The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> LOOKING GOOD br> Re: David Hogberg's No Repeat of 1992 : /p>

Surely David Hogberg is correct in predicting a Bush win in 2004, regardless of the economy.

He cites the contrary opinion of Niall Ferguson (who is, I have no doubt, a pleasant and generally learned man). Political observers of the American presidency such as Ferguson always seem to miss a key factor in voters' perceptions. Americans above all else want their President to be a leader, most especially during times of stress. When George H.W. Bush lost to Clinton in '92 far more than the economy concerned the electorate, especially conservative voters. Subsequent to the Gulf War the first Bush appeared wishy-washy and indecisive, led hither and thither by the opinions of his staff rather than by his own visions. As a result, many who were disinclined to choose the leadership-challenged Clinton turned to Ross Perot, a strange little man with a weird speaking style, but one who at least seemed to know his own mind most of the time. And it was Perot, as we should be aware, who gave the election to Mr. 43%, Bill Clinton.

During the 1992 town meeting where the candidates were chided by a pony-tailed man for not acting as the people's "parents," George H.W. lost his last chance to win the election. If instead of seeming to apologize and looking at his watch he had said something on the order of, "Be careful what you wish for, young man. If I were your father the first thing I would make you do is get a haircut," the absurdity of the question would have been exposed, and conservative-leaning voters would have -- assuming this attitude had continued to be expressed -- flocked back to a not-so-gentle, less-kind Bush.

The present Bush has a sharp edge that his father lacked. It was not often seen during the 2000 election season but has been increasingly evident since the start of the War on Terror. This Bush will not go gently down to defeat in the next election, regardless of whether the economy is good, bad or indifferent, if he continues to take a consistently determined line in dealing with the problems facing the nation. As long as he has his own ideas and forcefully urges them, lack of success in the short run will not be held against him. After all, the first requirement in a leader is that he appear confident of where he is headed; actually heading in the correct direction is initially of secondary importance. The principle involved is: Don't just stand there -- do something!

Other examples of the leadership factor abound, I believe. Despite his senior position in the Senate Bob Dole had never been seen as much of a leader, and his selection of the squishy Jack Kemp as his VP worked to destroy any chance of winning the leadership contest over the also weak Clinton. Reagan's remarkable defeat of a sitting President in 1980 may be attributed in large part to his leader-like bearing, and even more to Carter's so obvious lack of it. And when Carter beat Ford four years earlier it was surely a contest between two weak leaders, one of whom publicly failed to understand that Poland was not yet a free nation.

p>So there you have it: the only thing that can beat Dubya is Dubya -- the economy by itself will not save the potential Democrat sacrificial victim. br> -- Richard Donley /p>

topics:
Foreign Policy, Education, Bill Clinton, Sports, Movies, Law, Russia, Communism, Oil