The Boston Globe | Sunday, January 29, 2012

The presidential losers' club This November, someone will lose the race for the White House. What happens next is up to him. - By Leon Neyfakh | 2113 words

As hard as it is to imagine right now, the 2012 presidential election will one day end. When it does, we will finally have a winner — and a loser. One candidate will call the other to offer congratulations; then he will stand before his supporters and publicly concede victory. As confetti falls on the newly elected leader of the free world, his former opponent will go home and begin thinking about what to do next. Inevitably, whether for incumbent Barack Obama or his challenger, that moment of defeat will be an excruciating one. But whoever ends up having to endure it will be able to take comfort in the fact that he is joining a long tradition — a club, you might say — of hyper-ambitious individuals who share the rare experience of having been thwarted in their pursuit of the most powerful office in the land. And while it may seem like a dubious fraternity, a look back at presidential also-rans in American history reveals just how important and influential its members can end up being. Not all failed candidates have lived down their losses gracefully, and some have found themselves stripped of whatever power they held before they tried to become president. But a surprising number have pushed past the humiliation of defeat, and laid claim to a level of prominence they might never have attained if they hadn't run. And in some cases, they've changed the course of political history in ways even they couldn't have predicted. There have been several in-depth studies of loserdom in presidential politics, including Leslie Southwick's encyclopedic tome, ``Presidential Also-Rans and Running Mates, 1788-1996,” and a 14-part documentary series called ``The Contenders” that aired on C-SPAN last year. Their overall thrust is that losing candidates have been given short shrift by historians, and that their impact on American politics has not been properly acknowledged. Most recently, in a book published last month entitled ``Almost President: The Men Who Lost the Race But Changed the Nation,” Scott Farris explored some of the varied fates of major party nominees who lost in the general election. Out of their legacies emerges a kind of taxonomy of failure. There are those who were leveled by defeat and forced to fade away, those who went on to achieve great things even without the clout of the presidency, and those whose campaigns turned out to have been politically and intellectually transformative, even though they weren't successful in the short term. Today, it seems like elections produce more well-known losing candidates than ever, thanks to primary seasons that have come to encompass months of reality-TV- style debates, and a media climate that has given the participants unprecedented exposure.

In the current contest, no fewer than four Republican candidates — Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney — have been considered the front-runner at one time or another, and no matter what happens, they will emerge from the race as celebrities. Whether they win or lose, the nation will know far more about these people than we would have in previous years, and chances are we'll be forced to pay attention to some of them for a long time. What will become of this small army of losers, launched into a unique role in American life — and what will they come to mean to us? For answers, we have only to look back at an American shadow history: not at the presidents who won the privilege of leading the country, but at the line of disappointed people who almost did. Whatever happens to a losing candidate's career in the weeks, months, and years after an election, the first order of business is always the same: accepting and reacting to defeat. As it happens, the first person ever to lose a presidential election in American history, Thomas Jefferson, played it cool when he was defeated by John Adams in 1796: According to Farris, he told a friend that he hadn't really wanted to win the presidency anyway, because he was sure ``no man will ever bring out of that office the reputation which carried him into it.” Jefferson's stoicism notwithstanding, we know that losing stings, and losing a contest that could have made you the most powerful person in the world no doubt stings uniquely hard. called his loss to Richard Nixon in 1968 ``the worst moment of [his] life,” and confessed he felt ``so empty [he] could cry.” George McGovern, when he suffered the same fate four years later, joked ``There are some things that are worse than losing an election. It's hard to think what they are on Election Day.” ``It's a crushing disappointment to lose a political race,” said Farris. He speaks from experience, having been inspired to write his book after unsuccessfully running for Congress in 1998. ``Especially when you're running for president, it's a culmination of a career. You know you have millions of people behind you and you know you've let them down. And you know it's the mark you'll leave on history.”

