When I was a young pup, I was a big fan of fantasy novels, and while I haven’t started a new series in awhile now, there are still a few old ones winding down. This week, the 12th book in one of those series’, The Wheel of Time, hit bookstores. I’ll probably have a review up later. Right now, I’ll just give an extremely thumbnail sketch of one conflict, to illustrate a political point.
So basically, there are a whole bunch of wars going on, including one civil war. In this civil war, there’s something which, in history, is called a “succession crisis”. Or anyway, it’s something like a succession crisis. One leader was deposed, another was dubiously inserted, and some of the “nation” split off and set up a rival faction. Now in, like, the 10th or 11th book, this new faction is struggling for a leader. They have a few very “strong” choices. Too strong. Each choice has enemies that would make unity difficult. So they hit upon making an inoffensive, somewhat green candidate the leader. Her name is Egwene. She actually grows into the role.
Anyway, in the 12th book, Egwene has allowed herself to be captured by the original faction, so she can try to unify the “nation” from within the enemy camp. She has some successes and impresses people. After a whole bunch of complicated events, the leader of the original faction is essentially killed, and they have to search for a new leader. But, now this group has the same problem the rebel group had. All of the likely choices for leader have enemies; even more than they had originally because the strain of fighting the rebellion increased divisions. But, they need unity and realize, after some discussion, that Egwene is the only one who doesn’t have very many enemies and has credibility with both factions. So both groups accept her as leader and the civil war ends.
The political parallels to this are obvious. Back during the 2008 campaign, someone noted that most President had served less than 10 years in major office (Governor, Senator, or VP) before their election. Obama had 4 years as Senator. Bush had 6 as Governor. Clinton doesn’t fit the mold, but H.W. does (8 as VP). Reagan had 8 as Governor. Ford had 1 as VP. Nixon and Johnson break the mold, but then Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, and Hoover fit back in it. And when you think about it, that’s a little bit strange…right?
Just looking at the first 10 names, alphabetically, on the senate list, we’ll see that only 3 of 10 fit that mold. In politics, hanging around forever is the norm. Presidents are abberrations. Typically, people just answer that with, “well, Americans tend to prefer Governors who are term-limited and CAN’T hang around too long”. Well, that’s one explanation. But, it seems to me the story of novice leader might give us a second possibility.
Politicians who hold large amounts of power and influence for long periods of time inevitably accrue enemies. Not just within the party structure, but with the population at large. The more often people see you- the more frequently you’re involved in squabbles and battles, internecine and otherwise, the less credible you are as a leader who needs to, at least in theory, bring unity. Especially when things get testy- when civil wars break out- you need a fresh face, not wedded to any one group, and capable of moving bringing unity to a battered nation. That was the logic of Barack Obama.
I’m thinking of this because it concerns Tim Pawlenty. Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin all have enemies. Romney and Palin may not violate the rule of 10, but their time in the sun has made them lighting rods. The spotlight and time make their own kind of gravity. And what goes up…
But, Tim Pawlenty hasn’t even begun to go up. He has ignited no great enmities; he hasn’t had time. He hasn’t fought the kind of intra-party battles that keep us apart. He hasn’t even engaged Obama with enough rancor to turn independents against him: he’s pristine. In a situation where we have conservative party candidates bucking the establishment (NY-23), and moderate establishments endorsing in a primary (Florida), we could sure use someone like that.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog
October 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I highly doubt Tim Pawlenty or anyone else could remain “pristine” for any reasonable amount of time without pissing off one side or the other. I’m not sure when politics became so life and death, but it sure seems like trying to stay in the middle is tough these days.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Another insightful observation from you, Matthew.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“the leader of the original faction is essentially killed”
Can someone be non-essentially killed?
On a less snarky note:
Keen observation on the relative “greenness” of Presidents. I’ll add a few more theories, to the “too many enemies” one:
1. Long standing politicians can be comfortable and/or lazy in their current positions. No need to take a major risk reaching for higher office. Life is pretty good where they’re at. Being President takes serious ambition, and people who have such ambition usually don’t stay in one spot for very long before reaching for the next rung.
2. They become encrusted in a particular mold. They know how to be a Senator, or Speaker of the House, or Governor of South Dakota, but sometimes that skill set can actually undermine running for POTUS. One example of this is long standing Senators who run for President. Their stump speeches so often sound like those boring speeches from the floor on CSPAN.
3. They have too long of a public record. Times change, and positions that were mainstream 20 years ago can be very controversial today. Congressmen and Senators rack up a huge voting record which can be a smorgasbord for oppo-research, especially with all the shenanigans Congress plays with poison pill amendments, inserting controversial legislation into defense appropriations, etc….. A governor who has governed 10 or more years is certain to have screwed up something important.
