 |
Mark Shields is a nationally known columnist and commentator. |
Myth-breaking in the making of the president
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- For the past 15 years, Robert D. Novak -- who has been writing a nationally syndicated political column for 40 years -- and I have been together on CNN's "Capital Gang" show.
We disagree sincerely and strenuously about who should pay more, or less, taxes, and whether the federal government can ever be an instrument for social justice and economic progress.
He regularly charges me with being a disciple of Marx (Karl, not Groucho), and I have more than once accused him of backing tax cuts to close the dangerous gap between the Super-Rich and the Filthy Rich.
In addition to being a respected political reporter, Bob Novak is my friend and colleague. But in a recent column about Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, he was guilty of perpetuating a seriously phony political myth.
Novak wrote of the importance of the 2004 South Carolina presidential primary to Gephardt, "where his friend and colleague -- Rep. James Clyburn, the state's only black congressman -- controls 20 percent to 25 percent of the primary vote."
True, Jim Clyburn, since long before his 1992 election to Congress, has been a major player in his home state's Democratic politics. His endorsement would be prized by any Democrat running for the White House. But nobody in 2003 "controls" or "delivers" votes to any presidential candidate.
Think about your own experiences. As your friendly next-door neighbor, I remind you that Sally Good, our state representative, is running for state senator and that when our ninth-grade class visited the state capitol, she showed them all around; that because of Sally's tireless efforts, we now have a traffic light outside the school playground. Because you don't have competing sources of information about the race, you are influenced by me and vote for Sally for senator.
Now suppose it's the fall of 2000 and I, still your good neighbor, lean over the fence and tell you that: a) Democrat Al Gore is the most easygoing, natural and comfortable of presidential nominees or that b) George W. Bush is an experienced, knowledgeable public leader who has thought long and hard about the future of NATO.
In either case, you kiss me off. As a beneficiary (or victim) of information overload, you have repeatedly seen, heard and read about both candidates. You disagree completely with my assessments of Gore and Bush. And you are completely capable of making up your own mind, thank you.
In the last nine presidential nominations that I have been privileged to watch, the only testimonial that I think made a real difference in a presidential candidate's winning the nomination was the endorsement in 1976 of white, one-term governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, by the enormously respected leader of the civil rights struggle, the Reverend and U.S. Representative Andrew Young, D-Georgia. Andy Young's support of Jimmy Carter was truly indispensable in "freezing" the party's liberal linebackers.
Candidate endorsements might be the most over-covered of campaign stories. Have you ever heard anyone you know explain his or her vote for president of the United States by saying he was undecided until the lieutenant governor or the county recorder tipped the scales by endorsing the incumbent? Of course not. In fact, probably the only endorsements that deserve press coverage would be the endorsement by the husband of one candidate of his spouse's opponent.
Quite simply, in this country, we generally no longer deliver groceries. We no longer deliver milk. And nobody --even including Jim Clyburn -- "controls" or "delivers" votes for president.
