Two reasons for hope: to the cynical and frustrated

[jpgray]

First reason? GOP solidarity is in the crapper. The proof? Rankings of their candidates are vacillating far more wildly state by state than any Republican political don would like. Ron Paul with a second place? Three different major candidates all netting first place finishes in non-home states? This would not have been possible in 2000, and it spells trouble for them. Why? The GOP presidential campaign machine runs best on early selection. Furiously marketing whosoever nets the first few wins as being representative of -all- the fractious GOP coalition is crucial to their plan for general election success. With such a relatively long and multipolar primary fight, competing and increasingly exclusive claims for each part of their base by the major candidates will make this very difficult. The GOP will come out of the primary with a candidate who will have suffered the fiercest internecine attacks from fellow candidates and some combination of fundamentalists, monied party elite/media, and whack-job libertarians. No one candidate will have the benefit of claiming to represent their electoral base in full solidarity, and that is a beautiful thing.

But that's rather negative. Want a positive reason? Well, let's posit that you find all three major candidates uninspiring. Let's say you are underwhelmed by their records. Let's say you dismiss their campaign speeches as a collection of dusty and meaningless platitudes mixed with a shameful amount of dishonest pandering to what is popular as opposed to what is right. That's fine if you feel that way--their records aren't perfect, and their speeches do insult one's intelligence, but none of this is anything new at this level of politics. I'm about to make a superficial, flawed historical comparison here, so duck and cover:

Look at JFK. The guy was a classic Senate freshman, who equivocated and triangulated away from almost all strong stances, if they were controversial. His voting record on civil rights was less than admirable, seeing as he voted to remove all punishment for violators of the Civil Rights Act via the Jury Trial Amendment, even though he voted for the Act itself. Plenty of prominent segregationists were early supporters of his presidential campaign. His family was also quite tight with McCarthy, with RFK working on his subcommittee and another relation even dating Joe (if I recall), and JFK never publicly called for McCarthy's censure or made his voice heard in that debate (though he was in the hospital during some of this time).

I think his presidential term has been mythologized far beyond its actual worth, but it was still a damn sight better than his previous political history would indicate. A lot of the prognosticating on DU seems to be based on the idea that a president will behave much as a Senator who wants to campaign for president behaves, and that's not necessarily the case. Those future-seers also argue that the disturbing triangulation and pandering we've seen in Senate votes and in the campaign are a good indication of how a candidate will behave in office. That isn't always the case. The solitary nature of the office and the leadership opportunities it provides can bring out ideas and strength that don't necessarily come to the fore in a Senate career.

It's true you can't draw an exact parallel between JFK and any current candidate (too many epochal differences). Yet despite all the pandering, platitudes and legislative equivocation from any Senator candidate, it is not -inevitable- that they will behave similarly if elected to the presidency. It's possible, but not inevitable. So there's still hope even if you hate those Senate records and the pandering rhetoric. Even if you're a despicable, cynical bastard like myself. :D