The wound doesn't heal easily: In 1984, when a recently defeated Walter Mondale asked McGovern when the pain might start to subside, McGovern reportedly replied, ``I'll let you know when I get there.” Along the same lines, the presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, who worked with C-SPAN on its documentary series, relayed a striking anecdote about Thomas Dewey, who followed his famous 1948 loss to Harry Truman with a prosperous career as the head of a New York law firm and a power broker in the Republican party. Despite the success he found after his defeat, it seems that Dewey carried the weight of the election until the end of his life. When the band hired to play at his law firm's office Christmas party marked the boss's arrival with a cheeky rendition of ``Hail to the Chief,” Dewey was so put off that he left the celebration and didn't come back. But if all also-rans are initially devastated by defeat, how they respond to that disappointment is where their paths diverge. Some never reclaim the standing they once had in politics and, as Farris puts it, ``exit stage left, quietly.” This is what happened to Bob Dole, who became a pitchman for Viagra and Pepsi after his 1996 loss to Bill Clinton, and to varying extents, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. (Dukakis gave up politics entirely not long after he was beaten by George Bush in 1988, and became a college professor.) ``When you are a potential presidential candidate, you have a lot of power,” said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Princeton University. ``People are worried, naturally, that you will be the president, so they will listen to you, and they'll do things for you.” When that possibility is extinguished, ``you lose that political capital.” Perhaps even more importantly, presidential campaigns can be extremely destructive to a person's reputation. ``The only saving grace is if you win and you're president,” said Zelizer. ``But if you're not, you just come out of it battered and bruised, and everyone knows all your flaws and all your weaknesses.”

Still, some failed candidates succeed at finding a second wind. As Al Gore put it at the end of his concession speech in 2000, ``No matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.” Though the key word there is ``might,” some failed candidates, including Gore, have indeed retained great influence, and realized major achievements, after their loss. Dewey, for instance, was a driving force behind the nominations of Dwight Eisenhower and Nixon, and remained an elder statesman within the Republican party until his death in 1971. , who lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940, went on to write the best-selling book ``One World,” which is said to have helped pave the way for the United Nations. Some failed candidates found their second acts outside of politics: James Middleton Cox, for instance, followed his 1920 loss to Warren Harding with a successful career as a newspaper publisher, while John W. Davis, who lost to Calvin Coolidge in 1924, became one of the most prominent lawyers in the country, arguing no fewer than 140 cases before the Supreme Court. Such comebacks used to be easier to pull off than they are now. But they can still happen in our day, as evidenced by Gore, who transformed from a bearded sad sack into a Nobel Prize- winning environmentalist after the 2000 election, and even Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, whose standing on Capitol Hill — where he chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — has only improved since his loss in 2004. According to Farris, Gore and Kerry — and to a lesser extent, John McCain — are examples of a new breed of presidential also-ran. ``They're trying to establish and maintain their relevance even as losers,” Farris said. ``They're trying to redefine the role of the losing candidate.” Then there is a third category of presidential losers: those who do not necessarily go on to achieve glory themselves, but whose campaigns end up leaving a transformative political or intellectual legacy long after their headquarters go dark. , who was defeated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, is the stand-out example of such a candidate: Though he was positively trounced in the election, the platform he promoted on the trail ended up being the foundation for the next 40 years of conservative politics. On the other side of the aisle, McGovern catalyzed a transformation in the Democratic Party by reaching out to women, minorities, gays, and young people; though their support did not get McGovern elected in 1972, those groups would become a crucial part of the Democratic Party's base. Adlai Stevenson, meanwhile, who lost to Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, left his mark through his eloquent rhetorical style, which influenced John F. Kennedy as an orator. (It also gave rise to the idea — still alive and well today — that the Democratic party is made up of elitist intellectuals who can't identify with common people.) For these candidates, there may be some comfort in knowing that although they weren't able to become president, their efforts made a difference in the world, and perhaps even contributed to the advancement of society (or at least their party). And for a few, the march of subsequent events may even cast a kinder light on their loss, suggesting that perhaps they were just ahead of their time. As Richard Norton Smith put it, ``There are candidates who look back and probably mouth the words `I told you so.' That's not to say that they spend their days, you know, pining away for what might have been. But there is that kind of satisfaction when history seems to suggest that you were on to something.” To date, studies of failed presidential contenders have been largely limited to candidates who competed in a general election as the nominee of a major political party. Expanding the circle to include individuals who didn't make it that far threatens to turn it into an overwhelming task, forcing us to consider a sea of wannabes and historical novelty candidates such as Harold Stassen, who ran for president 10 times between 1944 and 1988. But as the eventual GOP nominee emerges over these next weeks and months, it's hard to imagine that the other 2012 primary candidates we have come to know over the past year will just disappear.

More likely, some of them will at least attempt to hold onto the spotlight, perhaps by following the example of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who dropped out of the Republican primary in 2008 and quickly landed his own show on the Fox News Channel. Given such lucrative opportunities, being a failed candidate in 2012 is a very different proposition than it has been in previous years, and thanks to the extraordinary amount of media coverage there has been of the nomination process, there will be more famous also-rans than ever trying to leverage their time in the spotlight into a second — or in some cases, third or fourth — act. ``The fact is that candidates have become celebrities,” said Smith. ``The president is a celebrity in chief, and the next tier down are the would-be presidents.” It remains to be seen whether the losers who emerge from the current election end up using their platforms for real influence, or simply converting their 15 minutes of fame into speaking fees and media contracts. But to a large extent, it will be up to them to decide how lasting their impact will be. As Smith said, ``The very visibility that the media generates during a campaign gives a [candidate] something of an afterlife. And what he does with that determines how long his shelf life is.” Leon Neyfakh is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail [email protected].

