He could have been a contender
The idea that Howard Dean can help turn North Carolina blue in national elections is laughable. For that, Democrats needed to find a leader in the mold of Jim Hunt.
Actually, Hunt could have made a big impact in national politics if it weren't for that little stumble back in 1984 ...
You might remember the heavyweight brawl for a North Carolina senate seat 21 years ago. It matched two-term Democratic governor Hunt against two-term Republican senator Jesse Helms.
Helms won the $25 million slugfest, helped at least in part by the long coattails of popular president Ronald Reagan. How things could have been different for the Democratic Party if Hunt had prevailed.
Hunt would have entered the Senate in 1985 as a giant-killer, having knocked off conservative icon Helms. In a party looking for heroes after Walter Mondale's devastating defeat, Hunt automatically would have been considered a potential presidential candidate in 1988.
Would Hunt have run for president in his first senate term? That strategy wouldn't work for a later senator from North Carolina, John Edwards. But Hunt had what Edwards lacked: a successful record in politics with two terms as governor and one as lieutenant governor under his belt. Further, the 1988 presidential landscape would have tilted very much in his favor. After all, his main competition would have been Michael Dukakis, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson.
The first event on the nominating schedule, then as now, was the Iowa caucuses. Gephardt, from neighboring Missouri, won, but Hunt could have wiped him out there. After all, Gephardt really was a St. Louis city boy. Hunt claimed a background in agriculture, and his wife, Carolyn, came from Iowa. Hunt could talk the talk. He would have won the first prize on the campaign trail.
Next up was New Hampshire, where Massachusetts governor Dukakis had an edge - at least over Gephardt, Gore and Jackson. But what about Hunt, steaming in with his Iowa momentum? I think Hunt's moderate political philosophy might have appealed to New Hampshire Democrats. But he also could have touted North Carolina's emergence as a New South economic player, the development of high-tech industries at Research Triangle Park and the state's progressive university system to impress those Yankee voters. He would have upset Dukakis in New Hampshire.
Then the show moved South for Super Tuesday, where Gore and Jackson did well. But how would they have fared against Hunt? Are you kidding? It would have been no contest. For all practical purposes, Hunt would have had the nomination sewed up by early March.
Well, then, how would Hunt have done in November against George H.W. Bush, Reagan's vice president? A whole lot better than Dukakis did, you can be sure. Hunt was a lot better politician than was Dukakis, or the elder Bush. He certainly would not have been vulnerable on law-and-order issues (there was no Willie Horton in North Carolina), and he undoubtedly would have kept a lot of Southern states from turning red.
I contend you would have seen President James B. Hunt Jr. sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1989, and again four years later. Bill Clinton's election would have been pushed back four years to 1996. Maybe Clinton would have been elected again in 2000. The Gore vs. George W. Bush contest might have been postponed to 2004, and by then the South might still be painted with plenty of blue thanks to 16 straight years of Southern Democrat presidents.
And maybe Republicans would be so desperate for a leader to turn around their fortunes that they'd go for someone as far out as Dean - say, Newt Gingrich.
What a difference one senate race 21 years ago might have made. No wonder President Bush recognized the contributions of retired senator Jesse Helms in Raleigh last week. Without Helms, he might still be in Texas.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Well, as long as we're playing what-if, what if Bobby Kennedy hadn't been assassinated?
Posted on February 14, 2005 6:16 AM
What if President John Kennedy hadn't been assassinated?
Would we have gotten deeper into Vietnam earlier? Would Castro be just a fading memory, dead in the '60's along with his tyranny? Would brother Bobby have ever amounted to anything? Would Lyndon Johnson now be just a question on Trivial Pursuit? Would we have ever heard of the Clinton's?
Or would we have been plunged into nuclear war and "poofed" like a ball of wrapping paper in the Christmas morning fireplace?
The possibilities of "what if's" boggle the mind.
Posted on February 14, 2005 10:42 AM
I've always been puzzled by the "far out" reputation Dean has. I did not support him in the Democratic primary because I thought he was too conservative. If you look at his record as governor, he was very middle of the road on everything from taxes to gun control. At first he was the only serious contendor who was against the war in Iraq, which I think is how he got his reputation, but with a majority of Americans saying the war wasn't worth it, that is hardly an extreme position anymore. Dean did have the support of a lot of the very liberal groups, but that had more to do with his grassroots campaign strategy than his position on issues (other than the war).
Even though I didn't support Dean before, I think Dean is just what the Democrats need because he was so good at energizing the base. People say the key is to reach out to the moderates and move toward them, but I think that's absurd. Politics is about persuasion. The Republicans are so successful not because they moved to the middle (they certainly haven't done that) but because they convinced so many people in the middle that they were right. They did that by energizing their base who then worked hard getting their message out. I think Dean can do that for the Democrats.
Posted on February 14, 2005 12:03 PM
Andrew, I agree with you about Dean. He was not as extremist as Rush Limbaugh would have you believe. Taxes and gun control are good examples of how he was far from extremely liberal.
However, I do disagree with you about the Reps. moving towards the center. They certainly have done that. Bush spends like a "tax and spend liberal". New entitlement programs, prescription drug coverage, more federal education funding, more Natl. Endowment for the Arts funding-- the way Bush raves about what a great and important program Social Security is--the list goes on and on. There's hardly a nickel's worth of difference between the R's and D's anymore, especially on the national level.
Posted on February 15, 2005 12:02 PM
I definately have to disagree with you, Rusty. Sure Bush spends like crazy negating the fiscal responsibility which I feel like is historically the conservatives' main redeeming quality. But many of these entitlements are hardly moves to the left. For all his lip service to Social Security, the real goal of the administration is to get rid of it (the right-wing think tanks close to the administration openly admit this), and the prescription drug coverage is basically thinly veiled corporate welfare. And his bullying foreign policy and contempt for civil liberties is anything but moderate. The similarities that do exist between the two parties, which I admit are too many, are mainly because of the Democrats' following the Republicans to the right.
Posted on February 16, 2005 10:43 AM
Good points. Although I have to vehemently disagree about social security. I have seen nothing to make me believe Bush and co. want to get rid of it. Like most politicians, Bush never saw a government program he didn't like. I'll be extraordinarily shocked if he manages to get rid of it. I just don't see it happening. Government gets bigger, not smaller.
Posted on February 17, 2005 6:52 AM
Actually there is good evidence of this. I'll send you something I have at home. Also, they talk of how much trouble soc sec is in while (finally) admitting that their plan will not improve its finances certainly applies that they are not motivated to save it.
Posted on February 17, 2005 1:41 PM
Send me what info you have, however I'm incredibly skeptical about Bush eliminating ANY government entitlement program. I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted on February 18, 2005 10:57 AM