The Death of General John Sedgwick By Martin T. McMahon, Brevet Major-General, U.S.V.; Chief-of-Staff, Sixth Corps
Posted on 05/10/2004 4:28:40 PM PDT by Kepitalizm
TO PREDICT the outcome of US elections is to invite the fate of the American Civil War general, John Sedgwick. He met his end at the Battle of Spotsylvania, 140 years ago yesterday, while urging the troops under his command to ignore Confederate snipers. “Don’t duck!”, he insisted. “They couldn't hit an elephant at this dis . . . ” and promptly dropped dead from a bullet.
Newspapers of late have contained thoroughly confusing messages about the present presidential struggle. For ten solid days, the Bush White House has been placed under a media siege by the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. The President himself, and Donald Rumsfeld, his Defence Secretary, have appeared beleaguered. Yet deep in the foreign pages, yesterday as most days, there are stories about the Democratic Party’s virtual despair with John Kerry. His own statements have been either inconsistent or uninspiring. He has a wife who is either embarrassing and rich or just embarrasingly rich. His campaign has no message and is in danger of being overshadowed by the publication next month of Bill Clinton’s autobiography. He is even being urged by some to bring forward his choice of a vice-presidential candidate to relieve his troubles.
All three of these in vogue arguments are profoundly suspect. The “bound to be close” notion, for example, is based on the idea that this contest will duplicate that of four years ago. Or, as Dick Morris recently put it in The Times: “The numbers may presage yet another electoral cliffhanger that will keep us in a state of tension.”
The 2000 campaign, however, featured two men, Mr Bush and Al Gore, neither of whom was the sitting president. Such battles are often fiercely fought. This one involves an incumbent. From 1900, there have been 17 campaigns when a man elected as president or elected to the vice-presidency and then elevated to the White House by the death of the president has sought another term of office. On 13 occasions, the president of the day has won on average by a margin of more than 14 per cent. The other four times, the president lost by an average of just under 13 per cent. Only two of these 17 elections (1916 and 1948) have been settled by a margin of less than 5 per cent. What history suggests, therefore, is that the 2004 election will not be close and that Mr Bush should win comfortably.
The 50:50 concept is also dubious in a number of respects. It is true that when Americans are asked whether, generally speaking, they view themselves as Democrat or Republican, they currently split quite evenly. To extrapolate too much from this would be a mistake.
Broad sentiments towards political parties do not determine individual behaviour in the polling station. And in any case, this snapshot obscures the bigger picture. In May 1994, surveys showed that the United States was, as it had been for 60 years, close to a 60:40 nation with many more voters instinctively identifying with the Democrats than the Republicans. The shift over a decade to one where Mr Bush's party controls the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives has been little short of seismic. The 50:50 thesis also places too much weight on the election of November 2000 and too little on the events of September 11, 2001 — a moment which pushed electors under the age of 30 towards the Republicans.
The contention that the strength of the economy will not aid Mr Bush is the most bizarre of the collection. For months now, it has been acknowledged that America is booming but this has been dismissed as a “jobless recovery”. The US economy is today creating employment even faster than the American military is generating damaging photographs, yet this is apparently to be a “voteless recovery”.
This is utterly senseless. There have been elections when a robust economy has not been enough to allow the party of the serving president to triumph. Richard Nixon in 1960 and Mr Gore in 2000 could not make benign times operate to their advantage. They were, though, both vice-presidents aspiring to become the chief executive. Vice-presidents are rarely given credit for any political success, although they are often deemed guilty by association for policy failures. But there has never been an election when a president is on the ballot at the time of a boom and has been beaten. There is no reason to believe that this trend is about to come to a sudden end.
The current public relations debacle over Iraq is undoubtedly serious. It will not, nevertheless, determine the course of the 2004 election. That contest will not, I assert, be close, nor will it mirror a 50:50 nation, nor will the condition of the economy be anything less than highly significant. Mr Bush will certainly be shot at over the next six months. He will not be the political equivalent of General Sedgwick.
Has this guy been asleep the last six months?
On the other claw, the majority of those who could be bothered to drag their lazy carcasses to the polls in November of 2000 voted to elect a communist to the presidency.
Sheesh, talk about burying the lead. I hope he's right.
Bush 53
Kerry 43
Other 4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.