The Boston Globe | Tuesday, January 31, 2012

UN pressured to act in Syria; Russia seeks talks Assad forces, rebels battle near capital The secretary of state said attacks on Syrians are raising fears that `instability will escalate and spill over.' By Kareem Fahim | 715 words BEIRUT - Syrian rebel fighters continued clashing with government forces in neighborhoods on the doorstep of Damascus yesterday in an escalation of the war there, while a new diplomatic effort by Russia to broker talks between the antagonists faltered and pressure for United Nations action intensified. Despite deployments by Syrian forces into the eastern suburbs of Damascus on Sunday, where soldiers, tanks, and armed vehicles were sent to crush pockets of armed rebellion, there was no clear sign that the heavily outgunned rebels had been vanquished. Amateur video posted on the Internet bolstered other credible reports of new fighting in Homs, the combustible central Syrian city that has been the venue of repeated battles between rebel fighters and forces loyal to President Bashar Assad. Syria's official news agency, SANA, said nothing about the Homs fighting but said a gas pipeline in the area was blown up by what it called an unidentified terrorist group. Activists reported more than 40 civilians killed across the country yesterday, but the figure could not be confirmed, the Associated Press reported. In a sign of the growing pressure on the UN Security Council to take action despite Russia's position, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the foreign ministers of both France and Britain were heading to New York to participate in the council's deliberations, which were scheduled for today. Clinton condemned the ``the escalation of the Syrian regime's violent and brutal attacks on its own people.'' She said that the Security Council must act ``so that a new period of democratic transition can begin.'' ``The Arab League is backing a resolution that calls on the international community to support its ongoing efforts, because the status quo is not acceptable,'' she said. ``The longer the Assad regime continues its attacks on the Syrian people and stands in the way of a peaceful transition, the greater the concern that instability will escalate and spill over throughout the region.'' A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic efforts, said the United States and other council members would force a veto if the Russians and Chinese resist.

``They can't continue to defend an unsustainable status quo,'' the official said. The draft resolution demands that Assad halt the crackdown and implement an Arab peace plan that calls for him to hand over power to his vice president and allow creation of a unity government to pave the way for elections. If Assad fails to comply within 15 days, the council would consider ``further measures,'' a reference to a possible move to impose economic or other sanctions. David Cameron, Britain's prime minister, called the situation in Syria appalling and appealed yesterday to Russia to back the resolution. ``It is time for all the members of UN Security Council to live up to their responsibilities instead of shielding those who have blood on their hands,'' he said. Moscow, which in October vetoed the first council attempt to condemn Syria's crackdown, has shown little sign of budging in its opposition. It warns that the new measure could open the door to eventual military intervention, the way an Arab-backed UN resolution led to NATO airstrikes in Libya. The escalation in Syria, where Assad has vowed to end a 10-month-old uprising that he has characterized as the work of foreign-backed terrorists, came within a few miles of the capital on Sunday. That was just a day after Arab League observers said they were suspending their work in the country because of the intractable fighting and threats to their safety. The fighting has grown more intense as an anti-Assad group known as the Free Syrian Army, composed partly of army defectors, has attacked and violently resisted loyalist forces. The United Nations, which has said more than 5,400 people have been killed in the uprising, said last week it could no longer reliably document the death toll. Russia, Assad's most important ally among his dwindling list of international supporters, said yesterday that it had persuaded his government to participate in informal mediation talks to be hosted by the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow. The ministry, which made the announcement, said it had not received an answer from the opposition. The Syrian National Council, a large Syrian opposition group, was reported by Agence France-Presse to have rejected the offer outright unless Assad stepped down first, a condition that both Assad and Russia have said is unacceptable.

