Paul Tsongas has something to tell us
Despite my interest in politics (or perhaps because of it?), there haven’t been many presidential candidates over the years who’ve roused much enthusiasm in me. In fact, the single exception might have been Paul Tsongas, who ran for (and lost) the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992.
Tsongas might be considered a strange choice for enthusiasm. For one thing, he was exceptionally low-key, and famously lacked what’s usually thought of as political charisma. Who cares? I certainly didn’t.
Do you remember him? If you listen to this excerpt from a speech he made in 1993, you might recognize some themes that resonate even more strongly today [by the way, the George Bush he’s referring to at the beginning of the quote is George H.W. Bush]:
Here is Tsongas’s record; pay special attention to his stance on the economy. And here are some reminiscences after he died, by those who knew him:
JIM LEHRER: …Mike, how would you describe Paul Tsongas?
MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: Well, I would describe him, Jim, I think as a nice man, a smart man, and I think most of all in my mind someone who, it sounds corny, but someone who literally never forgot where he came from because he couldn’t, because he never left where he came from. I was struck today watching the President in his inaugural address, and I can recall when he ran, he was billed as the man from Hope, Arkansas. And I think he was in Hope, Arkansas, for, you know, maybe three months or so. Paul Tsongas lived on a hill in an old mill town in New England, Lowell, Massachusetts, a hill where the rich people in town always used to live. He made it up to the top of that hill in a beautiful home. And from that home you could look down on a clear day in the Meramac Valley in January and see where Paul Tsongas lived as a child. It was that close and yet that far away from his roots. His father was a dry cleaner. His mother died when he was quite young. And Paul Tsongas literally knew everyone on Main Street in Lowell till the day he died. And I think it’s an unusual sort of person who can achieve the United States Senate and run for the presidency of the United States and still maintain those roots and the strength of those roots as he did.
JIM LEHRER: Mike, a lot of people said that he was almost too good to be true. You just saw the interview he did with–
MIKE BARNICLE: Yeah.
JIM LEHRER: –with Judy, and you think, my goodness. I mean, politicians don’t talk that way. Was he really that way?
MIKE BARNICLE: You know, I think he was. He could be, you know, he could be kind of smug and arrogant at times. I don’t think there’s any question about that, especially with the media, but we deserve to be treated that way. But I think his cancer changed him a great deal. I think the fact that he combated it successfully gave him the opportunity to realize and to articulate publicly during the course of his presidential campaign that there was a tremendous market in this country for truth. And when he ran for the presidency, having faced death, he was certainly unafraid to tell the truth as he saw it. And I think to us that might make him seem unusual, but I think to the average person it would make him seem someone with just huge amounts of common sense.
The present-day politician who most reminds me of Tsongas is—of all people—Chris Christie. Physically, they couldn’t be more different; Tsongas was slight, a bit frail-looking, and Christie is a man of heft. Christie is also a much more aggressive in-your-face type of guy. But otherwise, they’re the only two politicians I can think of who project such a strong aura of straight-shooting no-BS talk.
In 1992 I was very disappointed that Tsongas faded after some early success and that Clinton won the primaries; I thought Clinton was far inferior, although I voted for him in the national election. Anyway, it turns out that, sadly enough, Tsongas would have died in office two days before the end of his first term—not from a cancer recurrence, as some have erroneously stated, but from a different disease that arose as a complication from his earlier aggressive cancer treatments. He was 55.
But if he were around today, he’s probably the only Democrat I’d consider voting for again—although I’m not so sure he’d be allowed in the Democratic Party any more.
“”although I’m not so sure he’d be allowed in the Democratic Party any more.””
Nahhhh. He would have been swept up in the progressive frenzy like 99% of democrat politicians. They’re all like frogs that didn’t notice the water boiling and cooking them into a marxist soup.
SteveH: no, he would not have. That’s my point. He was going against his own party at the time, and got a lot of flak for it. He was determined to call it like he saw it.
As you say, Tsongas wasn’t afraid to tell the painful truth, and he did so on the campaign trail. That may have hastened his defeat in the primary even more than Clinton’s charisma.
I think Paul Ryan may be the closest thing to Tsongas today, even though they would probably advocate different solutions to our economic maelstrom.
It always struck me as presumptuous that Tsongas claimed a lymphoma cure post ABMT, and somehow felt entitled to seek the Presidency. His 1st transplant was done in the very early days of autologous marrow transplantation, when post-transplant issues remained largely unknown.
A wiser man would have given thanks instead of over-reaching.
I (dare I say ‘We’?) do not know anything, really, about his functional status post ABMT, except there was no sign of recurrent lymphoma. Did he need periodic transfusions? Was his performance status truly 100%? Would he have physically been up to the job he sought? Assuming, of course, he would have observed his responsibilities as POTUS, unlike our present ever-vacationing Leftist.
And, yes, I liked him.
I was very enthusiastic about him as well, back in 1991 and 1992. I don’t know if I’d still be quite as enthusiastic today, though. If you were to re-read An Economic Call to Arms now, you might notice that he really bought into a lot of what the pre-AGW environmental movement preached and he advocated heavy gas and fuel taxes as a result. At least I’m pretty sure I remember reading that in there–because when conservatives complained about Clinton’s proposed BTU taxes, I thought it was puzzling since at the time, it seemed to me a sensible way of reducing energy consumption.
