The Election Process

Section One
Is This Any Way To Elect A President

The Electoral College

According to a report presented by the American Bar Association (ABA) at a Judiciary Subcommittee in 1968, ¹ the electoral college method of electing a president of the United States is archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect and dangerous." William Gossett, then ABA president, testified that "in fifteen elections a shift of less than one percent of the national vote would have made the popular vote loser president!"

When our founding fathers met in Philadelphia in 1787 they considered three methods of choosing the president: election by Congress, election by the various state governments and election by the people. The electoral college was a compromise measure, allowing each state to decide how its citizens would choose electors, who in turn would cast ballots for one state resident and one non-resident. Article 11 Section 1:2 provided that the candidate with the highest number of votes should be president and the runner up, vice-president. If there was a majority the Senate would choose from the top five candidates. This provision was changed during the course of the Constitutional Convention and the House was substituted for the Senate, as it was thought to be more representative of the people. The House specified that members were to vote by states.

The best arguments for an electoral college were laid out by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers Number 68, but even they were not conclusive. From the start, certain problems were recognized as being indigenous to the system. The first major problem occurred in the election of 1796,which resulted in the election of John Adams a Federalist as president, and Thomas Jefferson a Republican as vice president. The 1796 election was marked by another first: a Federalist elector bolted and voted for Thomas Jefferson. In 1890, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr wound up in a tie and the president had to be chosen by the House of Representatives. This led to passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804 which mandated that electors vote separately for president and vice president . It was decided that a candidate had to receive an absolute majority of electoral votes to be declared a winner. Today that means at least 270 votes. The same number of electors as congressional representatives are allotted to each state for a total of 535 with three added for the District of Columbia via the 23rd Amendment.

Election reform proposals have been around as long as the Constitution, but few have become amendments to the Constitution. In 1808 the proposal to choose the president by lot first surfaced, to reoccur unsuccessfully in 1844 and 1846 but in another form. Originally the candidates to be chosen by lot were to come from retiring senators; in the later proposals the states were each to elect a native-son candidate, one to be chosen by lot for the office of chief executive. In 1816 the first direct-vote plan was proposed by Senator Abner Lacock of Pennsylvania and was defeated 12 to 21. In 1820 the second faithless elector deprivedond faithless elector deprived James Monroe of an unanimous vote in the electoral college by giving John Quincy Adams, a non-candidate, his only electoral vote. In 1822 it was proposed that the president be chosen by regions (four regions) on a rotating basis. But despite the plethora of ideas the old electoral-college system continued.

In 1824 four candidates received electoral college votes, but none a majority: Andrew Jackson = 99, John Quincy Adams = 84, William Crawford = 41 and Henry Clay = 37. The House awarded Adams 13 states and Jackson 7, which meant that although Jackson got more popular votes and a plurality o f electoral college votes, Adams wound up with the presidency. Naturally Andrew Jackson became a strong opponent of the electoral college and, even though he was elected the next time around in 1828, he continued to call for its abolishment.

Although it is unusual, it is not unique to gain election to the presidency with less than a majority of the popular vote. James Garfield won the presidency by only 0.1 percent of the popular vote, which amounted to 9,457 votes in 1880.The following presidents received less than a majority of the popular vote: ²

Five of the presidents who were unable to poll a majority are honored in the ranks of the nation' s ten greatest presidents, while Ulysses S. Grant, who won a second term with 55.6 percent of the popular vote, and Warren Harding, who won with 60.3 percent, are numbered among the nation's worst presidents. Richard Nixon in 1972 received 60.69 percent of the popular vote, rivaling FDR's second win, yet he was forced to resign from office. The record doesn't say much about the people's judgment in choosing their Chief Executive. Many experts feel a plebiscitary presidency may encourage arrogance and remove an important political check.

George Meaney told the House Judiciary Committee during the course of the hearings mentioned earlier that "almost anything would be preferable to the present system." ³ The winner-take-a1l system, sometimes called the genera1ticket system, gives a great deal of leverage to a few popular votes in low turnout states, small states and large pivotal states, which in turn gives ethnic minorities and others that tend to congregate in urban areas power beyond their numbers in presidential elections. This tends to influence candidates toward liberal domestic policies and makes them more internationalist in foreign policy--either good or bad depending on your point of view. Proponents claim direct elections would dilute this leverage, making fraud less of a possibility. Besides the possibility of fraud, the minority vote can be lost under our present winner-take-a1l system. Suppose A gets 40 percent, B gets 35 percent, C gets 25 percent. A ends up with everything and 60 percent of the voters are disenfranchised. In the past this has given the minority party little incentive to campaign in some areas knowing votes "won't count."

The winner-take-an some areas knowing votes "won't count."

The winner-take-a1l system is used in every state but Maine. Maine in 1969 adopted a district plan whereby two electors are chosen on a statewide popular level and one is chosen from each of Maine's two congressional districts. Maine has four electoral votes, not many, but one more then Delaware.

In Delaware v. New York (385 US. 964 [1966]) plaintiffs declared that it was improbable that a resident of Delaware would ever be nominated for president under the current electoral process since there are too few votes to be won in a small home state. That seems to be less of a consideration today than it was 25 years ago--at least it didn't discourage Joe Biden or Pete du Pont from throwing their hats into the ring for the 1988 nomination.

