As long as U.S. troops swelter in the Saudi desert, the Political landscape at home is staying covered with permafrost. Democrats are in a state of suspended animation: they can’t decide whether the ‘92 Presidential nomination is worth fighting for until they know the outcome of the gulf crisis. Conservative Republicans are also frozen in place. Angry at the president’s reversal of his no-new-taxes pledge, they are talking about mounting a challenge to George Bush in ‘92. But the credibility of their revolt will rest in large measure on how the president does in a potential war. “If he’s George of Arabia as a result of a smashing victory in the gulf, he’ll be a lot stronger in the Republican Party,” says Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus.
There is no percentage in openly challenging Bush right now. With more than 300,000 Americans risking their lives in Saudi Arabia, no politician wants to risk being called unpatriotic. Bush’s prospects will be easier to read by spring, and Democrats with name recognition can wait even until summer to announce their candidacy. The two-year slogs that characterized recent campaigns are obsolete. Money–lots of it–has taken the place of grassroots organization. Instead of hanging around Iowa, would-be challengers are quietly test-marketing themselves with contributors. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton recently auditioned at a Potomac dinner party hosted by Democratic benefactor Esther Coopersmith. Majority Leader Richard Gephardt has conferred with Democratic National Committee fund raiser Robert Farmer. “There is no way to win the White House on the cheap,” says a Democratic strategist. The cost, just to sit at the table for the presidential primaries in ‘92: $10 million. If California moves up its primary, the high cost of media in the megastate could double the price tag.
How the gulf crisis plays out will determine how well the leading Democrats play. A protracted stalemate might undercut New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, who lacks foreign-policy experience, but could boost Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, the Democrat most credible as commander in chief. Or Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey could gain favor as an anti-politician. Kerrey has a growing reputation for what is tactfully called spontaneity. “He’s given to statements like, ‘I never thought of that before,’ that a disciplined politician would rather die than say,” says a Democratic consultant. “Voters may find that refreshing, but insiders find it flaky.” A decorated Vietnam veteran, Kerrey could challenge Bush whatever the outcome in the gulf, while other politicians who have spoken out against the engagement could be vulnerable. If war is successful but with high casualties, Kerrey may be the only Democrat who can ask: what price victory?
Republican discontent with Bush is largely over economic issues. To give voice to conservative unhappiness about taxes, former Delaware governor Pete du Pont last week announced the Committee for Republican Leadership, dedicated to preserving the antitax plank of the GOP platform. He denies the committee is a smokescreen to challenge Bush. But du Pont, columnist Patrick Buchanan and retiring Colorado Sen. William Armstrong top the list of possible rivals. None seems to have the stature to topple Bush. Former Ronald Reagan political adviser Lyn Nofziger recently told dissident conservatives that if they thought they could beat Bush they were “out of their minds”–reminding them that Reagan could not unseat a weakened Gerald Ford in ‘76.
But conservatives don’t need to win; they often run to make a point. One “nightmare scenario” for Bush would feature former senator Gordon Humphrey as a favorite son in New Hampshire, siphoning off votes and embarrassing Bush in the state that launched him in ‘88. Alienated conservatives might simply stay home and not bother to vote. “There aren’t enough country-club Republicans to man the polling booths,” snipes Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council. Former Louisiana Klansman David Duke, expected to be on the GOP ticket in several Southern primaries, could erode Bush’s base while tainting the party with racism. Though Bush is virtually certain to win the nomination, he could be damaged goods. True-blue conservatives do not shrink from that outcome: they believe a catastrophic defeat of moderate Republicanism could lay the groundwork for the birth of true conservatism. After the Reagan years, it is a little like waiting for the Second Coming.
The 1983 footage of students kissing American soil after their rescue from Grenada may have sealed Ronald Reagan’s reelection. There may not be a comparable visual in Kuwait, and whatever the war’s outcome, Americans may want to forget the Mideast and focus on problems at home. Some argue that a clean victory, by boosting confidence, might help lift the economy. However, “if the economy is bad, he’s still in trouble,” says Phillips. A gulf victory may quiet Bush’s would-be rivals, but will not, in the long run, silence them.
