For any sports fan there’s perhaps nothing more tragic than watching a once great athlete struggle to compete once it’s apparent that he’s well past his prime. Think Willie Mays in a Mets uniform; Joe Namath with the Rams; perhaps more recently the much diminished Brett Favre with the Vikings. While everyone else knows that their best days are well behind them, these athletes seem to be the last to reckon with their own mortality.
As we begin to move into the 2012 electoral cycle, it’s worth asking whether politicians suffer the same malady as athletes. Do they delude themselves into thinking they still “have game”?
Looking at the early stages of some emerging campaigns, it appears as if we may witness the same type of sad ends to once bright careers.
At the presidential level, the first few weeks of the official Newt Gingrich for President campaign have been nothing short of a disaster. Whether it be his undercutting of House Republicans on their Medicare vote or his having to spend several days explaining a several hundred thousand dollar jewelry tab at Tiffany’s, Gingrich’s campaign is lurching about directionless. The fact that the real nomination fight won’t begin for months should be extremely worrisome. What will happen when other Republicans begin to attack him? Worse yet, might the likes of Romney, T-Paw, and other GOP candidates ignore Gingrich altogether, relegating him to the ranks of the has beens?
This, to me, is the heart of the problem for many politicians. Popularity and relevance are not permanent, yet so few ever truly grasp this. The political arena, especially for those who have been in it for an extended period of time, creates distortions. The bright lights, the cheering crowds, media attention, and the fawning of one’s handlers and other sycophants create a false reality. It leads one to believe that the vast multitude of Americans, those who don’t follow politics closely but make up the bulk of the electorate, are actually clamoring for your candidacy. For those who have been out of politics for a while, these distortions and illusions are even more dangerous.
Keep in mind the simple fact that Newt Gingrich has not appeared on a ballot of any kind since 1998. He has not been subject to any kind of judgment by voters for nearly a decade and a half. To use my sports analogy again, he’s terribly out of game shape—and it shows.
I suspect we may see a similar dynamic play out at the state level, in Wisconsin. As I wrote last week, the retirement of Democratic Senator Herb Kohl has created a now open contest in a state whose politics have been white hot for the past several months. On the Republican side, with Representative Paul Ryan’s decision to forego the race, there are rumblings that former Governor Tommy Thompson is seriously considering jumping in.
There are a couple of similarities that Thompson shares with Gingrich that are worth noting and that should up red flags among Wisconsin GOPers.
There is no doubt that Thompson is the most successful politician in recent Wisconsin history.
Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gives an excellent breakdown of his four winning elections here. It would seem on the surface that Thompson would be an ideal candidate, not just because he managed to win statewide on four separate occasions, but that he had success among traditionally Democratic voters. His record on welfare reform and school choice brought him national attention and helped propel him to the Bush cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Across the Badger State he developed an effective “every man” image that he put to use not just in his campaigns but his governing style as well.
One area where Thompson mirrors Gingrich has been his penchant to flirt with every campaign that comes down the pike. He, at various times, was rumored to be running against Russ Feingold as well as former Democratic Governor Jim Doyle. Just as Gingrich has tempted people with presidential races in the past, Thompson trial balloons are an almost biannual rite in Wisconsin. Many Badger State voters feel that more than anything else, these dabblings represent a need for attention and affirmation more than a desire to serve.
Another commonality is that like with Gingrich, 1998 was the last time he actually stood before voters. To put this into a bit of context, Google had been incorporated for only two months the last time that either Gingrich or Thompson appeared on a ballot. Neither of these men have had to campaign in the era of blogs and social media where attacks, rumors, and stories can materialize out of nowhere. Neither have experience with the scrutiny of the modern campaign environment.
During the 2008 election, we saw what happened when one candidate, Hillary Clinton, ran a late 20th century campaign while another candidate, Barack Obama, ran the first truly 21st century one. As Clinton found out all too late, the game was no longer being played the way she thought it was.
All of this is not to say that Tommy Thompson can’t become the next Senator from Wisconsin or that Newt Gingrich won’t mount a credible campaign for the White House. What I would argue, though, is that candidates who act as if their relevance is foreordained are more likely than not going to be disappointed. Not only will they be less inclined to build their campaign for the current environment but they’ll surely find that the voters are not where they thought they’d be–and they’re probably paying more attention to someone else.
