Blogs > Cliopatria > New Hampshire and Historical Analogies

Jan 28, 2004

New Hampshire and Historical Analogies




One of my favorite Ernest May books is “Lessons” of the Past, which explores how policymakers in the United States have used—and, more often, misused, history. For the last several years, I have been involved with the Miller Center for Public Affairs’ Presidential Recordings Program, where I transcribed LBJ phone conversations. I was struck by how frequently both Johnson and those with whom he was speaking used historical analogies to try to get an understanding of the political issues they were confronting in 1964 and 1965. I’ve just finished a book on the 1964 election, and one of the key elements of dispute between LBJ and his advisers came over which past contest represented the best model for the strategy the Johnson campaign should pursue in 1964. The President maintained 1936 and 1940, when FDR had run above-politics campaigns that ignored his Republican opponents. His advisers, on the other hand, preferred 1948, when Harry Truman had rallied the Democratic base to victory. The historical analogies chosen, of course, reflected fundamentally different conceptions of the future Democratic Party.

In the aftermath of yesterday’s New Hampshire primary, I wonder what historical analogy will best explain the 2004 Democratic nominating process. My hunch now would be the 1988 race. John Edwards has played a role comparable to Al Gore’s in 1988—the moderate, telegenic, wonkish Southerner who everyone thinks should be running stronger in the polls. Howard Dean offers a combination of Bruce Babbitt, the good-government outsider, and the late Illinois senator Paul Simon, 1988’s version of representing the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” Al Sharpton lacks the breadth that Jesse Jackson did in 1988, but, like Jackson then, is running to highlight issues and mobilize the African-American base rather than from any hope of victory. Dick Gephardt, of course, was back as himself, and with an equally woeful result. There’s no 1988 parallel for Wesley Clark, but otherwise the overlap is considerable.

If 1988 is the appropriate historical analogy, then John Kerry would play the role of Mike Dukakis (under whom he served, briefly, as lieutenant governor during Dukakis’ second gubernatorial term). Much like Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004 is acceptable to most wings of the party, even if he inspires little personal enthusiasm from any. Also like Dukakis, there are few specific positions with which Kerry is associated—indeed, from Iraq to taxes to affirmative action, Kerry has changed his position during the course of his career, much like Dukakis, who evolved from a good-government liberal to more of e technocrat. And Kerry, like Dukakis in 1988, has surged in large part from a vague sense that he would be the strongest candidate the party could offer.

Democrats discovered otherwise with Dukakis, and there’s good reason to think they will with Kerry as well, if he winds up the nominee. Indeed, it would be the ultimate irony were Kerry to get the nomination on the grounds of “electability,” since on paper he looks the ideal foe for a Republican: a patrician Massachusetts liberal with a reputation for altering his positions based on polls and with a surprisingly poor record in partisan elections (a loss in a 1972 House race and weak Senate race showings, for a Democrat in Massachusetts, in the only two elections—1984 and 1996—in which the state GOP contested the seat). One could imagine “electability” producing the nomination of Edwards, as a telegenic Southerner, Clark, with his national security expertise and his record of being right on the key—and difficult—international issues of the 1990s, or even Dean, with his credibility as an outsider. But Kerry? Like Dukakis in 1988, it’s hard to see electability as his strong suit.

The 1988 elections offered the original version of Super Tuesday (a mini-version had existed in 1984). The expectation was that a massive Southern primary would ensure a Southern nominee. Instead, the primaries produced an ambivalent result, with Dukakis winning in a few states and running strongly enough in the others to be perceived as the day’s overall winner. If, as it looks right now, the March 3 primaries produce a similar result for Kerry, then the 1988 analogy might indeed be worth pondering.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


David Lion Salmanson - 2/2/2004

Sorry Josh, I am with Ralph on this. Martinsville is Central Indiana, not Southern. Needless to say, I drive the speed limit when passing through to/from Bloomington.


Ralph E. Luker - 2/1/2004

Josh, Let us be clear: the Klan ruled Indiana in the 1920s. Never did the Klan rule Kentucky.


Name Removed at Poster's Request - 1/31/2004

"I will ignore what may have been a snear at Kentucky."

Hoosier saying: A Hoosier is a Kentuckyan who ran out of money on the way to Chicago.

The people of Indiana love Kentuckyan jokes, BTW. (I know because my father's family is from IN and mostly still lives there. The same is true of my significant other's family.)

"We do not wish to rescue southern Indiana from its rightful oblivion."

I thought southern Indiana was basically northwest Kentucky. It has the Klan and nutty fundamentalist preachers (perhaps best know is Jed Smock).

"You do realize that in much of the West the Democratic Party hardly functions -- Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado -- are you kidding me?"

The Democratic party definitely functions in Colorado, but isn't strong enough statewide to overcome the electoral college system. It's possible that the Dems could get a state or two in the Rocky Mountain West that they didn't in '04, but not the whole area.


Name Removed at Poster's Request - 1/31/2004

"Bush basically has to win every state he won last time."

He won't have to if he wins California this time. Supposedly that is possible now that Ahnold is governor, but I don't understand how he could help Bush. Bush lost by a pretty good margin here in 2000, and after the federal government under him sided with Enron as often as possible since then, I don't know why the Repubs think he can win here now. We have our share of support-the-president-because-he's-our-leader-in-the-war-on-terrorism" idiots, but I'm not sure their additional help in '04 and any help that Ahnold could (somehow) give would be enough.