Alternatives

In their 1970 book Voting For President, William Sayre and Judith Parrish claim the direct vote would weaken the power o f the states and strengthen the national government. State borders would be irrelevant in elections and probably federal standards of eligibility would eventually be determined to make the presidential choices uniform. Federal employees would end up tallying a national vote and all election officials would end up working for federal rather than state governments. ⁴

On March 5, 1970, the Federal System Plan was introduced by Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri. It provided for direct-vote election of the plurality winner as long as he carried: (1) more than one-half the states; (2) a plurality in states with over one-half the voters; or (3) a majority of the electoral votes, awarded on a state general-ticket basis.

If there were no winner, votes won by minor candidates would be allocated to the top two contestants in proportion to their showing in each state, and the electoral-vote majority winner would be declared President.

Also in 1970, Senator Joseph Tydings of Maryland and Senator Robert Griffin of Michigan presented a plan to do away with run-off elections. It provided that if there were no 40 percent popular plurality winner, then a majority of electoral votes would be sufficient to elect. These were compromise systems--not the first and surely not the last.

What would have been unthinkable years ago is at least "thinkable" today, thanks to television. It has been suggested that our national legislature (both houses of Congress) be elected directly by all the people, because a New York or Wyoming politician may be just as well known to a voter as is his local representative because of television; and, after all, what all congress people do on Capitol Hill affects the entire nation, not just local constituents.

Video Democracy, a recent book by television broadcaster Richard Hollander, envisions a time when local governments have given way to direct democracy via two-way communication channels and cable TV linked to computers in their homes. Ordinary politicians would no longer be needed, as people would vote directly on issues rather thn issues rather than trusting to representatives. The field of presidential candidates could be narrowed within a defined parameter of time and space. A special TV channel could be used only for election coverage and would be allowed for in the federal budget. The debates centering on the issues would be carried by private TV, radio and local papers as they saw fit. Not everyone would tune into the election channel just as not everyone tunes into beauty contests, Academy Awards, baseball or anything else. So what else is new? Maybe a lot of political hopefuls would end up eating less chicken and peas and have more time for things that would benefit themselves and society. The millions of freed dollars--? I thought that was what this country was short of anyway.

In 1826 the automatic plan whereby all of a state' s electoral votes would automatically be cast for the candidate who received the highest popular vote was first introduced by Representative Charles Haynes of Georgia. The automatic plan keeps the winner-take-all provision of our present system but abrogates the office of presidential elector. All of a state' s votes would automatically be awarded to the ticket that carried that state's popular vote. Most automatic plans have their own unique contingency election plans. The automatic plan is the most moderate of all reform proposals and is opposed mainly because the changes it calls for are so slight that many believe the reform is not worth the effort and cost required to get the necessary constitutional amendment. Another plan would keep the electoral college but eliminate the winner-take-all provision and its bias toward urban power and against minority parties. This plan would eliminate the electors themselves and just assign electoral votes to candidates on the basis of popular votes received.

The 1950s produced many ideas for reform. Senator Karl Mundt of South Dakota and Representative Frederic Coudert of New York presented the district plan, whereby electoral votes are allocated by districts within the various states. Proponents of the plan wanted to see less preference given to urban areas and hoped to fragment the power of the largest states. For instance, in 1968 California's forty electoral votes went to Nixon, under the winner-take-all plan. Under a district plan, other things being equal, Hubert Humphrey might have gotten seventeen of California' s electoral votes and Nixon only twenty-three. California would have advanced Nixon by only six votes instead of forty. In 1968 Kansas gave all seven of its votes to Nixon, which would have made Kansas politically more important to Nixon than California under the district plan. The district plan would encourage minor party candidates, giving them a chance to get at least a few electoral votes, and would elevate local leaders at the expense of national party officials. The emphasis on local constituencies, on bringing government "home to the people" and giving a greater sense of worth to individual citizens is either a plus or a minus depending on where you stand. The biggest problem lies with the increased incentive to gerrymandering. District lines would become more important than ever, opening areas of potential contention. In 1970, Sayre and Parrish feared the district plan would reverse the system which has always ensured that the winner in our presidential contests has received a greater margin in electoral than in popular votes, and that it would make presidential races closer, possibly throwing more decisions to Congress and thus undermining the presidency. ⁵ They warned that a vote for the district plan would be a vote against the balance of power then prevailing in the country.

In 1848 Representative William Lawrence of New York introduced the proportional plan which called for a division of each state' s electoral college votes according to the popular vote received by each party. Under the proportional ponal plan, urban areas lose power, as they would with any plan other than the current winner-take-all system, and third parties are encouraged. The proportional plan was raised again by Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts in 1941 but didn't go anywhere until 1948 when Ed Gossett of Texas joined with the Massachusetts senator as co-sponsor. In 1950 the Senate approved the plan 64 to 27 but it couldn't get by the House. A few years later Senators Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and Price Daniel of Texas proposed another version of the proportional plan which was loudly opposed by Senator John F. Kennedy who had ousted Senator Lodge in 1952. Proponents say this plan

is the only electoral reform measure that would preserve the existing national-state relationship and at the same time reflect the popular vote outcome more closely. They are correct about the federal system but wrong in saying that the plan would assure victory to the popular vote winner. ⁴