4. Long standing politicians become too detached. Often their circle of friends has been other politicians, lobbyists, celebrities, and sundry VIPs that they are completely out of tune with the current mood on the street. A newer and fresher politician is more likely to sense the tone of the electorate.
On Pawlenty, I agree. I think if he can become the first choice of most of the people who currently have him #2, he could win this. I think he is #2 for much of the establishment, and #2 for much of the grass roots (or will be as soon as they start paying attention). The key is that leap from #2 to #1.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Eh. Definitely not sold. You’re doing the same thing as the next-in-line people do: try to force the evidence to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.
Rule of 10? Most governors can only serve two terms — or do so out of tradition — so what governor doesn’t fit that rule? Huckabee is a strange exception.
Reagan had served two terms, but he’d been a fixture in conservative politics for almost two decades.
Same with HW Bush: he was VP for 8 years, but his old ass had been stinkin’ up the national stage for ages. He’d been a Congressman, diplomat, CIA top dog, and party head.
Clinton violates your rule, as you noted.
Ford was a bizarre fluke. Nixon and Johnson had been on the national stage for ages, as well –
OK, so besides the 2000′s, we have to go all the way back to the early 60′s to find anyone as “fresh” as W or Obama.
Fail, imo.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I support Pawlenty because he unites, not divides. Being fresh helps, but the fundamental reason he doesn’t have enemies is due to his personality.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Metro, you’re a Pawlenty person right now? Seriously?
October 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
If Rudy ran again — as he very well may! — would you sooner support Rudy, Metro?
October 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
About NY-23, one trap that Pawlenty completely avoided is the “follower of Palin” narrative. I thought liberals at MSNBC would try to push this storyline in hopes the beltway press would play but they didn’t go there. In fact, Jerome Armstrong is the only one in the “mainstream” liberal blogosphere that I’ve seen push the narrative.
Pawlenty’s advantage right now seems to be that he can experiment with different arguments without being hit with negative narratives in a way he would be getting hit if he was a national figure right now. If something doesn’t work, he can move away with it without the flip-flop narrative gaining traction. If it does work, he can keep on playing in hopes the Beltway press will report it.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Uuuuuhhhhhh……no. I’d go back to the Tarot cards, or eye-color or something just a BIT more reliable.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Alex,
“You’re doing the same thing as the next-in-line people do: try to force the evidence to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.”
Not really. The next-in-line theory is supposed to be absolute. Matthew’s discussing trends which he readily admits are not absolute. The point is that Presidents tend to have less big office experience than the average big office holding politician. The question is why?
October 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I’m such a simpleton that I think we should just choose the best man for the job regardless of narratives.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Alex, have you missed me making pro-Pawlenty comments in recent months?
Certainly I’m more excited about Gary Johnson, or the prospect of Rudy.
But if I had to be realistic about cheering for a candidate who’s likely to be able to actually win a nomination and a general, then I’m for Pawlenty.
If I were concerned about the nomination and not the general, I’d prefer Romney to Pawlenty.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Alex,
Nope. I originally drifted towards Pawlenty because of this conclusion, though my thought process was less-ordered at the time. Don’t you recall my frantic post, in like February of 2008, about how none of the Republican candidates could win, because they had too many enemies, and that therefore we ought to fight to the convention and draft…Pawlenty? Or all that stuff I said in the comments section, in 2007, about how nice it’d be if we could just king Fred, since he had no enemies at the time. I’ve pretty much always held to the belief that cipher candidates were the way to go: the trick is keeping them cipherish long enough. With a Republican, that’s always going to be an impossible task; but you can get a lot closer if you’re new to the scene, and haven’t built up years of animosity from various factions.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Not really. The next-in-line theory is supposed to be absolute. Matthew’s discussing trends which he readily admits are not absolute. The point is that Presidents tend to have less big office experience than the average big office holding politician. The question is why?
Because presidents tend to have been governors or vice-presidents, rather than senators.
Again, you have to go back to Kennedy to find someone who breaks that mold.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Alex, have you missed me making pro-Pawlenty comments in recent months?
I didn’t realize you SUPPORTED him!
By the way, Gary Johnson? He opposed the Iraq War from the start and is a Ron Paul-type “non-interventionist.” How the hell do you square THAT circle?
October 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Alex,
“Because presidents tend to have been governors or vice-presidents, rather than senators.
Again, you have to go back to Kennedy to find someone who breaks that mold.”
