Political Junkie Christmas

Since it is a new year I feel I should have a resolution. In the real world I have resolved to complain less and enjoy more. But here in the cyber world I thought I should have a more concrete goal. Something like resolving to actually post a few blogs on my blog.

Today is like Christmas for political junkies because it is Iowa caucus day! And even better than that, it is totally unpredictable Iowa caucus day! By my count at least six different candidates have been in the lead during some portion of the Iowa campaign season (Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Paul and Romney) and a seventh (Santorum) appears to have the momentum now. So anything might happen. I think the most interesting dynamic is the fact that 41% of likely voters who already have a first choice candidate say they could be swayed to change their pick.  That does not include the sizable number of undecided voters.

If you have never participated in a caucus, just know it is very different than regular voting. The polls are not open all day for you to drop off an anonymous ballot. Instead, everyone shows up and the same time and sits in cliques for their candidate. You actually see who is supporting which candidate. This means peer pressure can play a huge part in the decision making process. If you show up intending to support Michelle Bachman but then notice your boss, your father-in-law and your best customer all sitting with the Ron Paul group, and the Bachmann group is pretty small and insignificant anyway, well, maybe you go ahead and switch seats just to be safe.

There is also always the chance for a last minute deal, either by a candidate or by a candidate's supporters at a local level. Again, suppose in a couple of caucus sites it is very close between Paul, Romney and Santorum, as the polls suggest. Now suppose the Bachman and Gingrich groups realize they are too small and their candidates are goners. But Gingrich is in a war of words with Romney (calling him a liar on TV this morning) and Bachmann supporters are mad at Paul for stealing campaign staffers, so they agree, amongst themselves, to support the candidate who is socially conservative and can cause the most problems for Romney and Paul - Rick Santorum. so, just before the final count they all move and declare their support for Santorum who suddenly wins that caucus site. Given how the social conservative wing has flailed about in an attempt to find an ABR candidate (anybody but Romney) I would not be surprised to see those types of switches happen. I don't think Romney will lose too many people - he is seen as a moderate and his supporters are less likely to tack to the right, I would guess. Paul supporters seem fanatically loyal so I do not expect him to suffer losses of this kind. But the supporters of the other four candidates seem less loyal to any person and are more about an agenda, so I could easily see huge swings as the voters try and find a candidate who can beat Mitt Romney.

As it is, the Iowa caucuses are shaping up to be better than Romney could have ever hoped for when he started his campaign. Until recently he did not think he could do well enough in Iowa to justify time or money. Instead he concentrated on New Hampshire where he is expected to win convincingly. But the ebb and flow of the campaign has left him an opening to win Iowa, have Ron Paul (who cannot win the nomination or the general election) finish second and the social conservative of the moment, probably Santorum, third. Romney's fear has always been that one social conservative candidate would emerge, draw in the support and money of that wing of the party and he would have a long, bloody battle to the finish. Instead, the four main conservative challengers remaining have swapped the mantle amongst themselves (and Herman Cain) with no one emerging. Ron Paul is far too extreme for most voters and could not gather enough support to win, so having him finish second just hurts the social conservative candidate more. In fact, Romney's second best scenario is a Paul win with Romney second. Given Romney's lead in New Hampshire, and the news this week that only Paul and Romney qualified for the ballot in Virginia, a win tonight would essentially give Romney a 3-0 lead in the early states against BGPS (Bachmann Gingrich Perry Santorum), and maybe enough momentum to coast to the nomination.

My prediction (for what it is worth, given how fluid things have been), Romney wins narrowly over Paul with Santorum a very strong third, Perry a distant fourth and Bachmann edging Gingrich for fifth. Bachman will probably bow out after New Hampshire, Gingrich and Perry may try to hang around for South Carolina in hopes of winning the very conservative, religious block there and jump starting their campaigns.

Happy New Year and Merry Political Junkie Christmas!

Presidents and Military Service

If you asked someone to describe the duties of the President of the United States, no doubt one of the phrases you would hear is “commander in chief”.  The role of the President as commander of the military forces is one of the most important roles of the office. Given the importance of the “commander” role you might expect we look for military service when selecting Presidents.  

President Eisenhower was a bona fide war hero for his role in World War II. President Kennedy gained fame for his naval career from his biography in PT-109. Both those Presidents, one from each party, served the U.S. Military during conflict and gained fame and popularity. But since Kennedy’s election in 1960 our selection of President has taken a different path. Johnson and Nixon were known for political, not military achievements. Ford never won an election and Carter was viewed as a pacifist and political outsider who was elected in response to the Watergate scandal. Reagan was famous as an actor and governor. Only George H.W. Bush was known for military service, having been a fighter pilot in World War II. Clinton avoided service in Viet Nam and protested against the war while in England. George W. Bush used every means available to him to avoid service during the war and spent some time in the Nation Guard on stateside duty, where he may or may not have partied more than he served the military. Finally, President Obama came of age after the Vietnam War and did not face the dilemma about service that Clinton and Bush faced.

By my count eleven of the past twelve elections have been won by a candidate with little to no military background. For nearly half a century the voting public has decided military service is not a mandatory requirement to hold the office of President. But, of course, we have elected many Presidents without a military background. Washington and Lincoln are probably the two most beloved Presidents; one was a General and one was a country lawyer.  Teddy Roosevelt was a war hero, Franklin Roosevelt was a Governor. Military service has probably never been a requirement in the minds of the voting public. But what I find most interesting about the very recent past is not who won the election, but who lost. Let’s look at the last five “runners up” in Presidential elections because there may be something different at work now as compared to previous elections.

1992 – George H.W. Bush. Decorated World War II veteran. Lost to Clinton despite an aggressive campaign to portray him as a draft dodger. Clinton used some influence to avoid military service and actively protested American military involvement while he was a student in London.

1996 – Robert Dole. Decorated World War II veteran, suffered critical, life-threatening injuries in invasion of Italy. Lost to Clinton.

2000 – Al Gore. Enlisted in Army despite having some political pull – his father was a sitting U.S. Senator. Gore spent approximately five months in Viet Nam in an engineering company working as a journalist. His record sparkles by comparison with his opponent, George W. Bush, who used his political pull to avoid any and all overseas service.

2004 – John Kerry. Decorated Viet Nam War veteran with a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and 3 Purple Hearts. His military record was vigorously attacked to the point it became a liability during the campaign (remember the swiftboat controversy?) Again, his opponent actively avoided service.

2008 - John McCain. Military POW and decorated veteran. He survived years of torture at the infamous Hanoi Hilton before returning home and beginning his political career.

For the past five elections the American public has elected a person with no military exploits (other than George W. Bush’s stateside Guard duty). In each case the losing candidate had a military track record and three of those candidates wee combat wounded (Dole, Kerry, McCain). Gore has the least impressive military resume of the five, but it still stronger than any of the three winning candidates during the same time frame. In fact, it could have been a compelling campaign angle – son of privilege from an Ivy League school who enlisted and served a tour of duty in Viet Nam against a son of privilege from an Ivy League school who pulled strings and did not serve overseas.

I do not know what it means that we, as voters, have made this series of five straight choices for our “Commander in Chief”. I find it very interesting, especially since it has crossed party lines. Clinton was a draft dodger who defeated two republic candidates with strong military backgrounds. Bush was a draft dodger who defeated two Democrats with strong military backgrounds.  It does not appear to be a party issue, just an unusual one. One thing appears certain, however, the streak will end in 2012. Neither Obama nor any of the major republican candidates have strong military backgrounds.