Beltway schizophrenia runs rampant this week in the nation's two most respected newspapers.
New York Times columnist
Nicholas Kristof, generally a dependable lefty, warned Democratic primary voters of the "McGovern-style" landslide Howard Dean would face against President Bush next November.
I agree with Mr. Dean on many issues, and I admire his willingness to oppose our Iraq invasion from the beginning. But shiny-eyed teenagers who distribute leaflets for him in places like Yamhill County are going to get very cold stares and end up heartbroken.
On the other side of the political spectrum,
Weekly Standard editor
William Kristol makes the case in the Washington Post for a Dean victory eleven months from now. The Republicans hate to hear it, but Kristol makes a very potent political point:
The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the national popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.
Patrick Buchanan makes his own comparisons, raking Mr. Bush over the coals for piss poor foreign and domestic policy, while prediciting a 2004 victory based on illusionary campaign tactics.
Mark my words: These chickens are coming home to roost for Bush, and they will raise a racket unlike any we have seen in years, as they did for LBJ, and for Nixon. Unfortunately for Howard Dean, as for Sens. Goldwater and McGovern, the chickens will probably not start home until well after November 2004.
I'd hope that the American people are smarter than that. The Democrats will need to slam home Bush's "miserable failure" policies,
before the chickens come home to roost.
So which is it? A 1972-style Democratic defeat, or a 1992-style Democratic victory over a Republican incumbent? Or, is it a 1984 or 1988-style contest, with a dangerously illusionary up-swing in the economy giving the incumbent a cushion all the way to Election Day?
The answer: None of the above. Howard Dean ain't George McGovern. (For my money he's not even Michael Dukakis.) But, more importantly, George W. Bush ain't Richard Nixon (or Ronald Reagan, for that matter).
This is a different time in a different world. The endless analogies to the 1964, 1972, and 1984 presidential contests are moot. This race is going to be between Howard Dean (assuming he wins the Democratic nomination - but with Al Gore's endorsement, the nomination is Dean's to lose) and George W. Bush. Not Johnson and Goldwater; not Nixon and McGovern; not Reagan and Mondale. Howard Dean and George W. Bush. Period. Josh Marshall paraphrased a great quote from historian Edmund Morgan earlier in the week: "History never repeats itself. It only seems like it does to those who don't know the details."
The ending to the story of the 2004 presidential contest is unknown, but two things are for certain: The Republicans best not get giddy if Dean emerges as their opponent; and the Democrats should be strongly prepared for a hard fought battle against a well-entrenched incumbent.
Cross-posted over on the Points West.