Sayre and Parrish claim under the proportional plan, for instance, Richard Nixon in 1960 would have received 1.759 of Vermont' s three electoral votes and John F. Kennedy would have received 1.240 of Vermont' s three electoral votes, giving Nixon an edge of only 0.519 in Vermont. In New York, Nixon would have received 22.3 and John F. Kennedy would have received 22.7, thus giving Kennedy an edge of 0.4 in New York. Sayre and Parrish's point is that under the proportional plan, a small homogeneous state could yield more to a candidate than could a large diverse state. A proportional plan would distort the nationwide popular vote total. Under the proportional plan, the margin of victory of every president would have been decreased between 1864 and 1968 with the exception of Woodrow Wilson, whose margin would have been increased. The trouble with the proportional plan is that it doesn't satisfy any group; The direct-vote plan goes further, the district plan satisfies conservatives better and our present system already occupies the middle ground.

In 1956 a proposal was offered in the Senate which would have permitted each state to choose between a district plan and a proportional plan. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that it would have enhanced the power of the states and generally been too complicated. The second objection has not stopped our legislatures from enacting tax law-if you want complications, look no further than the Internal Revenue Code.

The Case For The Electoral College

Judith Best in her 1971 book, The Case Against Direct Election of The President, says:

The prospect of winning the popular but not the electoral vote spurs those parties to seek the support of broad cross sections of the nation. The risk of a runner-up presidency may not be too great a price to pay for a system which minimizes conflicts, promises stability, suppresses factions, promotes moderation, and requires a broad base of support. ⁷

In 1948 one of Tennessee's electors bolted and voted for Strom Thurmond, as did electors from Alabama, but, as in 1796 and 1820, it didn't affect the outcome of the election and the Alabama State Supreme Court ruled national parties could not control the vote of electors. In 1956 another Alabama elector bolted and cast his vote for Alabama Judge Walter Jones and Senator Herman Talmadge of Georgia, but again, since Eisenhower won 457 out of 531 electoral votes, the Alabama defection had no bearing on the election' s ultimate outcome. In 1960 a Republican elector from Oklahomom Oklahoma refused to cast his vote for Nixon and, like the others, his defection did not distort election results. Most recently, in 1972, a Virginia elector defected to the Libertarian candidate.

The electoral-vote system conveys an aura of legitimacy to the popular vote mandate, and many believe it is responsible for the political stability the United States enjoys in its government. No one denies the inequality in individual voting power that it creates, but that may not be all bad. Extreme views are purged by the system, which overall does a good job of balancing power between urban and rural areas and in general nurtures our moderate two-party system. It should be remembered that the executive is only one branch of government and that the legislative branch tends to over represent rural at the expense of urban populations. As Judith Best points out on page 159 of The Case Against Direct Election of the President,

The power system is federal, decentralized, Madisonian and, to a degree usually unrecognized, approaches a system of unanimous consent. The nation has sought and largely achieved a system that reflects the views and interests of broad cross sections of the polity.

Concurrent majorities are typically American; they intentionally counter the majoritarian principle of assigning equal weight to every vote. No one denies political equality is a goal under the constitution, but it is not the only goal. The present system has been designed to reflect broad interests, not to merge minority interests into the vast majority. It depends on what is meant by "the will of the people." The majority is one segment of "the people" and not the whole. America is not a pure democracy, a nation of majority rule, but a democratic republic, a representative government with an elaborate system of checks and balances.

Judith Best points out that three-quarters of states required for ratification means one-quarter plus one man weigh more than the votes in three-quarters of the states minus one. Think about it. She says

The list of constitutiona1limitations on the majority is a long one, including the Supreme Court, the Senate, the guarantee of at least one congressman to each state and the extraordinary majorities required for the Senate to convict those impeached by the House, for Congress to expel one of its members and for Congress to override a presidential veto. In addition, the Constitution places certain limitations on even a unanimous Congress, restrictions designed to protect individuals and minorities, such as the provisions respecting the writ of habeas corpus, the bill of attainder and ex post facto laws. Other restrictions are placed directly on the states. ⁸

Our forefathers realized the dangers inherent in pluralistic democracy--tyranny by the majority--and developed our elaborate system of checks and balances to forestall it.

At the invitation of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., sixteen experts gathered on February 6, 1969, to discuss the ideal system of electing the president. They agreed on the following points: (1) the need for a quick decision and clear-cut winner; (2) the victor should be the peoples' choice winner of the most popular votes; (3) the president-elect should have a mandate to govern, a legitimacy which comes from a good margin of victory; and (4) the ideal system should not undermine the two-party system. All agreed that the method of electing the president holds broad implications for the political system as a whole.

Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama told the Judiciary Center on October 1987, when explaining his reason for deciding to vote against Judge Bork's confirmation to the Supreme Court, "When in doubt, don't." That may or may not be good adt be good advice, but so far it is being followed regarding election reform. The electoral college and the winner-take-a1l system continues to be criticized but not changed.

