Heir apparent for 2008 not so apparent"Indeed, not since 1952, after President Harry Truman declined to seek another term, has a presidential race seemed to have so few leading contenders. While circumstances could certainly change over the next four years, jockeying for the Republican nomination also could influence Bush's final four years in the Oval Office..."
Funny that the Chicago Tribune should mention Harry Truman. But it's worth taking a moment to look at Tom Dewey in the context of the 2008 Republican nomination battle, which should start at about dawn Friday morning.
The change in the presidential nomination process, from the functional, brokered convention to the sequential state by state primary race, has been mostly driven by the Democratic Party. The Republicans have to some extent been dragged along by changes in state law that were made, by and large, to facilitate the big-D Democratic process.
Yet there's still an insider dynamic to Republican nominations. There's no GOP George McGovern or Jimmy Carter coming out of nowhere. Instead, there is a nearly unbroken line going back to Dewey, a Republican tradition of nominating the guy whose "turn" it is next. The ideological poles have demagnetised and reversed, but the dynasty continues.
We begin in 1952, when the Dewey internationalist wing of the GOP backed unbeatable war hero Eisenhower over the conservative isolationist Robert Taft. In 1960, the moderates preferred Nelson Rockefeller, but that consideration lost out because after eight years in the Vice Presidency, it was clearly Nixon's turn.
1964 is the one temporary interrution in the chain. I'll argue that in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, the Republicans saw the election as unwinnable. Even Goldwater shared that belief. So the moderates let the conservatives take over - temporarily, they thought.
Having redeemed himself (in Republican eyes anyway) in the 1966 off-year campaign, Nixon was given another opportunity in 1968. Since he came so close to victory in 1960, the sentiment may have been that it was STILL Nixon's turn. I vaguely remember hearing the slogan "the Spiro of `76" trotted out; had Watergate and Bribe-gate not happened, Agnew would likely have gotten his turn.
1976 proves my theory: who was the only person ever to beat Ronald Reagan? How could clumsy old Poland liberating Nixon pardoning unelected Gerald Ford beat the most charismatic Republican since Teddy Roosevelt? Because Ford was an incumbent President and it was
his turn. But the `76 nomination battle was so close, the GOP had turned so much more conservative, and Reagan was such a hero to the base, that by 1980 it was clearly Reagan's turn.
Bob Dole tried to cut in line in 1988, but the principle of 1960 - eight years as VP earns you a nomination - applied to George the First. Dole had to wait in line for the ultimately worthless 1996 nod.
It looked like the line might end there, but by early 1998 it seemed clear that the party establishment - by now solidly conservative - had coalesced behind the Restoration of the House of Bush. And the consensus was strong enough to resist the populist challenge of John McCain.
The line looks iffy again for 2008. Age, health and lack of interest have eliminated Cheney, the first VP without presidential aspirations since at least the 1920's (Charles Dawes is so obscure that I don't know if ran for president or not, Thomas "what this country needs is a good five cent cigar" Marshall actively avoided Presidential duties during Wilson's illness). But somehow I expect the process of "emergence" to happen again. By this time next year there will be a clear Republican frontrunner.
I
still think it's gonna be Jeb Bush.
Politics
