The RACE FOR THE PRESIDENCY:

AVOIDING THE BANANA PEEL

February 4, 2008  

American presidential elections are hard-fought partisan political struggles for the leadership of the most powerful, most prosperous country in the world. Campaigns spend hundreds of millions of dollars to extol the virtues and qualifications of their candidates and sway voters to support them and their policies for peace, prosperity, and the future. Occasionally, however, the outcomes of these elections are decided not so much on the issues but by how voters react to candidates' misstatements or missteps.

One such election was the 1976 contest between Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, an election that has some interesting similarities with the current race for the presidency.  I remember it well because on November 3, 1976, I was a US Army Major studying Chinese at the American Embassy School of Chinese Language and Area Studies in Taichung, Taiwan. I spent the day and most of the evening, at the invitation of the United States Information Agency (USIS) office in Taichung, explaining the Carter-Ford US presidential election to various groups of curious Taiwan students--in Chinese.

Keeping it simple, I still had a lot of Chinese to learn, I told them that there were two central issues in that election. The first was whether Americans would elect Jimmy Carter, a relatively unknown Southern governor running as a reformer, as the first person elected directly from the Deep South since 1848. The second was whether Republicans would continue to hold power in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the resignation of a Republican president.

Taichung was 13 hours ahead of Washington, DC, and the results of the election weren’t known until the morning after the election in the US--round 1030 in the evening of November 3 in Taiwan. When one group of students who hung on till the end asked me how Carter defeated an incumbent president, I simply responded that he got more votes, avoiding a more complex explanation at the end of a challenging 14-hour day.

What I didn’t attempt to explain to them is that after the Democratic National Convention, Carter held a huge 33-point lead over Ford in the polls. But by Election Day, the race was too close to call. Most pundits attribute the change to Carter’s promise to pardon Vietnam War draft dodgers, his interview in Playboy Magazine where he admitted having “lusted in his heart,” and his perceived loss to Ford in the September 24, 1976, presidential debate.

Many historians and political scientists believe if it wasn’t for what happened next Ford might have won the election. Ford’s ultimate loss to Carter occurred after Ford’s costly blunder in the October 6 debate when Ford asserted, “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford Administration.” He added that he did not “believe that the Poles considered themselves dominated by the Soviet Union.” Ford compounded his error by refusing to retract his statement for almost a week after the debate. Conservatives, who were not enthused with Ford’s candidacy, were particularly appalled.

What similarities are there between 1976 and 2008, and what insight does the 1976 election give us into the current presidential contest, if any?  

It’s a stretch to compare Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. The election of either of the latter would be a historic event of much greater significance than electing the first white male from the Deep South since 1848.

It’s not a stretch to compare the fortunes of the Republican Party and Gerald Ford to their contemporary counterparts. Ford was an incumbent president, but he only became president because Nixon appointed him vice president, and he became president when Nixon resigned his office. Nineteen-seventy-six was his first contest for the presidency before the voters. Like John McCain, the current front runner for the Republican nomination, Ford was not perceived as a strict conservative by the right wing of his own party. And although Ford was a widely respected former member of Congress, he was the candidate of a party barring the brunt of disapproval of the previous Republican president.

And like 1976, despite the weighty issues that divide Americans, the 2008 election could well be decided by candidates' misstatements or missteps--or those of the candidate's spouse. As Hillary Clinton’s poorer-than-expected performance in South Carolina demonstrates, it just takes one, or in that case two, banana peels to lose momentum in an election.

In 2008 Democrats believe the stars are aligned in their favor.  They’re counting on President Bush’s low popularity numbers, American’s dissatisfaction with the War in Iraq, a downturn in the economy, and disarray among Republicans to deliver them victory.

Republicans believe that Hillary Clinton is too polarizing, Barack Obama too inexperienced, and the threat of radical Islamic terrorists too great for the nation to elect a Democrat.

But this election, like 1976, won’t necessarily be decided on those issues. What the candidates say and do between now and Election Day may tip the balance for or against them. This election, like all great battles will be decided by the best candidate with the best strategy, the most proficient political machine, and the most luck.

In 2008, as in 1976, the choices are straight forward. You would expect that the American people will make imtheir choice on the basis of their assessment of the candidates and the issues. But because the primaries have occurred earlier this election season than ever before, the candidates have more opportunities than ever to screw up.

If I found myself explaining the 2008 election to groups of foreign students today, what would I tell them? I'd tell them that in 2008 the central questions are whether Americans will elect the first African American or the first woman woman as President of the United States, and whether Republicans will continue to hold power in the wake of an unpopular war and an unpopular president. But this time, I also would tell them that the winner may be decided by the candidate that avoided the banana peel.