The extraordinary rise of Steve Forbes was entirely predictable. We know this to be true, because almost everyone predicted it over the past year — even though none of us knew we were doing so.
For months, people interested in politics surveyed the Republican presidential field and asked each other the same questions: “Is this it? Are these the choices we’re going to have? Can these really be the only realistic presidential possibilities — Dole, Gramm, Alexander, and Wilson?” Say what you will about all of them — and there is a great deal to be said in their praise — there is little that is exciting about these men. Little that is inspiring. Little that would lead anyone but the master of ceremonies at a Lincoln Day dinner to describe any of them as “the next president of the United States.” These politicians deserve credit for their dedication, their energy, their fortitude . . . but what about their ideas? What about their vision? What about their leadership? What about their (excuse the tired word) charisma?
“Is this it?” we asked, and every week it seemed that yes, this was it. Over and over, to the disappointment, dismay, and (at times) disgust of many, other Republicans who seemed to have some of the qualities the declared candidates do not possess took themselves out of the game. First Bill Bennett, then Dick Cheney, then Dan Quayle, then Jack Kemp all decided to opt out of the presidential race.
And so it seemed increasingly diffcult to imagine anyone but Bob Dole as the Republican nominee, what with Wilson dropping out and Gramm and Alexander both failing to catch on. But at the same time it also seemed diffcult to imagine Dole standing on January 20, 1997 with his right hand on the Bible and Chief Justice William Rehnquist asking him to swear solemnly to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In the fall of 1995, Republicans across the country lighted upon two possible Dole substitutes — Newt Gingrich and Colin Powell. Political types understood why Gingrich might not go for it: too unpopular, too polarizing. But Powell was the most popular man in America, a proven leader, an interesting solution to an intractable problem. And so, for two months, the political world froze in place waiting for Powell to make up his mind.
In retrospect, we should have known that Powell would never run. One thing recent political history tells us is that people who run for president don’t mull it over. They just do it. Anyone who does spend time publicly considering his choices decides against a presidential bid — most notoriously, Mario Cuomo, who would probably be living in the White House today if he had just boarded the plane that stood on the tarmac at the Albany airport waiting to take him to New Hampshire, and glory, in December 1991.
Why? Why don’t we get the candidates we want? After all, isn’t every American child supposed to want to grow up to become president of the United States? Don’t people who have a lot to say about the direction of the country feel an obligation — as they used to — to try and get their hands on the reins of executive authority in Washington?
Or, to put it in a purely negative fashion: Don’t they want the power? Don’t they want to reward their friends and punish their enemies? Is there not a single politician in America worthy of being written about by a modern- day Shakespeare?
What has happened to political ambition?
Well, for one thing, life has become very comfortable for people who make it big in Washington. They appear frequently on television, and reporters call them to ask their opinion on the issues of the day.
They write books that sell millions of copies and make them millions of dollars. They spend a few hours on a plane, get off the plane, give a speech, get back on the plane, and collect between $ 25,000 and $ 75,000. They have all the trappings of power and glory with none of the responsibility.
Alan Ehrenhalt informs us elsewhere in this issue that the great men of the past did not have to jump through the hoops the modern candidate must navigate. Eisenhower did not have to spend 100 days in New Hampshire. Taft did not have to spend five hours a day on the phone making fundraising calls. Stevenson did not have to release his tax returns, run the risk of exposing his peccadillos, or subject himself to the 24-hour-a-day insta-analysis of pollsters and pundits.
As Ehrenhalt says, our 20-year-old presidential nominating system has required a new kind of candidate — someone who is not inherently cautious, who does not hoard his reputation, but seeks to invest his personal capital in a high-risk venture. Maybe this is a good thing; maybe it is an important test of character. John Dryden said that “none but the brave deserves the fair.” The candidate willing to take the risk of presenting himself for judgment to the voters is telling them, in effect, that he is “brave” and that America is “fair.” For this reason, those who choose to run deserve our admiration and respect.
Is it possible that, watching the rise and rise of Steve Forbes, those who didn’t run are spending sleepless nights wondering what might have been? Because any of them might have been where Forbes is right now. Forbes is the unlikeliest of Gary Harts: neophyte, Quixote-with-a-magazine, willing to spend a lot of his own money to advance the interesting but problematic policy-wonk’s dream of a flat tax. Forbes was not the alternative to Dole we expected. But we all somehow knew that there would be an alternative to Dole. There simply had to be.
Front-runners don’t just become nominees because they want to. Front- runners, even strong ones, have to prove themselves. They must undergo a time of testing, usually in New Hampshire — and it must be a test with an uncertain result. Muskie collapsed in 1972. Reagan lost Iowa to Bush in 1980, and Bush lost Iowa to Dole in 1988. Mondale lost to Gary Hart in New Hampshire in 1984. In 1992, Bush had Buchanan dogging him, and Clinton had Gennifer Flowers. It’s quite possible Dole will rise to the occasion Forbes is creating; if he does, he can go the way of Reagan in 1980 and Bush in 1988. If he does not, he will go the way of Muskie.
Steve Forbes is an impressive man, and grows more impressive by the day. He has proved himself the most eloquent candidate in the Republican field, the one with the most to say and the most fluent way of saying it. He is a friend to many who work on this magazine, and we could pay him no higher compliment than to say that he has surprised and dazzled us with his talents as a candidate. If he were running for governor of New Jersey, or for senator to fill Bill Bradley’s seat, we would think the Garden State very fortunate indeed.
But should a man who has never served in public office, never held a full- time executive position in government, take as his first political job the presidency of the United States? Whatever weaknesses the current field has, every candidate in it but Forbes has submitted himself time and again to the approval of an electorate. Every candidate but Forbes has had to negotiate with unfriendly legislators and learn how to bend them to his will or elude their grasp. Some of them — Dole, Gramm, Lugar, and Dornan — have had to cast votes in which they agreed to send American soldiers to their deaths. This is the kind of experience that makes a candidate fit to serve as president. And though the public remains disgusted with politics as usual, with elected offcials in general, and with Washington in particular — and though they are right to be so — we suspect they will not, at the end of the day, turn over the reins of power so precipitously to someone so untested.
Can Forbes actually win the Republican nomination? America is a conservative country, and the Republican party represents its most conservative face. One feature of conservatism is an unwillingness to take gambles with the nation’s future. A vote for Steve Forbes is a gamble — a gamble on the highest office in the land. Steve Forbes deserves praise for his conviction that the presidency is worth the risk of putting himself(and his money) forward, and we do not begrudge him the enthusiasm he has generated. But there is reason to doubt he is fully prepared to shoulder the burdens of the presidency.
Perhaps Dole will rebound and win. Perhaps Gramm or Alexander will emerge against a weakened Dole and a Forbes whose fortunes begin to flag. But what a pity that so many qualified, capable men — ones whose lives ought to have prepared them for this endeavor — chose to leave the field to those now running. A healthy democracy requires grand political ambition among those who would be its leaders. We may not be at the end of history, but we do seem perilously close to the end of such ambition.
