It is no secret every candidate for political office would welcome the opportunity to choose their opponent in an upcoming election.  And some have certainly tried.  On occasion, as in the case of Richard Nixon, they succeed.  His “dirty tricks” campaign in 1972, which included not only the Watergate break-in but also the forged “Canuck letter” which ended Senator Edmund Muskie’s run for the Democratic nomination,  is the perfect example.  But what was the motive?  As explained by “Deep Throat,” later revealed as deputy director of the FBI Mark Felt, the Nixon team wanted to run against George McGovern.  And they made sure they would.

So, in 2020, when journalists and commentators keep comparing the current campaign to 1968, the Trump campaign playbook more closely resembles Nixon’s 1972 strategy.  First, Nixon’s and Trump’s situation going into election season is the same.  At the time, they are both the incumbent seeking re-election.  Second, the method of picking the target for their mischief is identical. Look at the early polls.  Identify the most formidable challenger.  Muskie in 1972; Joe Biden in 2020.  Create an embarrassing situation.  A fraudulent letter to the Manchester Guardian accusing Muskie of using the ethnic slur “Canuck” in reference to Americans of French-Canadian descent in 1972;  the Ukraine conspiracy theory in 2020. Force the candidate to withdraw, which Muskie did in an emotional speech during the run-up to the New Hampshire primary.

Why didn’t Biden suffer a similar fate?  The result of a number of factors.  First, the Nixon experience put us on notice.  It’s easier to conduct a dirty tricks campaign when it is a novel undertaking.  Second, even if the message (Ukraine 2016 campaign interference) was valid, which it was not, the choice of messenger was laughable.  If the Trump campaign was not so steeped in courting aggrieved white voters, you could call this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Third, the Biden campaign did not get distracted by the attacks.  They stayed on message while surrogates, including the newly empowered Democratic-run House of Representatives, exposed the scheme for what it was, abuse of power.  Fourth and perhaps most importantly, the Trump team could easily be the next candidate for a revival of the 1979 SNL skit, “Dangerous But Inept.”  A product of then SNL staff writer Rob Reiner, the segment opens with Jane Curtain as a talk show host.

Hi, I’m Jane Curtain and welcome to another edition of ‘Dangerous But Inept.”  Our guest this week is Squeaky Fromme, infamous for her alleged attempt on the President’s life [Gerald Ford], and her connection with the Manson family.  Welcome, Squeaky.

You may ask, if 1972 tactics no longer work, is it still possible for a presidential candidate to influence the outcome of the other party’s nomination process?  The answer is a definite YES, but it depends on the incumbent’s ability to assess the electoral landscape years in advance.  Consider the following two examples.  The first is what one might sarcastically label “the Mormon switcheroo.”  Immediately following John McCain’s loss to Barack Obama in 2008, speculation turned to which Republican had the best chance to make Obama a one-term president.  At the top of the list was the very popular Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who had just won re-election with 77.63 percent of the vote.  During an interview on WTOP television in Washington, D.C. in March 2009, McCain himself specially mentioned Huntsman’s having the best chance of unseating the newly installed incumbent.

Therefore, in May 2009, Obama nominated Huntsman to be Ambassador to China, a move that would have made Michael Corleone proud.  “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.”  Less than a year into his time on the Obama team, Huntsman supporters formed a PAC to set the stage for a presidential run.  Huntsman resigned his post in Beijing in April 2011 and opened his campaign headquarters in May 2011.  But the damage had been done.  GOP leaders considered his time in support of the Obama foreign policy agenda as being disloyal to the party.  After finishing third in the New Hampshire primary, Huntsman suspended his campaign and Obama’s eventual opponent was the other Mormon Mitt Romney.  If you did not know better, you can imagine George Costanza was a silent partner in this enterprise.

In contrast, newly elected Donald Trump had a similar opportunity.  As luck would have it, Trump’s 2016 opponent was the only person whose unfavorable rating equaled his own.  Hillary Clinton’s path to the nomination became more likely when then vice-president Biden announced he would not run for president in the aftermath of his son Beau’s recent death due to brain cancer.  He instead opted to lead a joint effort by the Obama White House and the American Cancer Association with a goal of finding a cure for cancer by the end of the decade.  Reminiscent of JFK’s University of Houston speech launching the Apollo project, it became known as The Cancer Moonshot.  His last official achievement of note was working for bi-partisan passage of the 21st Century Cures Act in December 2016 which included $1.8 billion in funding over seven years to support the initiative.

In the tradition of Mark Twain who once said, “I never failed to see an opportunity until it ceased to be one,” the Trump transition team could not recognize the chance to take Biden out of the presidential picture for all time.  Imagine if the president-elect had invited Biden to Trump Tower, lauded him for putting his son’s memory and his family first and then offered him the chance to stay on as chair of the Cancer Moonshot task force.  The phrase, “You’ve been Huntsmanned,” would have had a new poster boy.

Trump is not alone in his inability to see beyond the next transaction.  I have often pondered whether historians will make the connection between Hillary Clinton’s decision to run for Senator in New York and how that choice set the stage for Obama successful challenge of her “inevitable” hold on the 2008 Democratic nomination.  Clinton probably had three political career choices following her tenure as first lady.  Return to Arkansas and continue to build on the base she and Bill had established before relocating to Washington.  Take up residence in her home state of Illinois.  Or follow Bill to New York where he established the headquarters for the Clinton Global Initiative.

Imagine, just imagine, if Hillary had pressed Bill to make Chicago the home of their foundation.  In 2004, when Republican U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would not run for a second term, Clinton would have been the odds-on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination to become the next junior senator from the Land of Lincoln.  Barack Obama would not have been a rising star who needed to be showcased at the 2004 Democratic National Convention as the keynote speaker.  Instead of being tagged as an opportunist or carpetbagger in New York, Clinton would have been welcomed back to the state of her birth as the returning hero after years of public service in Little Rock and Washington, D.C.  And she could have pressed then Governor Rod Blagojevich to appoint a dynamic African American state senator with a funny name to take her place.

Call it the political version of the “butterfly effect.”  The ripple effect of a decision or action, no matter how insignificant or wise it may seem at the time, can influence outcomes years in the future, including one’s own fate.  Ironically, failure to see that far into the future is what happens when tomorrow is your only time horizon and you “can’t stop thinking about” it.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
Dr. ESP