The presidency is as important to Americans symbolically as in its practical power. This is why matters of character and personality have loomed large in the public’s assessment of candidates for the office. While we often haven’t found the desired mix, we’ve consistently sought presidents to be exemplars — both of things we value in personal terms and of the nation itself as a large moral enterprise.
For this reason, it’s not surprising Americans have rarely warmed to displays of strong partisanship in their president. A national leader should be somewhat above the partisan fray — at least its narrower expressions.
This basic expectation tells us a lot about why we are where we are in the 1996 presidential race. The incumbent gets considerable credit for his political skills and energy, but he continues to get subpar grades in the test of national leadership. Through his 32 months in offce, Bill Clinton has only rarely elevated his presidential approval percentages out of the mediocre 40s.
On the Republican side, none of the announced candidates is anywhere. This is true even of Bob Dole, though he is not only the best known contender, but is well respected for his many accomplishments. This is why 46 percent of Republicans and those leaning Republican polled by Gallup September 22-24 made Senator Dole their first choice among the declared candidates.
But only a tiny fraction of this 46 percent is clear, unambiguous support for Bob Dole as the next president. Politicswatchers would generally be better off ignoring the early polling trial heats altogether until some means is found of measuring depth as well as breadth. Dole’s support is the proverbial “mile wide and an inch deep.” His overall weakness with the electorate is shown by his trailing Clinton in every recent two-way trial heat — even though the president hasn’t enlarged his base of support from the 43 percent backing him in November 1992.
Dole’s weakness among the electorate at large is surpassed by Phil Gramm’s and Newt Gingrich’s. The inability of any of these three heavyweights to gain broad presidential backing as inclusive leaders able to set a high moral tone for the country has created a kind of vacuum, which politics as much as nature abhors. Enter Colin Powell.
History never repeats, but in America it often does a remarkable imitation. The parallels between what happened in the Republican presidential nomination contest of 1951-52 and what’s happened thus far this year are, I believe, instructive.
When the 1952 contest began, Senator Bob Taft’s partisan credentials were unmatched by those of any rival. A Gallup survey of 1,740 GOP county chairmen in the fall of 1951 found 59 percent endorsing the Ohio senator (“Mr. Republican”). Taft’s ability and integrity were widely admired. Nonetheless, not only did Eisenhower best Taft by a large margin among independents, he led narrowly among rank-and-file Republican identifiers as well.
Party machinery had vastly more influence over presidential nominations in the fifties than it has had since 1968, and Taft’s candidacy remained a formidable one right through the GOP convention. Eisenhower had his own strong organizational base, of course. Its cause was aided immeasurably by the fact that the polls showed Ike leading Taft among Republican adherents at every stage in the campaign. What’s more, while Taft looked weak in trial heats with Democrats, Eisenhower looked strong. Two-way trial heats of late 1951, for example, put Ike way ahead of Harry Truman, but showed Truman beating Taft — much as the polls today have Clinton ahead of Dole but trailing Powell.
It may be objected that Eisenhower’s strength reflected a unique experience — the exceptional renown he earned for leading the victorious Allied military effort in Europe. This objection misses the mark. Another U.S. general came out of World War II with a fame that rivaled Ike’s. Asked in August 1945 who they thought might make a good president, 26 percent named Douglas MacArthur, 24 percent Dwight Eisenhower — with no one else in the running. MacArthur’s prestige did not fade. A Gallup poll of December 1951 asking, what man “do you admire most?” found MacArthur first, Eisenhower second.
MacArthur and his friends thought this regard might translate into the GOP nomination. In fact, the earliest polls showed this general way behind both Eisenhower and Taft, and from this weak starting point MacArthur faded fast. He was much admired — but not for the presidency. In the context of this office, his “negatives” were far too high. Americans saw a rigidity that would stand in the way of broad, unifying national political leadership.
Eisenhower’s fame as a general shot him into the game, but other things put him over the top. Americans didn’t know just where he fitted politically. In 1947 roughly the same proportion of the public regarded him as a Democrat as thought him a Republican. In 1948 he had more general public support among Democrats than among Republicans. In January of that year, Gallup found him ahead of Truman among heavily Democratic labor union members. In January 1950, only 40 percent of those interviewed by Gallup thought that Eisenhower was on the conservative side whereas 60 percent saw him as a liberal!
But that was just fine. “I like Ike.” We like our presidents to be somehow ” independent,” above the fray. Ronald Reagan, who did have sharp edges ideologically, understood the danger in this to presidential leadership. He compensated through personal warmth and geniality. Equally important, he appealed to a large, unifying idea of America as a “city upon a hill.” Different though they were in many ways, Eisenhower and Reagan both carried the country on personality and character.
And this is much where Colin Powell is today. Though we don’t yet know a lot about him in political terms, what we do know we like — it seems balanced and sensible. What’s more important, we like what we see in him as a person and what he symbolizes in national aspirations. Like Ike he seems ” independent,” above the narrower dimensions of partisanship which have never appealed to us when we’ve considered the requirements of the country’s one great national office.
There remains the ever-present issue of race. At this point, white Americans say they are ready to support Colin Powell. Indeed, a Gallup survey taken October 5-7 showed him besting Bill Clinton among whites by a 17-point margin (54 to 37 percent), while trailing the president badly (25 to 68 percent) among blacks. Overall, it was Powell 51 percent, Clinton 40 percent. My guess is that this pattern of support will hold up. If a candidate, Colin Powell is likely to tap further the views and values that Dwight Eisenhower drew on so successfully.
Everett Carll Ladd is president of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
