There it was, right on the front page of the Washington Post two days after Labor Day: “Clinton-Weary Public Has Doubts About Gore.” And right under the headline, a pie chart with the percentage breakdown: Bush 56 percent, Gore 37 percent, undecided or neither 7 percent.
From GOP offices on Capitol Hill to Republican-leaning lobbying firms on K Street to conservative think tanks downtown, waves of relief and satisfaction and chortling swept over our nation’s capital. Relief, because Bush’s not-so-strong showing in the Iowa straw poll, followed by his not-so-deft handling of the cocaine question, turned out not to have hurt him at all. Satisfaction, because the Republican establishment’s investment in Governor Bush seemed to be paying off in the almost foreordained nomination of an almost foreordained winner for 2000. And chortling because even though Clinton had slipped the impeachment noose, “Clinton fatigue” seemed to be crippling his vice president’s chances of succeeding him.
Of course, the savvy politicos and experienced fund-raisers and wise policy wonks cautioned each other: “It’s early yet; 14 months is a long time; anything can still happen; we can’t be overconfident.” Still, they are pretty confident. And after Bush ’92 and Dole ’96, one almost wants to let them enjoy their good cheer for a little while. But, as Bush ’92 might have said, that wouldn’t be prudent. There are three solid reasons for caution. They can be summarized as Bradley, Buchanan, and East Timor.
Bradley. Clinton fatigue, and Al Gore’s own ham-handedness as a candidate, are damaging the vice president. The trouble is, Bill Bradley is now just as likely as Gore to be the Democratic nominee against whom George W. Bush, or any other Republican, will have to run. It’s true that Gore leads Bradley by 69 percent to 24 percent in the Washington Post-ABC News poll. But we nominate presidents in a state-by-state process, not in a national primary. And two recent polls have Bradley within 7 points and 4 points respectively of Gore in New Hampshire, the state where both men have spent the most time and voters have had the best chance to size them up. More important, one of those polls has Bradley running a closer race than Gore against Bush.
It Bush is still beating Gore handily at the end of the year in surveys, and if it seems plausible — as it may well — that Bradley would be a stronger general-election candidate, the movement among Democrats to Bradley in January and February could be dramatic. And if Bradley can run close behind Gore in Iowa and upset him in New Hampshire, he has a good chance of beating him in New York and California on March 7 and winning the nomination. Throw in an attractive vice presidential pick like Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey, or perhaps a non-political business or civic leader type, and suddenly Clinton fatigue disappears as a reason for voters to favor Bush in the general election. Bradley, too, is not Clinton. Indeed, Bush would have to worry about Lott-Hastert fatigue, while Bradley would sail into the general election with real strength.
Buchanan. Bradley will be especially strong if the general election is a three-way race, not a two-way race, and if the third way is Reform party candidate Patrick Buchanan. When Buchanan is included in polls today, he reduces Bush’s lead over Gore by about 6 points. An aggressive Buchanan campaign over the next year could do even more damage to Bush. Imagine if Pat hammers away at Bush for refusing to commit himself to overturning Roe v. Wade through judicial appointments; imagine then that Bush seeks to placate Buchanan, or is seen by the press to seek to placate Buchanan, by, say, passing over pro-choice Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as his running mate and selecting a pro-life vice presidential nominee. This would allow Bradley, or Gore, to whiplash Bush as a puppet of the intolerant Right and to win over some of those Clinton-weary independents who are now inclined to Bush’s compassionate conservatism. And this is to say nothing of what could happen in a three-way Bush-Buchanan-Bradley debate in 2000. In other words: The dynamics of a Buchanan candidacy could be even more dangerous to Bush than the polls now suggest.
East Timor. There is presumably not much George W. Bush or any other Republican can do about Bradley or Buchanan. But there is something Bush can do about the third threat to his victory in November 2000: He has yet really to explain why he deserves to be president of the United States.
It’s true that it is still early. It’s true that Bush has so far dodged any damage from his minor “East Timorean”-type gaffes. It’s true that the charge that Bush is not quite up to being president has so far gained little traction. This is partly because Clinton has lowered expectations for the presidency, and partly because Bush seems perfectly capable of doing the job if current conditions of peace and prosperity continue. But will they? Unexpected things will happen over the course of the next year. They will tend especially to happen abroad. For example, who would have predicted a month ago that an American president might soon have to decide whether to send troops to East Timor?
The more dangerous the world comes to look, the more obvious it will be that the next president will have to make serious, life and death decisions about where to stake U.S. credibility and commit U.S. troops. By November 2000, the American public will be reminded that, while a candidate’s education proposals are important, they are not dispositive as to whether he should be president. A president’s judgment about war and peace is fundamental. When Ohio senator Mike DeWine endorsed John McCain for president recently, he said, “This is the man who in my opinion should be commander in chief.” When Bob Kerrey explained last week why he was supporting Bill Bradley, he said, “I think he’ll make an exceptional commander in chief.”
It is striking that George W. Bush’s many supporters have not conspicuously made this claim on his behalf. This is understandable; Bush has been a governor, and he has not yet been under great pressure as a candidate to speak as a potential commander in chief. But to lay proper claim to the office he seeks, he will need to begin doing so.
George W. Bush has been able to move out to a huge lead in the polls and in fund-raising mostly because he is (1) governor of our second largest state, (2) President Bush’s son, (3) a charming and engaging guy, (4) not Newt Gingrich, and above all (5) not Bill Clinton. None of these reasons is to Bush’s discredit. But to justify the high hopes and great confidence that have been placed in him by Republicans in Washington and around the country, he needs to add another reason: He needs to demonstrate that (6) he has the character and ability and judgment and convictions to be a strong president. Bush will win if voters believe he deserves to win. He will only deserve to win if he is more than not Bill Clinton.
William Kristol
