Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 4, 1991 TAG: 9104040523
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
A bad joke making the rounds features Saddam Hussein, asking the mirror on the wall: "Who is the worst leader of them all?" Saddam is relieved to find he isn't the one, then asks, "Who the heck is Doug Wilder?"
A very bad joke, and wrong. When it comes to the main business of a good governor. His basic theme that seven fat years must be followed by belt-tightening rather than further raids on the taxpayer's wallet is absolutely right for the times.
The kindest comment on Wilder's ambitions came from a source that would never endorse him, the editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. " . . . [I]t is exciting to think," the editors said in a rhapsodic moment, "that a Virginia message of limited government might once again be a part of a presidential race . . . . "
The unkindest cut came from the normally bland pen of The Washington Post's David Broder: "`[Wilder] may well be more unpopular with the leading politicians of his own state party than was Jimmy Carter in Georgia - and that's saying a lot."
After listing some of Wilder's negative baggage - and that of the other prospective candidate, former Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts - Broder said, "Candidates like these, one is tempted to say, even the Democrats don't deserve."
The plain truth, however, is that insofar as we can see now, Wilder has burned his bridges in Virginia and has no other political future than as a national candidate. It is either that or reap the salutary rewards of a comfortable semi-retirement on the boards of major corporations and as a perennial messenger of social uplift. His place in history secure, he will always be in demand for something pleasant, remunerative or honorific. That a vigorous man of 60, who has thrived in the arena of politics for a quarter- century, would not take kindly to such a fate just yet is entirely understandable. It is certainly improbable that Wilder will be nominated and elected. Of the more than 500 people seriously entertained for the presidency since the founding of the republic, only 41 have found themselves actually serving as chief magistrate, and more than a few were accidents or plainly unsuitable.
Consider the Democratic field of 1988: Dukakis, Jackson, Gore, Gephardt, Simon, Babbitt and McGovern. Go ahead, throw in those prominent non-candidates so often urged to run: Cuomo, Bradley and Nunn. Which of these is more deserving of consideration than Doug Wilder?
The parallel with Carter always lurks in the background: a Southern governor with no national experience who came to a sad end. But is that worse than a Northern governor with no national experience?
The idea that service in the U.S. Congress automatically qualifies one to run the federal government and deal competently with foreign-policy questions has been mocked too often to be taken seriously. The largest organization that most congresspersons have ever run is their own personal staff. And what passes for expertise in legislative bodies generally consists of a quick staff briefing, a glance at the latest polls and a rapid calculation of political self-interest.
From the standpoint of professional qualifications, Wilder is as qualified to be president as any person likely to be availble to his party, and more qualified than most. Whatever bad you may say of him, and there is much that could be said, he has had the courage at least to distance himself from the more bogus ideas undergirding his party, beginning with the notion that we can tax ourselves into utopia, or prosper by victimizing the successful.
The advantage he brings to the contest is that so long as Jesse Jackson stays out, Wilder must be treated with due deference as the repository and embodiment of black political aspirations. No Democrat of standing can contemplate without fear and trembling any action serving to alienate his party's most bankable asset, which is what the black electoral monolith represents.
But a prominent black political scientist at Wilder's old school, Howard University, put his finger on the weak point in the governor's national candidacy: "His only domestic agenda seems to be cutting budgets. How can you run as a social liberal without a strong domestic program and attract Democrats across the board?" How indeed, especially if the Rev. Jackson joins the fray, singing the tune of the disaffected and the despairing.
The grave risk in Wilder's gamble is that he may end by looking bad, which might even render him politically impotent in his own state. It won't take much to prompt Democrats in the General Assembly to lunge gleefully for his throat.
Wilder is right about one thing, however. The 1992 election is still written on the wind. While Bush may be the first president since 1945 to preside over an unqualified success of American arms, it is by no means impossible that deficits of a magnitude never before imagined may provoke some kind of financial or political panic before the nominating conventions convene, 16 months from now. But that would more likely provide an opening for a Democrat preaching the old-time religion of tax-and-spend than one, like Wilder, preaching the virtues of fiscal cold showers.
That Virginians have such mixed feelings about their governor's itch is a good indication that it isn't such a good idea. Wilder's national fame might be a slight plus for the state, but repudiations seldom enhance resumes. The idea advanced by some that he can effectively govern the state while campaigning for president is nonsense.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB