist, President Teddy Roosevelt. In 1908, Roosevelt stepped down after almost two full terms as President and entrusted Taft with his legacy.
The hoopla started when Roosevelt returned from his African safari in 1910. President Taft had completely strayed from Roosevelt’s agenda. Roosevelt, still enormously popular, started on a nationwide speaking tour which begot another Republican presidential run. After the Republican Party elders refused to nominate him, Roosevelt formed a third party, the Progressive Party.
Even running on a third party ticket, Roosevelt was a very formidable adversary to the Democrats. In addition to his vast experience and charisma, the Progressive agenda (graduated income tax and inheritance taxes, workers’ compensation, regulation of child labor, tariff revision, etc.) resonated with the American public.
This was the atmosphere in which the Democrats entered their convention on June 25, 1912. The convention refused to nominate old line Democrat and Speaker of the House Champ Clark. Instead, the convention nominated Woodrow Wilson despite his having only two years of political experience. Wilson was a charismatic former academic with a talent for telling stories and connecting to audiences. He also had an even more progressive agenda than Roosevelt. In short, he was the perfect antidote to Roosevelt, and therefore the electable candidate.
Fast-forward 48 years. The year is 1960, America is coming off an eight-year Ike kick, and the country is sick of the “old fuddy-duddy” presidential model. Enter John F. Kennedy from stage left. He’s young, he’s articulate, he’s hot, and he’s married to Jackie, who’s also young, articulate, and hot. It didn’t matter that Kennedy was a relatively undistinguished Senator of less than two terms — he was exactly the fix the American people were looking for. Joseph Kennedy, the future president’s father (who never missed an opportunity to promote one of his sons), put his son’s appeal most articulately: “He can draw more people to a fundraising dinner than Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart. Why is that? He has more universal appeal. That is why the Democratic Party is going to nominate him. The party leaders around the country realize that to win they have to nominate him.” “To win they have to nominate him” — it sounds like Joe is identifying electability as John Kennedy’s biggest selling point.
Electability was not an immediate asset to Kennedy. The big white donkey in the convention hall was Kennedy’s Catholicism. In her brilliant book on the Kennedy phenomenon, “Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote of the political bosses who picked the 1960 Democratic candidate: “They had to be persuaded that his (Kennedy’s) victory was not only desirable but politically possible. And Kennedy’s only chance to demonstrate his potential appeal to a national constituency was through victory in the important presidential primaries.” Primaries in 1960 served a completely different purpose from today’s primaries. There were not enough convention delegates at stake to make primaries a tool for nomination. Rather, the political bosses who really ran the show on party nominations used the primaries to see how voters would react to Kennedy’s Catholicism. In other words, the primaries were a test of electability — a test that Kennedy needed to pass before being awarded the Democratic nomination.
So, it’s pretty clear the concept of electability is not novel. But Bryan has a point — the profligate use of the word “electability” is new. Why, all of the sudden did it proliferate in the media in 2004?
The answer is twofold: Democrats were desperate to beat President Bush, and voters were not sure why they voted for Senator Kerry. Ability to win a general election seemed to be the main criteria for a candidate in the minds of Democratic voters, especially during primary season.
This is similar to the thinking of Republican primary voters in 2000. Governor Bush was a very popular governor of a large, diverse state. According to the Austin American-Statesman in April 1999, right before his presidential campaign began, Governor Bush’s approval rating was a whopping 78. Bush’s popularity among various constituencies provided evidence that he could appeal to diverse groups. But Bush had another advantage on the electability front: He was the anti-Clinton. The country was tired of scandals, and the teetotaling, bible-thumping Governor Bush was the starkest contrast to the philandering President Clinton. Voters didn’t care that he had little political experience and even less foreign policy experience. The electability issue was paramount.
So what was the difference in 2004? Why didn’t electability enter the mad media vernacular in 2000?
The answer is that, in 2000, Republican voters could identify for what they were voting in terms other than electability — morality in the White House, etc. Kerry voters weren’t quite sure. Some said it was Kerry’s military experience — but General Wesley Clark had much more than that. Others cited Kerry’s long tenure in Congress — Representative Gephardt was in Congress for longer. “So what was it? What was that term for the je ne sais quoi, that indefinable magical element that caused voters in Iowa who were “dating Dean” to “marry Kerry”?” Electability, silly!
--------
Comments
|
!
This is frightening. It suggests that voters have so little understanding of the problems and needs of the country and so little understanding of their own interests and needs that they vote on a candidates appearance and style. John Kennedy ran on a non -existent “missle gap” that he knew did not exist but used to scare the American people and he won. I voted for him, but since then I have been very careful to assess candidates on their records, their committments and their associates. I hope after this ghastly experience with George W. Bush, who some people thought was trustworthy maybe more voters will learn the lesson I learned long ago.
— Jana Lane - Jun 24, 11:42 AM - #I must agree with Jana. I hope a lesson is learned by America in which we put more basis on qualifications than the ability to sell oneself. I must admit, that athough I did not particularly like GW in 2000, nor in 2004, that he was able to win because he was “more likeable” (there may be a point to argue in 2000, since popular vote deemed Al Gore the preferred favorite of the country). John Kerry in 2004 had no real personality or charisma that many Democratic leaders in our history have carried so well. People such as FDR, Kennedy, Truman, were able to win because of their dynamic personalities. I do not believe this is right, but at least in these cases, a “likeable” candidate begat an effective president. With GW, we are seeing the “likeable cowboy” is not always the best choice when deciding to handle a globally involved superpower.
— Corey Ponder - Jun 29, 12:40 AM - #Honestly, I’m not particularly impressed with this article. It seems to lack substance. A few anecdotes of “electability” at play don’t define the term. I think the author wants to define “electability” as “being someone who will be accepted by a majority of people and/or fit in with public opinion”, but that’s amorphous, and that’s the problem. Electability is a winner’s term. It requires an (accurate) prediction of what the people want. Obviously, John Kerry was not electable, because he wasn’t elected.
People vote for people (as opposed to agendas). John Kerry lacked the charisma of JFK or Clinton, the resonant policy of Teddy Roosevelt, and the balls (or gall, or blind self-assurance) of Bush2.
Instead, he was the front-runner coming out of Iowa, and simply stayed that way by being the front-runner. We latched onto the nearest winner we could find, and held on tight.
Next time, let’s open our eyes during primary season.
Unfortunately, we have a problem, and that brings me to Jana and Corey’s comments. The problem is very simple, actually:
— David Friedman - Jun 29, 02:30 AM - #The American People are busy. They aren’t like us (i.e.: political activists). Few of them are going to go out and learn about a candidate. Instead of hoping voters dig deeper, a candidate must simply put out his or her strengths, and sell that. John Kerry never did, and that’s why he lost.