The Boston Globe | Sunday, February 05, 2012

Lobbyists have clout in Romney's campaign circle By Michael Levenson | 1084 words Mitt Romney, who has criticized Newt Gingrich for peddling influence in Washington, relies on his own array of politically connected lobbyists to help him raise money and advise his campaign on political strategy and policy. Romney raised $1.6 million from 14 lobbyists who gathered checks from their friends and associates in the last half of 2011. These ``bundlers'' include lobbyists for Goldman Sachs, Barclays, and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris. Romney's political and policy advisers include lobbyists for Sallie Mae, the student lender; Alcoa, the aluminum producer; and Walmart. And on Thursday, Romney is hosting a series of ``policy roundtable meetings'' at the Marriott in Washington, where lobbyists, industry players, and others who raise at least $10,000 for his campaign can join his advisers for discussions on education, energy, health care, defense, and infrastructure. The Romney campaign declined to comment. But the involvement of lobbyists in his operation illustrates how corporate and Washington interests are rallying around the former Massachusetts governor, betting that he may be president next year. ``It's not lobbying; it's potentially much more influential than lobbying,'' said Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor and former solicitor general in the Reagan administration. ``If your man makes it, then you've hit the jackpot.'' Fried, who recently cochaired a bipartisan panel for the American Bar Association that recommended toughening lobbying rules, said the dangers of lobbyists raising money for and advising candidates are clear. ``If you've got someone who gives you barrels full of money, you find their positions become more persuasive,'' he said. ``That's human nature, and it's more than just human nature. The incentives are obvious: If you begin to reject their position, that turns off the spigot.'' Most presidential candidates, nevertheless, turn to lobbyists to help them navigate Washington, round up endorsements, formulate policy, and tap their vast networks of donors. ``None of this is mysterious, surprising, new, or unique to Romney,'' Fried said. Thomas M. Susman, director of government affairs at the American Bar Association, said lobbyists, because they are by nature political animals, enjoy participating in presidential campaigns, in the same way sports fans would jump at the chance to play for their favorite teams. Susman has experience in the many sides of lobbying, some of it controversial. A decade ago, when Gingrich signed his $1.6 million consulting contract with Freddie Mac, he hired Susman to help him navigate the lobbying laws and ensure that the former speaker would not have to register as a lobbyist. Now, as a Bar Association official, Susman said, he worries about the influence of lobbyists in elections. ``You don't need to argue that it has a corrupting influence to condemn it as undermining public confidence in the system and giving rise to the inevitable reciprocal favors that [politicians] will give in office,'' he said. Lobbyists take great offense at the suggestion that their work can undermine the political process. Martin B. Gold, a prominent lobbyist and former Republican Senate aide, said he believes the vast majority of lobbyists are honest people offering honest advice. Candidates, he said, need to screen out bad actors. ``The stakes are higher, but it's no different in principle than knowing your customer, or knowing who you trust in a business relationship,'' said Gold, who supported Jon Huntsman for president but is now unaligned. Gold, who said he knows people working on the Romney campaign, said: ``I'm certain they're sensitive to these considerations, because if you aren't, you will get that odd case that shows up that taints you, and you've got to avoid that.'' Five years after the Jack Abramoff scandal riveted Washington, exposing how one powerful lobbyist sought to influence members of Congress with campaign donations and lavish trips, the political world is again in the midst of a debate about lobbying.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address last month, proposed banning lobbyists who bundle campaign contributions for Congress from lobbying Congress. Obama has also refused to accept donations from lobbyists and corporate political action committees, although he takes donations from employees of lobbying firms - people like Gingrich who exert influence as consultants or strategists but do not meet the technical definition of a lobbyist. At least 15 bundlers active in that side of the lobbying industry have raised more than $5 million for Obama's campaign, according to the New York Times. Romney has hammered Gingrich for his work for Freddie Mac, arguing that the former speaker was effectively lobbying for the government-backed mortgage giant, which many Republicans blame for the collapse of the housing market. ``It is not right,'' Romney told Gingrich in the Jan. 23 debate in Tampa. ``You have a conflict. You are being paid by companies at the same time you're encouraging people to pass legislation which is in their favor.'' By contrast, Romney said, that as the head of Bain Capital, an equity investment firm, ``I didn't have an office on K Street. I wasn't a lobbyist.'' In the 2008 primary, Romney took a similarly hard line, criticizing his rival John McCain for relying on the advice of lobbyists such as Charlie Black and Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman. ``I don't have lobbyists at my elbows that are arguing for one industry or another industry,'' he said that year. ``And I do not have favors that I have to repay to people who have been in Washington for years.'' Now, Weber and Black are advising Romney. Weber, whose clients include Alcoa and Sallie Mae, is Romney's special adviser on foreign and economic policy. Black, whose clients include Walmart and General Dynamics, helps with political strategy. Other lobbyists work on policy and fund-raising. An invitation to Romney's policy round-table on Thursday lists Patrick J. Durkin, a lobbyist and managing director of Barclay's Capital who bundled $606,950 for Romney in the last half of last year, as the financial services ``industry chair.'' William D. Hansen, a former federal education official who has lobbied for the Motion Picture Association of America, is listed as the education chair. And the health care discussion lists several industry figures as ``roundtable hosts,'' each of whom has agreed to raise at least $15,000 for Romney, according to one host. They include John Castellani, chief executive of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; and Marc-Anthony Signorino, who has lobbied for the National Manufacturers Association. Black defended the involvement of lobbyists in the Romney campaign, saying they are not doing it to generate business. ``All of a sudden, there's something wrong with it,'' he said. ``But I have yet to see, historically, how it has a bad influence on a president or a candidate.'' Levenson can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @mlevenson.

