Billionaire coffee magnate Howard Schultz has two problems: Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.
Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, said on CBS’ “60 Minutes” Jan. 27 he’s seriously considering running for president as a centrist independent in 2020. So am I, for that matter. With about, oh, 400 Democrats lining up to run, what’s one more?
But Schultz, unlike most of us, has billions of dollars — entire galaxies of dollars because: coffee. He also has already hired two big guns of previous presidential campaigns — Bill Burton and Steve Schmidt, of Barack Obama and John McCain fame, respectively.
While the media (including this columnist) display a Pavlovian response to the scent of fresh meat, Democrats have been shrieking like cartoon girls when a rat scampers past. Recently, when Schultz was talking at a Manhattan Barnes & Noble to promote his new book, a man in the audience shouted, “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical billionaire!” Whereupon the thought did briefly flicker: Could Schultz and Trump be in cahoots? No.
The man did have a point, however — one shared by countless Democrats. Their fear a third-party or independent candidate would merely siphon votes from their nominee is not without precedent. In 1992, when Perot led a PowerPoint rebellion running as an independent, he may have helped Bill Clinton defeat incumbent George H.W. Bush. Perot captured almost 19 percent of the popular vote (albeit no electoral votes).
Even though exit polling indicated Perot voters were evenly split on their second choice, it’s still conceivable enough would have stuck with the familiar rather than gamble on an Arkansas governor whose slightly curled lip and hip-dipping swagger suggested he hadn’t yet fully shed his inner-Elvis (or his ain’t-nuthin’-but-a-hound-dog ways).
Who knows? But isn’t it lovely to ponder what might not have been: Monica Lewinsky. The 750-word columnist is grateful when a single name suffices to summarize an era.
An alternative history would have excluded so many familiar names, tropes and at least one Tripp that it’s hard to imagine life without: the two-fer presidency, Whitewater, Ken Starr, Bosnia, sniper fire, wag the dog, “Primary Colors” by Anonymous (Joe Klein), the blue dress and, yes, Linda Tripp.
Would the world have been better off? At least I could have avoided this conversation about oral sex with my then 8-year-old child: Why, yes, sweetie you may ask me anything. What?! Oh! That, huh? Ummm. Well, it’s when people talk about sex a
You have free articles remaining.
Later, when Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000, he may well have ensured the presidency of George W. Bush. In Florida, where the election ultimately was decided, Nader earned nearly 100,000 votes, a sufficient portion of which almost certainly would have otherwise gone to Al Gore. Bush won by just 537 votes.
To the extent newly elected presidents tend to represent the antithesis of the incumbent, the younger Bush was plainly Clinton’s opposite. And, needless to say, Obama was Bush’s. Then came Donald Trump, who emerged from central casting as the opposite not only of Obama but of all things decent, fair and true.
Who, pray, will be the non-Trump?
By all rights, it should be a woman of color to counter Trump’s grab-’em-by-the-[whatever] misogyny and his dog-whistling to Jim Crow. California Sen. Kamala Harris would be the obvious choice given those criteria. But as telegenic, experienced and charismatic as she is, Harris’ pro-debt-free-college and Medicare-for-all positions would be hard sells in a general election.
Enter Schultz. He’s richer than Trump; as white as Trump; a man. You see the problem. But he does have antidotal qualities. He’s polite, smart, self-made, articulate, calm, rational — and a centrist like millions of voters. Given that the two major political parties have been rendered ridiculous by their bases — and 56 percent of Americans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Trump, according to a Washington Post poll released Tuesday — why not a third way? Besides, there’s no guarantee he’d attract only Democratic votes.
Schultz hasn’t declared his candidacy yet, but it would be a mistake to drive him away on the precedents of Perot and Nader, who, let’s face it, never had a chance and, thus, indeed, were spoilers. Schultz is also no Michael Bloomberg, the other billionaire independent who has flirted with the presidency. Consider: As New York City mayor, Bloomberg wanted to control soda consumption; Schultz, though no longer CEO of Starbucks, wanted to feed the world high-calorie scones and venti salted caramel mocha lattes — with two pumps of vanilla.
It wouldn’t be the worst thing.