A General Problem
by Joshua Adams
Conventional wisdom suggests Wesley Clark's candidacy spells trouble for Howard
Dean, who has built his campaign around his opposition to the Iraq war; and for George
W. Bush, whose approval ratings continue to inch downward as American GI's get shot,
car bombs detonate on Baghdad streets, the economy "recovers" without adding
jobs and the budget deficit approaches a level not seen since Rodney Dangerfield went
Back to School. But, conventional wisdom isn't infallible. Would that it were:
Mr. Dangerfield would not have had us Meet Wally Sparks. In this case, the new
conventional wisdom — that Clark is the juggernaut Democrats been looking for
— is far off base.
When it comes to Bush and Dean, Clark's not nearly the bonecrusher some would have him
be. New York Times columnist David Brooks may opine that the Clark candidacy
makes this administration nervous. But to assume that Bush will have more trouble
with Clark than with another nominee, simply by virtue of Clark's 32 years in the
military, is a tad naïve (and, coming from the conservative Brooks, perhaps purposely so). In 2000,
voters supported President Bush in spite of his lack of real military
experience.
But Bush isn't as weak vis-à-vis Clark as people think, for four reasons. For one,
while Bush never deployed, he knows how to shoot first and ask questions later. When
challenged by war hero Sen. John McCain, the Bushies went below the belt, implying to
Southern voters that McCain was an ungodly immoralist liberal in disguise — and
father to an illegitimate black kid — because he
dared to criticize Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Low and behold, the strategy
worked. Don't be surprised to see the Rove slander machine gearing up for battle this
spring.
Second, there's the war on terrorism. Much has been made in liberal circles of how the
president has exploited the events of Sept. 11, 2001, for political gain, and Clark is
supposed to be the Democrats' best hope for beating Bush in the post-Sept. 11
political climate. But look closer. What Rove & Co. did was use Sept. 11 to fill in
the gaps in Bush's military resume, previously his ostensible political weakness. It
isn't difficult to get some additional combat credibility when you're
commander-in-chief. You can, for example, take the country to war for one reason, and
then, conveniently, change your justifications ex post facto. (Apparently, you can
sit shotgun in an F-14 and sign a bill limiting veterans' benefits on the same day.)
Bush may not have shot a gun himself, but he's told thousands of others to do
so, and that counts a lot at the ballot box.
Third, Clark's experience won't immunize him against the charge that criticizing the
president while Iraq continues to smolder is traitorous. The continuing efforts to
confuse the occupation of Iraq with the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism have
reaped their rewards, and this is the president's formidable trump card, memorably
rendered by Attorney General John Ashcroft: "You are either with us, or you are with
the terrorists." The result is that sizeable chunk of the Bush's base — that
swath of America to the right of Christie Todd Whitman — still responds with hostility
to questioners of their fearless leader. As a result, Clark's military superiority may
backfire.
Finally, a Clark nomination will have Bush fighting like a cat in a corner on foreign
policy, because the president has no other issues on which he can rely for support.
Three million jobs have evaporated since he took office; the $87 billion he seeks for
operations in Iraq could pay off every single state budget shortfall; according to the
Congressional Budget Office, every dollar of taxes cut means an additional $3.60 in
borrowing. And so on. Clark may be strong where other Democrats are weak, but so is
Bush.
Indeed, Bush is so weak domestically that he'd focus on defense whomever his opponent
— which is why the conventional wisdom is also wrong to suggest that Howard Dean
suffers by a Clark candidacy. Unless Clark can pull together a domestic plan quickly,
Dean will continue to emerge as the candidate best suited to take on Bush's weak spot.
And despite being upstaged in the media last week, Dean holds a vast lead over Clark
in the money primary. For Clark to catch up, it will take more than a bevy of
former Clinton advisers: It will take a major collapse by Dean in the
coming weeks, and his losing the New Hampshire primary, a state where he's
leading by 20 points, according to the most recent Zogby polls.
So if Clark can't beat Dean, let alone Bush, what's his next option? The vice
presidency. A Dean/Clark ticket would not only merge the two largest branches of the
Democratic grassroots, but it would shore up each of its partners' weaknesses.
Dean would benefit from Clark's foreign policy expertise, and Clark would get Dean's
know-how on domestic issues. Of course, conventional wisdom says this kind of deal
early in the electoral cycle never happens. Let us hope it's wrong at least one more
time.
E-mail Joshua Adams at joshua at uchicago dot edu.