Ralph E. Luker - 1/31/2004

I will ignore what may have been a snear at Kentucky. We do not wish to rescue southern Indiana from its rightful oblivion.
You do realize that in much of the West the Democratic Party hardly functions -- Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado -- are you kidding me?
Yah, we've glimpsed realignments before and the glimpses were largely fantacies. If you think that you are going to marry the mountain west to the coasts, I've got a good buy on land in south Georgia for you.


David Lion Salmanson - 1/30/2004

Ralph,
Let's turn this around. Bush basically has to win every state he won last time. He has already lost Nevada where they are furious over the Yucca Mountain debacle. What state is he going to pick up that he didn't win before? The Dems can do it with just Florida and/or Indiana (there's a reason why everything South of downtown Indianapolis is called Kentucky by the locals. They definitely don't pick up NM as the Richardson machine trumps the Dominici machine (particularly if Richardson is the Veep.) PA? Rendell delivered before and will again, the flip-flopping on steel cost Bush a ton of votes. Besides, the Dems will retake Florida this time. We are in the process of an electoral realignment and the old equations simply do not matter. Democrats had to win much of the South because they were not going to win much of the West. Stevenson won no western states, Kennedy carried Texas, Nevada and New Mexico. In 1976, Carter only carried Texas. Dukakis carried only Washington and Oregon. Clinton carried 7 Western states the first time out and 6 the second time out. Gore only managed 4. Forget the South, win the West!


Ralph E. Luker - 1/30/2004

David, Check out Daniel Drezner's posts about Kerry's comments about the necessity of the Democratic Party's nominee being competative in the South. I'm taking Kerry at his own word. Nor did I say that the Democratic nominee must be a Southerner, but the mathematical _possibility_ of a Democrat being elected without electoral votes from the South has to be weighed against the historical _reality_ that no Democrat has ever been elected President of the United States without having carried at least five Southern states. You tell me which five Southern states John Kerry can carry.


David Lion Salmanson - 1/30/2004

Ralph,
Only one of my arguments was that the Dems could win without the South (in which case, as you say, the need to do well in the Rocky Mountains and West picking up Arizona's veteran/military vote, for example). But my larger point is that Kerry is not a typical Northeastern liberal and that comparisons with Dukakis are pretty baseless. Putting a Southerner at the head of the ticket did not work in 2000 (although he did win the popular vote) and given the southerners available won't work again this time. I think people are underestimating how well Kerry's veterans status will play in the South. My hunch is ** analogy alert ** that being a decorated war veteran makes Kerry an honorary Southerner. When my brother did death penaly stuff for the NAACP LDF they found that race of the victim mattered unless the victim was a police officer than it didn't and that death penalty rates for killers of police officers were the same as rates for killers of whites. My argument here is that Kerry, like Kennedy a decorated war veteran, will get a pass on the NE liberal thing if he runs on that as part of his campaign as he is doing now.
The second part of my argument goes like this. With each election "The South" is less a reality and more like "The West" a fiction of pundits. Just as NM and Arizona rarely vote together, increasingly different states in the South are going in different directions. Florida and South Carolina are about as different as you can get and both went for Bush for different reasons. (OK, Florida didn't really go for Bush, did it?) I am not writing off THE SOUTH, I am saying it no longer exists the way people are talking about it.


David Lion Salmanson - 1/30/2004


Ralph E. Luker - 1/29/2004

David, It amazes me that you and others seem so willing to write off whole regions of the country merely on the whim of numerical possibility. Democrats need to reclaim West Virginia, for goodness sake. Democrats need to determine to be competative in the Rocky Mountain west. A sign that GWHB was headed to defeat in 1992 was the decision to write off California. If Democrats decide to be competative only in select regions of the country, they surrender before the competition is engaged.


David Lion Salmanson - 1/29/2004

Here I go violating Tim's analogy rule again, but there are significant differences. In 88, the military was strongly behind the Republican party and in Bush had a leader with military experience. The anger on bases across the country as the Bush cuts are implemented, and the disgust with the administration's actions in the Iraq War undermine this Bush. Further, Kerry as a decorated War Veteran polls very strongly with veterans (a help in the South). Second, the Democrats do not need to win any Southern states, if they keep all the states they had and add Ohio, a distinct possibility. Basing results around a past negates changes that have taken place in the South and there is no guarantee that putting a Southerner at the head of a ticket works (see Gore) Third, Bush I was following an extremely popular president in an era of relative prosperity. Dukakis really ran against Reagan not Bush. If Bush is to win, he has to run against Gore again not the actual Kerry. Fourth, Kerry may seem "surprisingly weak" but at least when running against Weld, he was running against basically another Democrat who happened to be registered Republican. Fifth, the issues here are quite different than 88. And finally, Kerry is taller than Bush and in the TV age, the taller candidate usually wins. (Which has about as much logic as the Democrats cannot win without the South as if the South was a unified body of voters and Florida and South Carolina voters (for example) are going to be moved by the same issues.


Ralph E. Luker - 1/28/2004

KC, I think you are exactly right about this. A Gephardt endorsement of Kerry could help him carry Missouri (the biggest state in next week's primaries and caucuses), but I am thinking that otherwise the Democratic contest moves now into areas where a Dukakis or a Kerry will be tested disadvantageously. The Democratic Party needs to not nominate another Mondale or a Dukakis. It needs to be determined about running a nation-wide campaign.