The other prominent politician who should be kicking himself these days is John Edwards, whose precipitate departure from the Democratic race looks more foolish with each primary or caucus.
Granted, Mr. Edwards was no match for the celebrity of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - but could no one in his camp have foreseen the possibility of a deadlocked convention?
I did not publish to this effect - which will affect my credibility with some - but I recall telling friends in late 2007 that the front-loading of the primary season would very likely lead to at least one party choosing its nominee the old-fashioned way. It seemed to me obvious that - with the mechanism of momentum-building removed from the picture - no candidate would be likely to secure a majority of delegates in advance.
Sadly, no campaign - other than Mayor Giuliani's - foresaw this possibility. And because he was alone in this, he failed.
But imagine another scenario. Imagine that Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul all announced - at the outset - that they intended to focus on the states where they had the best shot at winning delegates. Had they done so - putting their time and money where it would do the most good - they might all still be in the race.
This argument has even more force on the Democratic side. Had the lesser-known candidates all adopted a strategy of campaigning only where they were strongest - plainly advertising their intention of going to the convention with a pocketful of delegates awarded by proportional representation - not even a unanimity of super-delegates could have forced a decision before Denver.
Indeed, with his strength among working-class whites, John Edwards could easily have made it to Denver with between 10% and 15% of the delegates. Suppose that, instead of ending his campaign, Edwards had said:
"It is now obvious that I am not going to be the first choice of the majority of Democrats. But I hope to demonstrate, in time, that I am the second choice of most Democrats - and perhaps, come Denver, the final choice of my party. Thus, I will continue my campaign - scaling down to accommodate my limited funds, and focusing on states where I can win the most delegates. I will pursue the strategy Abraham Lincoln pursued in 1860, campaigning so as to earn the respect of all Democrats - and, should the convention deadlock, offering myself as a legitimate, tested alternative to the two front-runners."
Had Mr. Edwards offered himself on this basis, he might now be the beneficiary of many votes from Democrats and independents who are having second thoughts about Senator Obama, but who remain reluctant to endorse Senator Clinton. He might be in a position to help the party leadership avoid a head-to-head bloodbath in Denver.
And he might - just might - have wound up in the White House.
-30-
4 comments:
I voted for Edwards. My wife and daughter campaigned for him. But I think he did the right thing getting out of the race when it was clear Clinton and Obama were both going to be getting many more delegates. He let his supporters in the remaining states directly express their preference between Clinton and Obama, rather than leaving it to the Edwards pledged delegates to decide for them at the convention.
By this point he would be facing day after day of vilification if he were still in the race, and his principled campaign would be remembered as a selfish grab for power.
Your analysis is too tricksy for me. He could have said what you suggest, but I don't think people would have bought it.
I understand the point-of-view, Doug, but I think it underestimates the American people.
Most of us accept that there are rules to every game, and that playing by the rules is no reason for vilification.
Much as we regret the outcome of 2000, most of us accept that the winner of an Electoral majority - not the winner of the popular plurality - is rightly President.
Most of us accept the quirky rules of various sports which sometimes result in the "better" team losing.
And certainly - after several years of "reality" television - most of us understand that it's perfectly legitimate to become the "survivor" by roundabout tactics, so long as they don't cross some line of decency.
A continued Edwards candidacy would have been entirely legitimate. It would have given him time to refine his message - and to take advantage of the fact that the economy has now become the central issue in the campaign.
It would have given Democratic voters a third alternative - not to mention, a way of curbing the increasingly personal tone of the campaign between the co-front-runners.
And, had he taken the time to educate voters in the Lincoln story - not terribly difficult to do - he would have had historical legitimacy.
I have often been dismayed at the tendency of well-intentioned liberals - and it's usually liberals - to play the game of politics (domestic or international) by the rules.
Honor is an indispensable quality in an individual, but for the forces of justice and decency to impose some arbitrary sense of honor on the struggle for power - when the results of that struggle are of such vital importance to millions, even billions, of people - is perhaps too much.
I think Edwards would have been criticized. But if he had won the nomination, the critics would have rallied to him.
The stakes are simply too high for such niceness.
'Rick,
Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully. I'll mull it over.
Best,
Doug
Looking back at my comment, written in haste, I find I said the opposite of what I meant to say in the fourth 'graph from the bottom.
What dismays me is the tendency of some liberals - not to play by the rules - but to impose on themselves (and their champions) some entirely arbitrary set of extra rules which essentially give the game away.
But this is a proposition. I'm not sure I'm right about this. There's a delicate question here, because there's equal danger in playing the game merely to win. (The point, I think, of Matt Bai's fine new book, "The Argument".)
Principled people must hold themselves to a high moral standard if they are eventually to govern effectively. But to make a moral question of "the rules of the game" can - at times - be self-defeating.
Post a Comment