Who Votes

Presidential elections always draw more voters than other elections, and the closer the race the greater the participation, as people feel their vote has more of a chance of making a difference. But even so, voter participation has fallen over the past 25-30 years. In the non-presidential election year 1958, only 43 percent of those eligible bothered to vote for members of Congress, and that percentage had fallen to 37 percent in 1982 and 1986. In the presidential election years, the same trend is evident, with 62.8 percent turning out for the Kennedy-Nixon battle in 1960 versus only 53 percent for the 1984 Reagan-Mondale contest. From another perspective, however, one could say that more citizens voted in 1984 than ever before in American history: 92,652,793 versus the 68,838,000 who voted in the 1960 battle between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Part of the increase can be attributed to a broadening of the franchise by the 23rd amendment to residents of the District of Columbia (1961), by the 24th amendment banning poll taxes on federal elections (1964) and the 26th amendment expanding the vote to eighteen-year-olds (1972).

Sayre and Parrish claim that uneven exposure of candidates to the fifty states does not necessarily encourage apathy among the voters who are slighted. They feel that television means all voters have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the candidates. They suggest:

Human voting motivations are complex, involving both what has been termed the "sense of political efficiency"--the belief that one's efforts make some difference--and the "sense of citizen duty"--the belief that one ought to be politically active in order to be a good citizen. ⁹

Education makes politics and voting easier to understand and is the single most important variable in increasing citizen participation in the election process. A well-informed and responsible electorate is the underlying basis for the American system. In a recent column, Carl Rowen informed us that a "well-informed electorate... doesn't exist in this country" and cited a June 1987 survey by Market Facts, Inc. which reportedly showed that

Ninety-two percent of Americans could not name the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist. Only 7 percent could name Alan Greenspan, the newly-appointed head of the Federal Reserve. And 25 percent could not even name the vice president of the United States, George Bush... 54 percent could name Mikhail Gorbachev as "the head of the Soviet Union" and 30 percent identified Fawn Hall as "Lt. Col. Oliver North's secretary," but only 8 percent knew the chief justice... ¹⁰

The professors were able to determine how much each group' s electoral strength was deflated or inflated by its voting rate. They discovered that

The young, the unmarried, Southerners, the unemployed, minorities, and people who moved within two years of the 1974 election all comprise a smaller share of voters than the population as a whole. ¹¹

Those without a high school diploma, below the median income, youngest, oldest, unemployed, single and blacks shared a reduction in voter strength also. However, those with college degrees, higher incomes, government employees and those that stayed put over three years all had greater strength at the polls than their share of the population would indicate. According to the 1972 National Election Study of the University of Michigan Center for Political Studies, 51.4 percent of all citizens and 51.3 percent of all voters identify with the Democratic Party, whereas 36 percent of all citizens and 39 7 percent of all voters identify with the Republicans. In general, voters are amazingly close to representing the views of the non-voter population.

Those most likely to be underrepresented are people who lack opinions... Both self-described liberals and conservatives are slightly over-represented at the polls at the expense of moderates and people who say they have no ideological tendency... As long as attitudes on issues are so weakly related to social class and race, the poor and minorities will find enough allies to avoid political weakness in proportion to their own voting rates. ¹²

The Role Of Government

For over 200 years the role of government has been debated in this country. Most recently the Democratic Party has been emphasizing what government can do for citizens, indirectly encouraging dependence. On the other hand the Republicans, most recently in the person of Ronald Reagan, have been emphasizing what government can do to citizens. You've probably heard that you can't love your country and hate your government, a statement which has caused contention between the two parties. We are all in this together is the Democrats' message and what we need now is leadership. In contrast, the Republicans claim citizens want to stand on their own two feet and their call has been to get government off the backs of the people.

One of the main problems facing the Republicans is how to make the so-ca1led party of big business and wealth appeal to a majority of Americans.

An activist government manages and regulates the economy and endorses specific social values. Republicans generally claim that in a pluralistic society with no official ideology it is important for the state to remain neutral in such matters. Always, and in every society, those who feel threatened by change gravitate to government for protection. In our country the Progressives used government to attack private power, and in the 1920s it wasn't much of a step from there for the New Dealers to use government not so much to attack but rather to defend citizens against the economic perils of the thirties. Democrats, especially when the economy looks a little shaky, tend to look to government for protection and solutions. When the economy is humming along they turn to government-business partnerships and just about anything else that works. After the second world war, government continued its role of social protector and reformer. Thus the laissez-faire government of a capitalist society was turned into an entity whose purpose became not to see that people are left alone but to see that sociae that social and economic justice are promoted.

Democrats in 1987 agreed overwhelmingly that government cutbacks in social spending are undesirable and that spending on the poor should rise even if it means higher taxes. The Republicans are split about evenly on that issue. Democrats believe that government has a definite role to play in the economy and social life of this nation--here, also, Republicans are divided. Kevin Phillips, an expert on Republican politics, says that two-thirds of the Party in 1987 "dissent from the Reagan administration' s efforts to reduce federal involvement in health, poverty, housing and education. ¹³

With growth comes diversity of opinion. Not a bad thing for a society but rather a hindrance for a political party trying to win a national election. The anti-government fervor that brought the Republican party into prominence in the eighties began twenty years ago and may have worn itself out.

Political analysts tell us that the American voter shuns ideologues in favor of pragmatists; their concern is not whether a proposal is consistent or right but on the contrary the concern is whether a proposal works. The way to the popularity of both parties is their appeal to moderates and their association with ideas that work.

