There is only one Republican candidate with real star power who could instantly transform the political landscape and turn the nation red.
If you think it is too early yet to be discussing the 2008 presidential election, consider this: Hillary Clinton has been running for six years.
And don’t be misled. She is running, but only because the impeachment of Bill Clinton made his own candidacy problematic. (He would beat her soundly, but that is a family affair best left untouched.)
Other Democrats are not to be totally dismissed — John Kerry, John Edwards, even Al Gore, but Hillary has more money, more name recognition, and the Bill factor going for (and against) her. It will be interesting to see how it shapes up.
On the Republican side, obvious frontrunners include Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and even Newt Gingrich, though Newt’s untidy personal life makes him a problematic choice. Condoleezza Rice has been mentioned, too, but she has no political experience and until recently had never demonstrated public leadership of the kind that is qualifying. She is a policy wonk, and one with a mixed track record.
No, the truth is that there is only one Republican candidate with real star power who could instantly transform the political landscape and turn the nation red. And that is Colin Powell.
I know the litany of concerns and this should not be read as an endorsement as much as an exploration. Some to the right of center will argue he is not a true conservative. And they might be right. Many on the right thought Ike soft on communism and not doctrinaire enough in his attitude toward small government, but he turned out to be a pretty good leader (see Jeffrey Hart’s take on Ike in The Making of American Conservatism), and but for Nixon’s sweating problem his political weight might well have ensured 16 years of uninterrupted Republican rule at the White House (possibly even longer).
Others will contend that Powell discredited himself by supporting a war in Iraq that he didn’t really believe in. Perhaps. But ultimately Powell’s known skepticism about that war – you break it, you own it – positions him as a mature, seasoned expert on foreign policy. He was no more misled by the intelligence than Bill Clinton, NATO and most of the Democratic Senate, and like many of us had to weigh the dangers of doing nothing against the potential risk of invasion.
There are other issues that deserve full explanation, including the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the slaughter by Saddam of thousands of Shiites. Why didn’t the United States military provide air cover as Saddam dispatched his killing squads. Was Powell part of that decision? I will be checking my sources to find out.
But let us consider what Powell has going for him.
First, he has more star power than any other candidate on either side of the aisle and it is rooted in a serious, sustained stint of public service leading our nation’s military and then our state department. That is a strong selling point given our geopolitical circumstances. Powell will command instant respect, the same way Eisenhower did.
Second, he is a tough target for Democrats. He is a minority, but one who is immensely qualified, articulate, and polished. The Democrats would take him in a heartbeat if he had chosen to move in their direction. His loyalty to the military made such an option impossible.
Finally, he is emotionally mature. I can’t see Powell ever being flustered by the media at a press conference, or embroiled in a personal scandal. Other nations respect him, and that will go a long way toward helping him re-engineer our global strategy on terrorism and other tough problems.
I know the likes of Rush and Newt will question his willingness to do what is necessary. But given the situation in the Middle East today, it could be argued that Powell’s pragmatic and skeptical approach toward the use of military power looks a lot wiser than the neoconservative inclination to shoot first and ask questions later.
In fact, there are no easy answers in that part of world. Powell has demonstrated toughness but it is not an obsession. He would do what is necessary, but also take the care to ensure it will work. After all, a man who beats his head against a brick wall is plenty tough – but we might feel better if he had the common sense to use a gate when there is one available.
In any case, sometimes in this world you have to take a little less to get more. Do we want Hillary guiding our foreign policy? I sure don’t.
Many Americans would sleep a lot better with Powell in the White House, whether he is the perfect conservative or not. Ultimately, commander-in-chief is the key responsibility of the president. And Powell may well be the best man for that job, at this time, under these circumstances.
I respect Mr. Powell but I do not believe he is a conservative. Under that pretense, I do not believe he is best to lead this country. This would be the attitude of every conservative in the country. The same attitude would take place amoungst democratics. I can hear the evening news state how much they respect Colin Powell but then go forward with a littany of why he should not lead the free world. If conseravtives have learned one thing in the election of ’06, it should be it takes conservatives to energize the republican base. We must stop propping up these “moderates”, and ” mavericks”, as representatives of conservatism. Hillary is the beacon of liberalism, let us put our best conservative front and center and have a true decision of which direction this country needs to take. If the Bush family has taught me anything, it is to not support a man simply based on an (R) moniker next to a name. The path of least resistance candidate is not good enough. Promote and elect conservatives, and be proud to do so.
Shadroui makes all the sense in the world. I respect former Secretary Powell very much. I feel he a decent man and think he might make a fine leader.
What may be a concern is that, if I remember correctly, he claimed many years ago that he’d never run for high office. I presumed at the time, whether rightly or wrongly, that he didn’t want to have his family put through the muck of a national election, and his wife has in the past suffered from some emotional problems.
All of the “Monday morning quarterbacking” of the 2006 elections amuses me. When will hard-core conservatives and extreme left-wing liberals learn that it is neither Republicans nor Democrats that determine the outcome of elections? It is the independent swing voters! Republicans vote for Republicans and Democrats vote for Democrats (pretty much), leaving the swing voters to make the difference. And that’s how democracy works. Most of those mainstream voters just don’t care about conservatism or liberalism. Least among their concerns is whether a candidate subscribes to or disdains evangelical style Christianity. And at the top of their priority list is NOT whether someone says “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays.” I think the voters care about honesty, integrity, intelligence, and strong leadership.
I really feel there is a lot of good in the American people, and lot of desire for good things. Thus, democracy is still one of the finest things we have going for us.
Thanks, Mr. Shadroui, for a great article and for giving me something new to think about.
“When will hard-core conservatives and extreme left-wing liberals learn that it is neither Republicans nor Democrats that determine the outcome of elections? It is the independent swing voters!”
Actually, pandering to a small demographic that A) by and large is completely uniformed and B) is unconcerned with politics and does not vote would be a stupid move for either party. “Swing” voters are uninformed people who get their information from campaign commercials and don’t often vote. They largely compose the 55 percent of America that doesn’t vote in the Presidential elections and the 80ish percent that doesn’t vote in House and Senate elections. Political parties court the adherents of their particular political philosophy and hope that they can convince enough “swing” voters that they are right. If staunch conservatives and liberals didn’t decide elections, you would find a completely politically neutral party capable of pulling in this massive number of “swing” voters, and it would be the only party there is.
“I think the voters care about honesty, integrity, intelligence, and strong leadership.”
That’s great. But guess what? By that standard they could easily elect Vladimir Lenin. When you remove ideology from politics and make it into a contest of emotionally loaded catch-phrases, then we end up electing Kennedys and Clintons. All fluff and no stuff. As incomprehensible as this may seem to you, some people vote for candidates based on more than a “gut feeling” and who has the nicer hairdo. It’s an increasingly small number, I’ll give you that, but they are still very much involved in deciding political contests.
As far as Colin Powell for president… just no. Colin Powell is yet another wussified RINO with no backbone. Think George Bush Sr., speaking of all fluff and no stuff. He’s no better or worse than any of the rest of the GOP’s presidential lineup, just another liberal-lite “compassionate conservative”, or whatever it is we’re calling them now. And best of all, he could bring a refreshing race-based chip on the shoulder to the office. Given the choice between Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell, I’d write in a vote for Jacques Chirac, and there would be no difference among the three. Tell me what exactly Colin Powell or John McCain would do differently than Hillary Clinton? We’re talking about the difference between Communism and Socialism here: same ends, slightly different means, but in the end, what’s the difference how you got there? Or for any of you non-ideological “swing” voters out there: it’s like comparing Fuji and Macintosh apples. The same fruit from a different tree.