Or back to a millisecond ago, when a fella named Barack Obama decided to…yawn, or something. Also, this is wrapped up in stuff that’s pretty confirmed in social science…namely, that familiarity and visibility breeds resentments without strengthening, perpetually, allegiances. That’s why you see FDR’s poll numbers collapsing before 1939. That’s why most second-term governors are less popular then when they started. Of course, that’s a different argument for the same phenomenon.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
OK, besides Obama, though, since we already took Obama as a given. Kennedy — and in between then — maybe Bush? But that’s still a forty-year gap, and that requires some ‘splainin.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
#15: I support Gary Johnson knowing he won’t get the nomination, but want him to influence the debate and the party. I’d also support him as VP.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Alex and Metro,
Actually, after talking over the issues with Gov. Johnson, it seems he’s not a strict Ron Paulite non-interventionist. He HAS opposed the Iraq War from the start, but he doesn’t oppose simply leaving Afghanistan, rather he supports refocusing the mission toward taking down al Qaeda instead of trying to democratize Afghanistan. He also doesn’t support closing all the foreign military bases, but does think it’s time we start taking a serious look at closing down many unnecessary and fiscally unjustifiable installations. He also believes that the American government may protect its national interests abroad, but needs to be far more prudent in its use of military might.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Correction:
“he doesn’t support simply leaving Afghanistan” *
October 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
San Francisco Mayor Drops Governor Bid
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31newsom.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
October 30th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I think you’re pushing things as well.
A different paradigm may be at work, though I haven’t thought it through enough to press it too hard. What if there are counter-posing forces: gravity and velocity, drag and lift. It is a race to develop lift in excess of gravitational pull. In this metaphor, enemies don’t necessarily destroy a candidate, so long as the candidate can develop enough velocity and lift to overcome it.
Many candidates have accumulated significant opposition. But it was their ability to accumulate influence in excess of that opposition. To be successful, both must be present.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
21 – that sucks. Our best bet was for him to somehow win the Dem nomination.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Hey! you guy just talk for yourself only,you don’t talk for the party,for the nation,and for the country.The republican party needs a strong leader,a smart person,the most experience in the economy to lead the party,to run the country,and to protect the nation.Mitt is the person that meet the America dream,you have the high value leader,why you don’t support,you still anti him,against him,blame him.Who has the longer resume,the better record,and more leadership than Mitt? look Obama resume and his record, friends!,look his friends,review his back ground,how radical he was,democrats don’t care,they just want to get in to the power,so they can take every thing what ever they want,as now,they can spend much as they can,they can do what ever they want,they can take what ever they need,they control all the medias,the TV station,the newspaper,so even the communist were in the white house,the pro Mao in the white house,the terrorist’s friends in the white house,no medias talking about,no newspaper write about,no TV talking about because Obama control them,except Fox new.America was the free world leader,but now is not,Obama will change America to some thing that he never let’s American people know,”change we can believe in”change for what? what is his goal of change? why he doesn’t tell? why America don’t think about the answer of change? why America got here? why America still happy with it? or America forgot themselves? look his goal is communist,because,Mr.Van Jone in the white house,Mrs.pro Mao is in the white house,the student sang song pray Obama is the communist style,student sang song pray Obama health care reform and all Green Beck program exactly the communist strategy to transform from one system to other.If you never lived in the communist country you don’t know the true,the first term,he has just started change,when second term,he will be got the change on his goal that America will feel so sorry and nightmare for the change democrats believe in.Republican,American, you have the real leader,the best leader,the high value leader,wake-up!don’t drunk too long,don’t sleep too long,don’t crazy for the hope you have never known or you will have nothing left even the gift from your founding father”the liberty and democracy”
October 31st, 2009 at 1:26 am
There is nothing philosophical about running for President. Of course candidates make enemies because of power struggles, jealousies and natural political forces at work and so forth, that’s a very normal thing.
Just because Pawlenty is new on the national scene doesn’t mean he doesn’t have enemies. Governors make a lot of enemies, and shouldn’t stick around for more than one term. Anymore than one term would be like beating a dead horse, it’s very hard for them to get anything done.
I’ve read where Lyndon Johnson was disliked by almost everyone, including President Kennedy, but he still picked him as a V.P. running mate. It’s all politics.
October 31st, 2009 at 3:26 am
[...] more: race42008.com » Blog Archive » Gravity in Politics Comments [...]
October 31st, 2009 at 7:36 am
I can understand that T/Paw might be people’s fall back position but how on earth can people actually be excited about him? Watching him is like watching paint dry.
February 14th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
How viagra works….
Free viagra. Online viagra. Generic viagra mastercard. Natural viagra alternatives. Viagra dosage. Viagra….