More than any campaign in recent memory, the 1980 campaign was the campaign of two ideologues. Ronald Reagan attracted those with a distaste for taxes, regulation and all the trappings of big government. He made middle class voters see themselves as the source of funds for the programs they used to clamor for. They came to recognize that the pocket Uncle Sam would have to pick to finance compassionate programs was their own. Under Ronald Reagan they became aware of costs, although critics in order to invoke shame and gain support for their own point of view, prefer to say the middle class became selfish and hard. Candidate Reagan gathered a constituency with a common enemy--the redistributionist anti-defense liberal--and a common interest--restricting the federal government. All had a desire to see a transfer of power from the federal to state and local governments.

But candidate Reagan had a record of pragmatism; his method of governing was moderate circumspect and above all, pragmatic. Jimmy Carter focused on ideology all the way, trying to attract votes by claiming a vote in 1980 was a referendum on conflicting ideas whereas his opponent asked the now famous pragmatic question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Those who point to Mr. Reagan s experience as an actor and try to attribute his success to his professionalism on camera miss the point of his achievement. William Schneider, journalist and political analyst for the American Enterprise Institute, put his finger on the role communication plays in Ronald Reagan' s ability to attract support in an article for the Atlantic Monthly, January 1987.

Reagan's relaxed, reassuring television style is important because his ideological image is neither relaxed nor reassuring. He used television in 1980 to persuade the voters--during the last week of the campaign--that he was not dangerous or extreme, despite the dangerous and extreme things he was on record as having said. Millions of angry, dissatisfied voters felt it was safe to replace Carter with Reagan. A man with such a nice, avuncular personality would not blow up the world. ¹⁴

Ronald Reagan was able to convince voters that he was not as advertised by his opponents. I have elsewhere ¹⁵ referred to Ronald Reagan as the "do as I say, not as I do" president. This is his genius. His words are defiant and uncompromising but his actions are shrewd and conciliatory. To true ideologues it often seems that he has abandoned his principles.

Californians alrealifornians already knew this about Ronald Reagan. As governor (1967-75) he denounced welfare fraud, high taxes and was anti-abortion all the while increasing welfare benefits, raising taxes and liberalizing California's abortion law. How was the sale of arms to Iran any different? All the while Ronald Reagan was telling the world there could be no negotiations with terrorists, those in his administration were making deals. They, too, knew the man and his desire to get things done, to maneuver for the best deal possible. But Ronald Reagan knows the American people, as any successful politician must, and is well aware of the American tendency to overlook just about anything as long as it works.

Ideologues believe that if something is contrary to principle it cannot work, even if appearances show otherwise. William Schneider gave the Republicans and their reaction to FDR' s New Deal as an example in his article for the January 1987 Atlantic Monthly.

They claimed that the New Deal could not work because it was wrong; it entailed an unprecedented growth of government and threatened tremendous inflation. Those warnings proved right fifty years later. It took the hyperinflation of the 1970s to make the Republicans' case. ¹⁶

The strategy the Democrats used in 1986 was, according to Mr. Schneider, a focus on local candidates and issues and near inviability of the national party. But he explained that "Democrats cannot have it both ways: after avoiding national themes in the campaign, they can hardly claim that the election was a repudiation of the Reagan revolution." ¹⁷

If the economy remains healthy the Democrats will have little to attack during the 1988 campaign. Discussing the deficit is risky because they must mention cuts in social programs, a rise in taxes and defense--all political hot seats. The Democrats might take heart from polls conducted by the University of Michigan, which in 1987 found that resentment against income taxes, which have been lower lately, and even social security taxes, which have been higher lately, has declined. The same polls showed that the percentage of Americans who could trust the federal government to do what is right has been steadily declining: 76 percent in 1964, 54 percent in 1970, 33 percent in 1976 and 25 percent in 1980. On the other hand the percentage of Americans who believe government is run by large special interests looking out for their own welfare has been rising: 29 percent in 1964, 50 percent in 1970 and 69 percent in 1980. This provides ammunition for those who would campaign against selfishness, what they see as the mean-spirited survival of the fittest legacy of Reaganism. (Joe Biden had mastered this theme.)

Professor Robert Bellah of U.C. Berkeley, a co-author of the recent book Habits of the Heart, spoke before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on August 21,1987. At an earlier time, parts of his speech would no doubt have made their way into the Biden campaign as the theme was relevant .

As the dangers of radical individualism become increasingly evident, these groups give us reason to hope that we can counter our individualism with a renewed emphasis on community obligation and public responsibility.

Ronald Reagan has called the eighties the age of the individual and the entrepreneur. His critics have called the Reagan years the age of egoism and selfishness. Walter Mondale tried to make the nation view the 1984 election as a decision to be a generous nation versus a vote for greed and selfishness . Alexis de Tocqueville distinguished individualism from selfishness, claiming that selfishness is endemic to all societies and all forms of government but individualism is a product of America' s unique brand of democracy. "Individualism is a novel expression to which a novel idea has given birth."

