I recently finished reading 41: A Portrait of My Father by George W. Bush. It was plainly written and full of folksy, anecdotal stories and impressions that reveal the very human side of America’s 41st President.
There are many insights offered by the book, but I found one time frame particularly interesting. The run-up to the 1992 election and the behind-the-scenes observations about where it all went wrong for George H. W. Bush’s second term were very insightful.
This October, Stephen Harper will be running for his second majority term, and in a lot of ways he is taking the same steps that Bush took in ‘91/’92. Below are 4 things that Harper can learn from George H. W. Bush’s failed election bid.
#1. Split the vote.
...when asked about Perot in a documentary that aired in 2012, Dad said, “I think he cost me to election and I don’t like him.”
In 1992, quirky and outspoken third party candidate, Ross Perot, ran for office as an independent candidate. There are usually fringe candidates running in every election, but what made Ross Perot different came in the form of billions of dollars of his own making. He used massive amounts of his own cash to tap into disgruntled grassroots conservative voters. His policies focused on balanced budgets, opposition to free-trade and an isolationist foreign policy. He attracted the same type of Ron Paul voters and Tea Party activists that we see today.
There are many Democrats that like to think Bill Clinton was a slam-dunk for the ‘92 victory and in 41, George W. Bush makes an assessment that places the “generational change” Bill Clinton represented as the main factor. However, the type of economic populism, trade protection, and isolationist nationalism that Perot stood for resonates with people who lean more heavily to the right side of the political spectrum. It’s impossible to determine exactly how the election would have played out had Perot not run, but many people believe that Perot simply split the vote and allowed Bill Clinton an accidental win.
George W. Bush recounts how the same experience happened during his campaign in 2000, only in reverse. Ralph Nader formally aligned with the Green Party and as a result he significantly boosted his share of the vote in 2000 election. The result of the 2000 election boiled down to a handful of ballots in Florida and Bush won the election. (Yes...he won...it was not “stolen” despite left-wing conspiracy theories to the contrary.)
What does this mean for Harper?
Canada’s three party system favours the Conservative Party, so long as the Conservative Party maintains the base. Don’t allow any contenders to rise from the right of the political spectrum. If any movement or activity begins...race toward it. Embrace and absorb it and the party will remain strong. This may alienate some moderate voters, but in a three party system the aim is for 35% of the popular vote...not 51%. Turn out the base and maintain as big a tent as is possible, but only to a point. Continue to exploit divisions on the left and force the Liberals to fracture as they try to squeeze down the mushy middle. Inspiring no one, by appealing everyone is a recipe for failure.
more
Harper Could Learn From Bush 41 | Poletical.com
There are many insights offered by the book, but I found one time frame particularly interesting. The run-up to the 1992 election and the behind-the-scenes observations about where it all went wrong for George H. W. Bush’s second term were very insightful.
This October, Stephen Harper will be running for his second majority term, and in a lot of ways he is taking the same steps that Bush took in ‘91/’92. Below are 4 things that Harper can learn from George H. W. Bush’s failed election bid.
#1. Split the vote.
...when asked about Perot in a documentary that aired in 2012, Dad said, “I think he cost me to election and I don’t like him.”
In 1992, quirky and outspoken third party candidate, Ross Perot, ran for office as an independent candidate. There are usually fringe candidates running in every election, but what made Ross Perot different came in the form of billions of dollars of his own making. He used massive amounts of his own cash to tap into disgruntled grassroots conservative voters. His policies focused on balanced budgets, opposition to free-trade and an isolationist foreign policy. He attracted the same type of Ron Paul voters and Tea Party activists that we see today.
There are many Democrats that like to think Bill Clinton was a slam-dunk for the ‘92 victory and in 41, George W. Bush makes an assessment that places the “generational change” Bill Clinton represented as the main factor. However, the type of economic populism, trade protection, and isolationist nationalism that Perot stood for resonates with people who lean more heavily to the right side of the political spectrum. It’s impossible to determine exactly how the election would have played out had Perot not run, but many people believe that Perot simply split the vote and allowed Bill Clinton an accidental win.
George W. Bush recounts how the same experience happened during his campaign in 2000, only in reverse. Ralph Nader formally aligned with the Green Party and as a result he significantly boosted his share of the vote in 2000 election. The result of the 2000 election boiled down to a handful of ballots in Florida and Bush won the election. (Yes...he won...it was not “stolen” despite left-wing conspiracy theories to the contrary.)
What does this mean for Harper?
Canada’s three party system favours the Conservative Party, so long as the Conservative Party maintains the base. Don’t allow any contenders to rise from the right of the political spectrum. If any movement or activity begins...race toward it. Embrace and absorb it and the party will remain strong. This may alienate some moderate voters, but in a three party system the aim is for 35% of the popular vote...not 51%. Turn out the base and maintain as big a tent as is possible, but only to a point. Continue to exploit divisions on the left and force the Liberals to fracture as they try to squeeze down the mushy middle. Inspiring no one, by appealing everyone is a recipe for failure.
more
Harper Could Learn From Bush 41 | Poletical.com