Hillary Clinton and the perils of inevitability

To those who say that it is inevitable that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee, I have a two word rebuttal: Paul Martin. My American readers will respond, who? My Canadian readers will immediately know what I am talking about.

To understand my allusion one must look back 10 to 15 years in Canadian history. In the late 90’s, Paul Martin was Canada’s finance minister. He became a national hero for balancing the budget and was the most popular Liberal politician in Canada. His boss, the wily Jean Chretien hated him. In the early 2000’s, when it was clear that Jean Chretien’s time was coming to an end, the Canadian news media played up Paul Martin the way the US media played up Barack Obama in 2008.

To believe the press, Paul Martin was the colossus that bestrode the Canadian body politic. He is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, just the way we like our politicians. In a word, Paul Martin was inevitable.

Just one little problem with that analysis: when he took over the Liberal Party from Jean Chretien, he fizzled. Completely. He became the party leader (and therefore Prime Minister) in December 2003. In the June 2004, he led the Liberals for the first time into a Federal Election. He lost Chretien’s majority. He hung on for a year and a half with a minority, but in the Feb 2006 election, the new Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper defeated him. On election night, the now-former Prime Minister Paul Martin resigned, a broken man.

So what happened? How did he fall so far from so high? Why did the colossus of Canadian politics barely hold on to power for 2 years, while his predecessor, the hyper-ineloquent Jean Chretien, won three back-to-back majorities?

The answer, I think, is that Paul Martin didn’t stand for anything besides himself. He didn’t champion anything. Everybody supported him – the Liberal leadership race of 2003 was the closest thing to a coronation that Canada ever had – because he was inevitable. The problem with inevitability is that you are inevitable until you are not. And then, if you have nothing else to fall back on, you are nothing. For this reason, the inevitable candidate is vulnerable everywhere, all the time. One misstep, one stubbed toe, and you are ruined. Because, with the first mistake, you are no longer perfect.

This is, I think, Hillary’s problem. In a CNN/Opinion Research poll taken between March 13 and 15, Clinton has the support of 62% of Democrats; 47% higher than the next highest potential candidate. So far she is riding high. I think a lot of that is because people currently perceive her to be the inevitable nominee. Her problem is that the Clinton scandals of the 90’s are back, and with a vengeance. How long before Hillary is no longer perceived to be inevitable? When this happens, fresher candidates who stand for something substantial – Warren (progressivism), Webb (blue-collar populism), and O’Malley (middle-aged, wanna-be rockers) - can move up in the polls. Perhaps quickly. Right now, the polls just reflect name recognition - and perceived inevitability.

On second thought, instead of invoking a Canadian example to illustrate the perils of inevitability, I could have chosen something more recent from US history: Hillary Clinton’s own campaign for the 2008 Democratic nomination, where she played the role of the colossus that bestrode the Democratic Party – until she was humbled by a former Illinois State Senator and community organizer.

 

Comments

[monkey]

Interesting comparison, although I think the big thing that sunk Paul Martin and why Chretien did was performance vs. expectations. People never had high expectations of Chretien so it was easy to beat them. Heck I would argue the reason Harper has lasted as long as he had is people had extremely low expectations of him so it was hard to meet or beat them. By contrast people expected Paul Martin to be a big transformational leader to do all those great things and we he didn't his popularity plunged. Otherwise the expectations were unrealistically high that he was doomed to fail. One thing Chretien and Harper understood well is set people's expectations low if you want to stay in power for the long-run.

As for Hilary Clinton, I think she will win the nomination, but the challenge is more the general election. As long as the GOP doesn't go overboard in electing someone too extreme she could face a tough challenge. And never mind one of Barack Obama's keys to success was strong turnout amongst younger voters and minorities, both who heavily vote Democrat thus putting him over the top. Will Hilary Clinton be able to motivate them to show up in big numbers like Obama did?

[Autoguy]

Monkey, I'm going to agree and disagree. Yep, Hillary's issue will come in the election, probably not the primaries (barring more issues surfacing). I disagree in that I think the Republican's best bet is to go with a non-establishment candidate - meaning someone generally considered 'extreme' by the MSM. Jeb Bush will get crushed by Hillary, because he won't excite his base and they won't come out for him. Cruz/Jindal/Walker would excite the base and they will come out for any of those guys. Will they be attacked by the MSM? OF COURSE they will, but so will Jeb. Furthermore, as Cincinnatus has said many times, the 'Independents' respond to someone with principles, not someone wishy washy. Proof? EVERYBODY said that Reagan was 'unelectable' in the 70's. And the Independents LOVED him.
Love or hate him, Obama excited his base and stood for something, so he got some independents too. Wishy washy middle of the road won't get it done. The MSM will strongly support Bush because they know he will lose.

[WiseGuy]

Monkey- What is your definition of "extreme"?