In Part I of his treatise, de Tocqueville attributes

the small number of distinguished men in political life to the ever, increasing despotism of the majority in the United States... I have found very few men who displayed that manly candor and masculine independence of opinion which frequently distinguished the Americans in former times and which constitutes the leading feature in distinguished characters wheresoever they may be found. ¹⁸

Professor Bellah told his Commonwealth Club audience

Middle-class Americans share Emerson's emphasis on self-reliance and belief that help comes only from our own bosom. They also tend to share his view that society is inimical to the individual and that the quest for the self involves freeing ourselves from society. Thus the quest for the self is a quest for autonomy, for leaving the past and the social structures that have previously enveloped us, for stripping off obligations and constraints imposed by others, until at last we find our true self which is unique and individual. ¹⁹

What We're Looking For In A President

The 1987-88 campaign season started out with a heightened awareness of character and attention to decorum. The Democratic candidates who were caught in the spotlight were harmed in each instance not by their discovered deeds as much as by their handling of the situation once they were put on the hot seat. Gary Hart and Joseph Biden were ousted because of poor judgment and knee-jerk denials. Michael Dukakis saw his decisive super-manager image tarnished when he claimed no knowledge of the Neil Kinnock video tapes which were the catalyst to Mr. Biden's downfall. The governor's refusal first to accept the resignation of his campaign manager and the later change of mind gave the wishy-washy label credence. As political analyst Robert Squier pointed out, "His (Dukakis') biggest asset was management, and here's an unmanaged situation; and his appeal was innocence, and his campaign was guilty." ²⁰

Ellen Goodman summed up what a lot of us thought in early October 1987.

If I had to triage the mistakes of Hart, Biden and Dukakis, which plugs would I pull? Hart? Yes. Biden? Maybe. Dukakis? No. But today, every trouble draws blood. We used to talk about winners in politics. We used to focus on Election Day. This year, this brutal year, we talk about survivors. Can anyone make it to Election Day? ²¹

In the American Commonwealth, written in 1896, Lord Bryce noted that when it comes to a choice between a meritorious candidate or a meritorious president, the former would always win out. Lord Bryce thought thathought that meant Americans were doomed to suffer under second rate leaders. He observed that obscure men tend to make fewer enemies and for that reason make better candidates.

William Schneider and other political analysts have told us that Mario Cuomo is sensitive and easily provoked. Sensitivity to the issues and desires of the people is an asset but sensitivity to criticism is apparently a sign of instability in 1988. The governor may have been well advised in his decision to pass on the 1988 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. In fact, if a warning were televised stating that only those with hides at least as thick as a rhinoceros need apply for the job of presidential candidate, it might save not only the feelings of potential candidates but also the country. According to Mr. Schneider

The greatest tragedies as Presidents--Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter--were all deeply insecure men, who worried incessantly about their reputations, made lists of enemies and carried polls around in their pockets. Psychological security may be the most important characteristic to look for in a presidential candidate. ²²

On the eve of his withdrawal from the presidential race, Gary Hart told the nation that press scrutiny was responsible for many qualified and talented people deciding against a career in public service. Mr. Schneider puts it this way:

Candidates for president these days must sacrifice dignity as well as privacy. They have to spend their time suffering fools gladly and being badgered by arrogant twenty-year-olds with questionnaires. We have reached the point at which politicians like Cuomo and Nunn would actually diminish their stature by running for President. ²³

Ellen Goodman reminded us in one of her columns that "qualifications on paper don't always translate into votes..." Fund raisers have to sell a winner and qualifications are only part of it. Pat Schroeder, the subject of Ms. Goodman's June 12, 1987, column, already had more national name recognition than most of the candidates, especially among women. She has been in Congress for fifteen years and is one of the most outspoken women in politics, which gives her a uniqueness second only to Jesse Jackson' s among the candidates for the 1988 presidential nomination. A campaign chest of $10 million is the figure generally recommended to the 1988 candidates. Ms. Goodman reported the head of a fund-raising organization called "The Emily List (Emily as in 'Early Money Is Like Yeast')" seemed skeptical of the Schroeder candidacy and would only recommend viable candidates in their solicitations. To raise the money necessary to finance a campaign a candidate must not only have experience and something important to say, he or she must have charisma and photograph well on television. In explaining Ms. Schroeder's decision not to run in her October 2, 1987, column, Ellen Goodman said, "...it wasn't just money that stumped and stopped the senior woman in Congress. It was the method of presidential politics." She quoted Ms. Schroeder. "I could not bear to turn every human contact into a photo opportunity. I would shrivel."

1988 is a prime example of the folly of our nominating system. Candidates "select themselves and then try to secure nomination through one to four years of shallow, demeaning hucksterism," says political writer Alan Ehrenhalt. "We have a system that is capable of producing good presidents only by accident, and we have a right to object to it." ²⁴

We lost a good man with business acumen and both political and international experience when Donald Rumsfeld withdrew from the 1988 presidential race long before it should ever have begun back in April 1987. Actually, the race began for Mr. Rumsfeld in the summer of 1985, more than three yan three years before the presidential election. It took time to collect a war chest of $4 million and promises of more, but in the end that sum appeared inadequate to the job. Few knew better than Mr. Rumsfeld himself what he as an outsider (not current office holder) would be up against when it came to raising money because he is active in Citizens For American Values , an organization to help non-incumbent Republicans run for office and to keep the system open.