The Boston Globe | Saturday, February 11, 2012 (200)

OPINION Mass. moderate? Exceptional is more like it: The Bay State compares well in just about everything By Tom Keane | 710 words THE POLITICAL expletive in this season's Republican presidential race is ``Massachusetts moderate.'' The power of the accusation, presumably, is that the Bay State's brand of politics has left it so much worse off than true-red states that hew the conservative line. Or put conversely, conservative politics yield better outcomes. Except that they don't. By almost every important factual measure — economic, educational, and socioeconomic — Massachusetts is vastly better off than the nation's most right-wing states. The five most conservative states in the country are Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, Alabama, and South Dakota, according to a 2010 Gallup Survey. These are the exemplars that candidates such as Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum would have the nation emulate. One has to wonder why. For one, they're a lot poorer. The median family income in Massachusetts is just over $61,300 - fourth highest in the nation. The average for the conservative states is $46,400. (Even adjusted for our higher cost of living, the Bay State is still better off than any conservative state.) Of course, money isn't everything. Our kids are smarter, too. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, sometimes called the ``Nation's Report Card,'' compares fourth- and eighth-graders' performance in math and reading across the country. The difference between Massachusetts and the conservative states is staggering.

In 2011, 50 percent of our fourth graders were proficient in reading; the number was just 30 percent for the red states. Indeed, in every single category, Massachusetts ranked first in the nation, with roughly half or more of our kids proficient. In the conservative states, the comparable figures usually average less than one-third. That's why 38 percent of Massachusetts children complete college - also the best of any state. The average for the conservative states is just 24 percent. We're healthier as well. At 80.1 years, Massachusetts ranks sixth in the United States for life expectancy. The red states average 77.5 (Utah - due to its preponderance of clean-living Mormons - is the only conservative state to equal us). Why? Fewer of us are fat (22 percent versus the red states' 29 percent), we exercise regularly (37 percent versus 27 percent), and, with the exception of Utah (again, the Mormon thing), we smoke less. And despite our higher level of urbanization, we're safer. Massachusetts residents suffer 2.7 murders for every 100,000 residents; the average for residents in conservative states is 4.2. Our property crime rate is 2,329 per 100,000; the conservative states average 2,992. Moreover, it's not as if conservative values somehow breed better family values. Far from it. Massachusetts' divorce rate is only 2.2 per 1,000, the lowest in the nation. The conservative states average 4.1. Our teen pregnancy rate is just 49 for every 1,000 versus red states' 64. Massachusetts families seem to care more for their kids - 68 percent of Bay State parents read to their children every day; in the conservative states it's 46 percent. And more disturbingly: The child death rate in Massachusetts is 12 for every 100,000. It's double that in the conservative states. The teen death rate here is 44; it averages 84 in red states. The suicide rate in Massachusetts is 7.6 per 100,000, less than any other conservative state and essentially half their average of 15.1. Massachusetts doesn't necessarily beat the conservative states in every measure, but we're always in the mix. Despite the taunt of ``Taxachusetts,'' we rank 37th in the nation in tax burden relative to incomes. Some conservative states are better, but others - such as Utah, at 19th - are much worse. On certain measures, one or two conservative states might beat the Bay State - South Dakota's December unemployment rate of 3.3 percent was half our 6.8 percent. Even so, the conservative state average for that month was 6.7 percent, not meaningfully different from ours. Taking all of the above together is the reason why a number of ``meta-indexes'' - efforts to rank states on a wide variety of criteria - consistently favor Massachusetts. For instance, the Human Development Index ranks Massachusetts second. The conservative states average 36. Ideology notwithstanding, at some point results matter. The Bay State's families are stronger, healthier, safer, richer, and smarter than those of conservative states. Given that, why would anyone want to be other than moderate Massachusetts? Tom Keane writes regularly for the Globe.

You are not to read this whole piece. I just want you skim enough of it to figure out what “Table 1: Generational earnings elasticities for cross country comparisons” is supposed to demonstrate. The table is at the end of the article, but it is cited in the body of the article. http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf