With Wednesday's announcement that Dennis Kucinich is once again throwing his hat into the presidential ring, it's tempting to say that the race is now on between him and Mike Gravel for the Jerry Brown Moonbeam Award for Looniest Presidential Candidate. Very tempting. So tempting, in fact, that I was unable to resist, and made that very observation in a comment yesterday. But I have since reconsidered my overly caustic words and decided that there is a place for so-called "fringe" candidates.
Admittedly, both of these guys are the darkest of dark horses. But so what? Likelihood of victory is not a prerequisite to run for office in this country. If it was, neither John Kennedy nor Bill Clinton would ever have been president. For that matter, at this point in 1974 Jimmy Carter barely warranted an asterisk at the bottom of the list of Democratic hopefuls. But even candidates who never achieve office can contribute something to the dialog of a campaign; many "fringe" issues of the past are the mainstream issues of today. Think universal health care.
It's not as if Gravel or Kucinich are complete screwballs. Both, after all, are men of intelligence and ability who have more than once been elected to high public office. And, while both have significant shortcomings, no one can fault them their dedication, their compassion, and their patriotism.
So who are these guys?
Mike Gravel (www.gravel2008.us) was a U.S. Senator from Alaska from 1969 to 1981. He is probably best known for his role in the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. For that alone he should have the undying respect of all Democrats, if not all Americans. He also undertook a lone five-month filibuster that helped bring an end to the draft in 1973. So it's fair to say his Democratic "street cred" is pretty good. In fact, the Senator was perceived as enough of a threat by none other than Jerry Falwell that the televangelist marshaled the forces of the religious right in 1980 to back the candidacy of Clark Gruening, who eventually defeated Gravel in the primary.
So where does Gravel stand on the issues? Pretty much in lockstep with "mainstream" liberals on most topics. He supports universal health care. He strongly advocates environmental responsibility, and has proposed a comprehensive, international scientific effort to end our dependence on oil. He favors federal term limits and the elimination of the Electoral College. He has proposed the formation of an international intelligence/police agency to combat terrorism, a kind of "anti-terrorist NATO," as his website describes it. None of these are issues that would be out of place in the 2008 Democratic platform.
In fairness, the same cannot be said for all of Gravel's ideas. The issue with which he has been most associated in his post-Senate career is the National Initiative, which proposes a constitutional amendment in favor of federal ballot initiatives – essentially a system of national direct democracy. On this I must admit I have my doubts. The Founding Fathers favored representative democracy at least in part because they knew that direct democracy can easily break down into mob rule. Considering the role of money and media in politics today, such a system would have to be very carefully crafted to prevent abuse. This is not to say, however, that the National Initiative may not be an issue worth at least discussing.
But the issue which Gravel has made the centerpiece of his campaign is the Fair Tax. In a nutshell, Gravel proposes eliminating the IRS and doing away with all federal taxes – income, payroll, corporate, gift, inheritance, capital gains, etc. In their place would be instituted a nationwide sales tax, with built-in rebates for persons of low income. Needless to say, the arguments on this proposal are vigorous. My grasp of economics being limited to the ability to make change for a twenty, I honestly can't say where I stand on this issue, so I'll leave it to smarter Kossacks than myself to debate its merits. As an idea, however, it's certainly not lacking in boldness and originality.
Any discussion of Mike Gravel as a serious presidential candidate must also consider that the former Senator will be 78 years old by the time of the election, inevitably leading to questions about his potential ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the office for a full term.
Dennis Kucinich (www.kucinich.us) is, of course, the far better known dark horse candidate, both here in the Kosmos and among the general public. As such, his biography and positions are much more familiar. Elected Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 at the tender age of 31, he quickly ran into trouble for what some perceived as brashness and arrogance. He was subjected to a recall election in 1978, which he won, then lost his re-election bid in 1979 to George Voinovich. Kucinich spent much of the 1980's and early 1990's in political exile in New Mexico, then experienced a Clintonesque comeback in 1996, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. It was from there that he launched his famously quixotic first run for the White House in 2004.
Kucinich has made his career advocating strong liberal positions, and has had the distinction of being the only major presidential candidate foursquare against the Iraq war since the very beginning. He supports bringing U.S. troops home as soon as possible, to be replaced by a United Nations force. He is also a strong proponent of universal health care and public education, including tuition-free college. He opposes American involvement in NAFTA and the WTO. He is an ardent environmentalist and defender of the poor, advocating price controls for electricity, natural gas, and heating oil. As with Gravel, no one can seriously deny Kucinich his Democratic bona fides.
Where Gravel's weakness is lack of recognition and skepticism about his ideas, Kucinich's are more personal and revolve around the question of whether he has the stature – the "gravitas" – to be President of the United States. While no lightweight, Kucinich definitely demonstrates a strain of starry-eyed idealism that suggests, at least to some, that he is not fully grounded in reality. Certainly his proposal for the creation of a "Department of Peace" smacks of a certain New Age dreaminess (or Orwellian doubletalk, but I suspect this is not the intention). These concerns translate into fears that a President Kucinich might not be willing or able to respond decisively to threats in a post-9/11 world. Unfair or not, it is an issue which Kucinich, if he is to be taken seriously as a candidate, must confront.
I am certainly under no illusions that Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich is likely to become the 2008 Democratic nominee. On the contrary, I would be surprised if either of them won even a single primary. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I feel the Democratic Party would be better served to nominate an Al Gore, a John Edwards, or even a Barack Obama. That said, if the history of American politics has proven anything, it's that anything is possible. At the very least candidates like Gravel and Kucinich keep the race interesting, and steer the debate in a progressive direction. So let's all just keep our laughter under control, shall we?