VietNamNet Bridge - There have been 56 presidential elections in America since 1789.  In 30 of those, the sitting president—the incumbent–was a candidate for re-election.  In 10 of those, the incumbent lost.

Predicting a Mitt Romney foreign policy



Recent history further suggests the perils of incumbency.  Harry Truman, who could have sought re-election in 1952, faced nearly certain defeat and chose not to run. Lyndon Johnson abandoned pursuit of re-election in 1968 as support for the war in Vietnam declined. When Gerald Ford tried to retain the White House in 1976, he was defeated by Jimmy Carter.  Four years later, Carter lost his own re-election bid to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan’s Vice President, George H.W. Bush, won the presidency in 1988, but lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.  In that race, Bush received only 37% of the popular vote, a stunning repudiation of his presidency.

These lessons of history must weigh heavily on Barack Obama and his advisers as he seeks a second term in the White House.  Invariably, the incumbent’s personality and public image, and his record of failure and accomplishment in office, become the central focus in any election in which a sitting president is a candidate.  So it will be in 2012.  Above all else, this election is a referendum on the presidency of Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney, the likely Republican candidate, will trumpet his own record as a successful business executive, savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and governor of Massachusetts.  But that sound will pale next to his attacks and those of his supporters on the Obama record.  

Obama, they will say, has mismanaged the economy and run up the biggest budget deficits in American history.  They will characterize his health care plan—his signature legislative accomplishment–as “socialized medicine” or a “government takeover” of health care.  They will describe his foreign policy as weak and unguided, and characterize him—as Romney often has—as an “apologist” for America.

This is familiar stuff.  The candidate of the opposition party always attacks the record of the incumbent.  With no similar record of his own the challenger is safe from counter-attacks, and the incumbent is on the defensive.

But incumbency is not simply a liability.  In fact, it offers the president many advantages.  One is the experience issue.  Every incumbent labels his opponent inexperienced, unprepared for the tough job of being president.  In this election, Mitt Romney talks the talk about a tougher foreign policy.  But Obama claims that he has walked the walk and reminds Americans of the elimination of Osama Bin Laden.

American law requires that those on the government payroll not participate in political campaigns.  But the line between government and politics is exceedingly fine, and that prohibition is largely unenforceable.  The president leads an executive branch with millions of employees.  His staff in the White House is composed of hundreds of dedicated loyalists, all of whom will lose their jobs if he is defeated.  Securing the incumbent’s re-election becomes their highest priority, and they do whatever they can to pull the levers of government in his favor.

The president himself has three very powerful advantages in any election contest.  One of those is Air Force One, the Boeing 747 that is his personal aircraft.  The president can fly anywhere in the United States or the world any time at government expense.  Opponents will complain, as they always do, that he is using taxpayer funds for campaign purposes, but there is no way to make those charges stick.  Presidents have to do their jobs and often that is the best form of campaigning.

A second incumbent advantage is news media attention.  In the American celebrity system, the president holds the highest rank.  Whatever the president does is news: a speech, a press conference, a trip, a proclamation, a state dinner.  While the challenger struggles to get attention for his campaign appearances, the president faces no such challenge.  Thousands of reporters have White House press credentials.  Dozens follow him wherever he goes.  

The celebrity factor helps in a third way as well: fund raising.  Any president, whether popular or not, is a potent money magnate.  American presidential campaigns are frightfully expensive.  All of the money now comes from private sources.  The outcome is often shaped by how much money a candidate can raise and how effectively it is spent.  People want to see and hear the president and they want to be seen with the president.  They will donate to his campaign to accomplish that.  

We’ll look more closely at the financing of American campaigns in a future column.  But when the money race is on, the safest bet is always on the incumbent.

G. Calvin Mackenzie