Political Cannibalism

This Politico article has a basic premise that I've been espousing since the "Tea Party" became a "movement" during the last election cycle: that the Republican base was unwittingly setting itself up for that rare form of political cannibalism which will enable it's "movement" to be remembered historically for all the wrong reasons. Basically, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (a "moderate" only when compared to the next person) and current Minnesota Congress Woman Michele "the crazies are coming" Bachmann (a "fascist" only when compared with 99.9% of other elected officials in this country) are both playing nice about the race being big enough for both of them, even though they will be competing for A) the same donor dollars, B) the same votes in states like Iowa and South Carolina, and C) the same votes in a potentially splintered, multi-candidate general election.

Wait, what? Multi-candidate general election. Of course there are always more than two candidates (and, yes, I know that even two candidates is multi-candidate, but it's not even six AM yet, stick with me), but this year could be wackier than normal. And, strangely enough, Bachmann might be the key to that wackiness. First, a history lesson. The year was 1901, and the United States was in the prime of one of our most beloved traditions: killing our leaders. The most recent victim was a fairly popular Commander in Chief: William McKinley. But out of that tragedy came one of our great triumphs: Teddy Roosevelt, who, at 43, became our youngest president, and also our most likely president to ride into the battle field, atop a horse, no matter what else was going on (well ... at least since George Washington ... or Andrew Jackson ... Jackson was a bad ass). Roosevelt finished out that term, then won reelection, then decided he'd had enough and essentially bequeathed the presidency to William Howard Taft, also known as the only President to be so fat that he got stuck in a bathtub.

Taft, by all accounts, was a serviceable politician, and he would later gain distinction as the only person to ever serve as President of the United States and on the Supreme Court of the United States. But he ultimately let Roosevelt down, which led to a contested nomination in the year 1912 for the Republican party (note to Democrats: this is one reason you don't want to fight Obama; also see Carter, Jimmy). Roosevelt came swooping back in to save the day, only the Republican base (largely consisting of back room, cigar smoking men in top hats if my mind's eye serves correct) didn't want to be saved. Roosevelt was too progressive, and too much his own man. Taft was easily controllable, especially when stuck in a bath tub. Taft was their man, and he won the nomination.

But Roosevelt never went down without a fight. He instead started his own party, the Progressive party, the Bull-Moose Party (please note: if I ever run for political office I will do my best to do it under the Bull-Moose Party), and he ran for President too. This was a more common concept in 1912 than it is today, but it is also the only time in the last century that a third party candidate factored into the general election (apologies to Ralph Nader).*

*at this point I should also apologize to the "fourth candidate" of 1912, Eugene Debs, who ran as the Socialist candidate. Not socialist like "Obama's a socialist." A real socialist. Contrary to our Republican conspiracy theorists, they do exist, and back then we did let them run for POTUS.

So the stage was set. The incumbent, William Taft. The previous incumbent, Mr. Popular, and all around American, Teddy Roosevelt. The boring intellectual Democrat (an Al Gore before his time, if you will), Woodrow Wilson (who, to this day, is our only President to have his PhD). What a fight! The Republicans hadn't lost to the Democrats in quite some time (I don't know if you've heard of this thing called The Civil War, but in most places it needs to be called The American Civil War. It happened in the first half of the 1860s, and the North had a Republican President, and the North, aka "the Union," won. Henceforth, a run of Republican Presidents that makes Karl Rove froth at the mouth).

The results looked a little something like this:

- Taft: 23.2% of the vote, 8 electoral votes
- Teddy Roosevelt: 27.4% of the vote, 88 electoral votes
- Woodrow Wilson: 41.8% of the vote, 435 electoral votes

Look at that Electoral College vote total! Woodrow Wilson annihilated the competition! Now look at the percentage of the vote. If Taft had run unopposed, or, more likely, if Taft had bowed out for Roosevelt, they would have had 50.6% of the vote. And would have taken a lot more states. And, you know, would have won. The Republican party split into two factions: a progressive faction and a conservative faction. The result was one of the greatest electoral whoopings of all time. Political Cannibalism.

I'd like to think that nobody in this country, even "Tea Party" people, are dumb enough politically to allow this to happen again. But this discussion serves a purpose, brought back to our initial discussion of Bachmann and Pawlenty. The party is as split as it has been since that 1912 election. In the aftermath, the "Bull-Moose" party faded into the annuls of history; the Republican brand outlived it. I've got news for all the "Tea Party" people out there: a Bull-Moose like level is the best that you can hope for. I've been saying since you started climbing out from underneath rocks that this was the best you could hope for: being one paragraph in a history text sixty years from now for my grandchildren to read. But the key is not just to have a movement; anybody can do that. The key is to have a candidate who has the hubris to push the envelope against all odds, and against all logic. Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents, but he either: A) refused to consider that his candidacy would indirectly support Wilson, B) considered this, but didn't care, or C) knew this, and determined that Wilson met closer with his ideals than Taft. He's not here, so I don't know which it is, but I do know this:

1. The "Republican Base" is about 45% of all people who vote
2. The "Tea Party" could pull 10% of that vote if they had a candidate crazy enough to stir them up
3. If that happens, it makes it impossible, and no longer just unlikely, for a Republican to win this year.

Bachmann has been put in the drivers seat in Iowa with Huckabee leaving the race. If she wins Iowa she gets credence in the race. If she does that she gets more money donated. If that happens she sticks around longer, and gets even closer to pulling the trigger on her own run, regardless of the party nomination. If the nomination is someone like Pawlenty I don't see this being viable, but if the party nominates the "Massachusetts liberal" Romney? I could very easily see a backlash from "Tea Party" people who think they are doing what's right for their country. And from what I've seen, heard and read, most of those people are dumb enough not to realize that their support of Bachmann/Palin as the "Tea Party" candidate is actually every bit as potent as voting for Obama.

So, in short, all Democrat boosters should work hard to build up Bachmann's candidacy. Not that Obama will need it, but it's always good to have insurance. It is, after all, the 100 year anniversary of Teddy Roosevelt throwing an election to the Democrats. I'm sure he'd be proud to have Michele Bachmann pick up his mantle.