In his April 2, 1987, letter notifying supporters of his decision not to run for the 1988 Republican nomination, Mr. Rumsfeld, a former congressman, former director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, ex-Ambassador to NATO, former White House chief of staff, one time Defense Secretary and Chairman of one of America's largest companies, provided evidence of the nation's loss in his verdict. He had considered the race because of

a desire to see our country and our people realize our true potential as a humane and positive force in the world, and my conviction that values have consequences for our country's future.

The cost of a Presidential campaign is enormous... In the past, funds could be raised far along in a campaign, as a candidate gained visibility and public interest heightened. Today, the money must come heavily "up front."

Non-candidates, like Senator Tom Bradley of New Jersey and Bill Clinton of Arkansas, basked in the publicity that resulted from their pondering and then rejecting the thought of entering the 1988 race, publicity that could only enhance name recognition for the future.

Laurence Barrett talks about

the Shrinkage Phenomenon, a mysterious effect that diminishes prospects' stature as soon as they enter the race... There is also the obverse effect, an optical illusion called the Sidelines Magnifier. When the Cuomos and Bradleys and Nunns stay out wrapped in the dignity of duty or humility, they seem so much grander than those scurrying after votes and donations. ²⁵

Senators Sam Nunn of Georgia and Dale Bumpers of Arkansas decided the pressures of the Senate and their families would not allow them to take on the added obligations that a presidential race would entail. Governors Cuomo and Clinton felt the same way, whereas Paul Laxalt and Donald Rumsfeld pleaded lack of funds for their decision not to enter the race. As journalist Laurence Barrett put it: "To hear the defectors tell it, you have to be an unemployed monk with rich friends to run comfortably." And he intimated it would help to be a thick-skinned workaholic, unconcerned about the privacy of family and with enough ambition to make it through hundreds of fund raisers and over thirty primaries. ²⁶

Many have speculated that Senators Bradley and Nunn, Governors Robb, Cuomo and others, may have opted to stay out of the 1988 presidential race realizing that the nation has gone through the longest economic expansion in history and a recession is overdue. The huge trade and budget deficits almost ensure that when a break comes it will not be a mild recession, and who wants to preside over a catastrophe? If that is indeed their thinking, then the 1988 non-candidates have failed to consult their history books. Crisis is opportunity; it fosters great leaders. Lincoln, who won the presidency with the lowest popular vote ever, earned his place as one of the nation's greatest leaders by presiding over total chaos. FDR can thank the economic turmoil of his presidency for his reputation. Besides, the greatest catastrophe for the Democratic Party would be to lose yet another presidential election.

According to political expert William Schneider, the turnout in Southern primaries dropped from 18 percent of those eligible to voteible to vote in 1980 to 14 percent in 1984. Blacks make up 25 percent of southern Democrats yet in the 1984 election accounted for 30 percent of the voters. Those 14 percent who bothered to vote were more liberal than those who decided to sit the election out, thus creating a liberal bias within the party. If Southern conservatives refuse to participate in the Democrats' primary, they will be giving up their opportunity to influence the party platform and have a say in who is to be the party' s standard bearer in 1988.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) took shape in 1985 and counted among its illustrious founders non-candidates Charles Robb and Sam Nunn and candidates Richard Gephardt and Bruce Babbitt. The DLC was, in the words of its founders, an attempt to give the party a centrist image.

Centrists define their program in terms of consensual values, values shared by the whole society-peace, prosperity, growth, national security, freedom. An ideological program bases its strategy on conflicting values, issues that pit "us" against "them"... the key element in... the DLC's political thinking is resistance to conflict and division, to the ideological style of politics. ²⁷

Super Tuesday, the brainchild of the DLC, could backfire on those who conceived it with the idea that the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire should be minimized. Governor Robb has legitimate complaints beyond the fact that two small unrepresentative states have too much influence over which candidates will filter down to the rest of the nation. Many agree that those who campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire don't even attempt to present a broad national agenda.

In a phone call made to columnist David Broder after Senator Sam Nunn announced his non-candidacy, Governor Mario Cuomo of New York declared that he would endorse his favorite Democratic candidate in February--before Super Tuesday (March 8). Mr. Broder believes the AFL-CIO is also likely to make an endorsement decision based on the New Hampshire primary. Instead of diminishing the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, the Super Tuesday event may only serve to glorify an earlier successful candidate even more, or even worse, to drive the disenchanted moderate Southerners to the Republican Party in search of a middle-of-the-road candidate. This will leave representing the South largely to the black liberal voters, who are likely to turn out in numbers beyond their representation in the society as a whole. In that case, the beneficiary of Super Tuesday will most likely be Jesse Jackson.

Jesse Jackson has a core of supporters waiting to be called into action left over from his 1984 campaign. When Jesse Jackson enters a state, his network does much of the advance work that is so troublesome for other campaigns like choosing suitable locations for meetings and getting people to answer phones, distribute flyers and so forth.

Jesse Jackson appeals to the discontented, but not so much those discontented with the lot of others as with their own situations. Californians are used to saying "I'm okay and you might be okay but..." Mr. Jackson pulls his support from those who say "I'm not okay." Nevertheless, a Mervin Field poll conducted in the summer of 1987 showed Mario Cuomo, a non-candidate, the favorite of 29 percent of Californians polled, followed by Jesse Jackson at 13 percent. The Republicans showed George Bush (30 percent) polling about the same as Governor Cuomo, followed by another non-candidate favorite of Californians, Howard Baker, who led Robert Dole 18 percent to 12 percent.

Californians have been described as self-satisfied and unconcerned with the re with the rest of the nation. In his Atlantic piece, William Schneider discussed the views of two astute political scientists who were familiar with the California experience. James Q. Wilson in an article for Commentary in 1967 tried to describe the support that emerged in the Golden State for Goldwater as a protest movement against the ignorance o f the rest of the nation. Wilson wrote that their discontent was not with themselves but with the rest of society.

The very virtues they have and practice are, in their eyes, conspicuously absent from society as a whole. ²⁸

The Berkeley life-style was tolerant, expressive, open, non-violent, permissive and, above all contented. No one wanted to leave. Then why were the students angry? Because the outside world was racist, uptight, elitist, violent and repressive. The very virtues that Berkeley students had and practiced were, in their eyes, conspicuously absent from society as a whole.²⁹

These observations took place twenty years ago, and as one who was there (in Berkeley) I can attest to their insightfulness. What was true in 1967 was true, I believe in 1957, '47 and '37, but the question before us today is the relevance of these observations to 1987.

In 1980 Jimmy Carter conceded the election before the polls had closed in the West. (No wonder many Californians feel they can't make a difference in the political process!) As a result, there were proposals for twenty-four hours' voting or uniform poll closings, which were not taken seriously at the time mainly due to cost. The continual rise in the debt ceiling bears witness to the fact that those on Capitol Hill don't take cost seriously and so the recent sponsorship of HR435 by Al Swift (Democrat, Washington) and William Thomas (Republican, California) comes as no surprise. The bill would require every state in the union, except Arkansas and Hawaii, to close polls at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Daylight savings would be extended for two weeks past normal (the last Sunday in October) in the Pacific Time Zone so that closing would be 7:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight time. The airlines oppose the measure because of the havoc extending daylight savings will work with their schedules.

But it is more than poll closings. The politicians themselves have made many Californians feel like the forgotten people when it comes to choosing presidential candidates. As columnist Dan Walters said on August 7, 1987.

So far, the candidates have acted as if California consists of two large reservoirs of cash, one in West Los Angeles and the other in San Francisco. They have jetted in, staged their fund-raising events and then left as rapidly as possible for Des Moines or Manchester to spend the proceeds.
If there's a presidential selection process under way in the United States, it is one that is disconnected, at least so far, from California.

Once in a while they alight in Carmel, as Senator Robert Dole did recently in pursuit of an endorsement by our colorful mayor Clint Eastwood.

Gary Hart was clearly the choice of a majority of California' s Democrats, and with his withdrawal from the pack, many Democrats in the Golden State lost interest, at least temporarily. Mr. Hart was as direct in his social policies as he was indirect in his persona1life. He won favor with many Westerners by declaring that using the tax code to direct social policy is a sign that our legislators don't have the courage to make a case for their policies above board and directly to the American people. Gary Hart criticized the practice of obtaining low-income housing by offering tax-incentives to developers as a typical example of the le of the lack of courage we are talking about:

The hand that can give the housing developers a tax incentive is also the hand that can slip something in for an individual company or special interest. Government is going to require a kind of intellectual honesty of politicians in the future. If it is good for the society to do something, then take the case to the American people. ³⁰

Peter Hart, a political strategist who appeared on a panel September 7, 1987 (C-SPAN), spoke of the advantage Democrats have over Republicans going into the 1987-88 campaign. ³¹ Mr. Hart told his audience that by a 5 to 3 margin (poll) Americans would prefer a president in his forties with ten to fifteen years' experience. The Democrats reportedly have a twenty-eight point advantage with female and older voters and 30-39 percent of Americans would prefer to switch from the Republican to the Democratic party. The Democrats have been doing something mighty wrong to have so many voters overcome their natural inclinations and join with the Republicans. The Democrats hope to find and eliminate their error before November 1988.

Most people are too busy with their work, family and friends to stop and on their own analyze where America as a nation is headed and whether or not they approve. But because politicians are notoriously short-sighted, seeing only from one election to the next, it is up to the people to take that long-range view to see that the America they envision is preserved for future generations. Adlai Stevenson once said, "I'm not an old experienced hand at politics. But I am seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning."

Voters should ask the 1988 presidential candidates for their game plans issue by issue. What we need is an election based not on charisma as much as character, not on rhetoric as much as research, not on promises as much as policies. (The preceding sentence is proof that political rhetoric rubs off as well as wears thin.)

A biographical sketch follows of thirteen of the more than two hundred declared candidates for the 1988 presidential nomination. Already, in the fall of 1987, Joe Biden has quit the race and the list will narrow even more after March 8, 1988. Sections II and III analyze what is being said on the 1988 campaign circuit and cut beneath the rhetoric to reveal the candidates' stand on various issues.

"Meanwhile," as Alan Ehrenhalt suggests, "other political leaders who might make good presidents are confined to the sidelines. They are unwilling to participate in an undignified process in order to be considered for the job." ³²

Notes

Notes - Section One

Back to Contents    or to Section HPR Book