From his 1992 convention speech:
Even the Chinese Communists have figured that out, in contrast to many (most?) on the American Left.
I remember Tsongas and I supported him. I didn’t really like Clinton; I voted for him because in those days I would never have voted for a Republican, but I always thought there was something somewhat sleazy about him.
FenelonSpoke: you have succinctly described my point of view at the time.
Neo, I seem to remember that Paul Tsongas had an image problem because of his New England accent. The newspapers referred to him as sounding a little bit like “Elmer Fudd” from Warner Brothers Looney Tunes (“I’m hunting wabbits!”). Is my memor right on this one??
As long as we’re talking about the 1992 Presidential race … in the context of many people here wondering why Jewish support for Democrats is so persistent by the early ’90s I was already drifting right and starting to think about voting Republican. But two of the most prominent figures in the Republican party that year were Jim f*ck-the-Jews Baker and Pat gas-the-Jews Buchanan so that kept me voting Dem a while longer, maybe too long.
Jimbo: yes, you are correct.
Gary Rosen . . .
My impression too. It took me another 10 years to even consider the possiblity of voting Republican, thanks to Baker and Buchanan.
Mike Barnicle said
“And when he ran for the presidency, having faced death, he was certainly unafraid to tell the truth as he saw it.”
When it came to the truth about Tsongas himself, the key idea is “as he saw it”. I think his ambition plus the human wish to deny serious illness led him not to see the real possibility that he would not survive even one term as president. Even then it was well known not only that cure was very uncertain but also that the treatment itself could shorten his life greatly. I remember a lot of doubt by the general public, let alone by my fellow physicians, about the ability of Tsongas to survive a term in office
In 1992 I voted for Bush. However, as always, I hoped that the Democratic candidate would be their best–just in case my candidate loses. I preferred either Clinton or Tsongas to Brown; but for the reason stated above, I could not be very enthusiastic about Tsongas over Clinton.
As long as I can remember, with the exception of the last two years of the Clinton administration, the deficit and debt have been a big issue. Papa Bush went along with raising taxes to reduce the deficit. Then Clinton raised them some more. It wasn’t until after 1994 that spending was actually reined in by a Republican Congress and a “triangulating” Bill Clinton. In just two years the country went from deficits to surplus. (What lesson does that teach us today?) What many people don’t recall about the spending reductions was that a lion’s share came out of defense. It was heralded as the “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War.
W’s early deficits were the result of the dot-com bust and 9/11. He managed to get the “Bush tax cuts” in place to counter the resultant business slow down. However, the reduced revenues and a simultaneous increase in defense spending increased the deficit rather dramatically. All through W’s terms the dems called for less spending, but when they got control of Congress in 2007, they immediately spent more. It has gotten dramatically worse under Obama.
I never paid much attention to Tsongas because I liked the “straight talking” Ross Perot in 1992. Yes, I learned a lesson there. Will never waste my vote on a third party candidate again. Tsongas was talking fiscal sense but, IMO, could never have been the dems nominee. They are the party of fiscal irresponsibility. That was established by FDR and carried on in various ways by LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and now Obama. Truman and Kennedy were not as bad, but the dems in Congress have nearly always been of that persuasion.
The Tsongas quote by gs,
“You cannot redistribute wealth you never created. You can’t be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.”
Should be copied by the Repubs and repeated over and over because it is true.
I also liked Paul Tsongas. He was honest and articulate. I find that very personable.
Memories, memories.
Paul Tsongas was then, and would be now, the only Democrat I could respect — but still not vote for, simply because I will not vote for ^any^ party/organization that continually insults my integrity. (No, not Lieberman, not after his denying the validity of year-2000 presidential ballots from overseas military. I know it was at Gore’s behest, but sorry, Joe — you forfeited your integrity there.)
Anyway, 1992. I voted for H. Ross Perot. My reasoning then was simply this: that election was a choice between a liar, a dissembler, and a fraud (reader may choose which was which). My vote for Ross Perot was a primal scream. In retrospect, I wasn’t terribly far off!
“”He was going against his own party at the time, and got a lot of flak for it.””
Neo
What i see when looking back over democrats for 20 or 30 years is the progression from freedom toward tyranny. And for the most part i don’t see it as individuals in the party consciously choosing this change. All that was required was a demonization of the opposition on an emotional level to leave virtually every democrat nearly defenseless to the demand to be increasingly unlike and seperate from “the other”. IOW they literally got where they are by an emotional demand to be unlike their opponents in every way.
Maybe Tsongas would have gone the Zell Miller route and resisted the pull. We just won’t ever know. But we do know there were plenty of democrats who loved freedom and liberty at one time and now only hold the concept in contempt.
Gary Rosen: It took me a while to get past old habits too, but while Jim Baker and Pat Buchanan are not on my list of people I admire, I also recall that the Democratic Party gave seats of honor to the likes of Michael Moore and Al Shaprton.
For a number of reasons I’m not a nascent Republican, but leaving the Democrats behind turned out to be easier than I thought it would be.
Two things disturbing about Christie: 1.His strong belief in man-made global warming. To me that’s intellectual arrogance. 2. His laughing at the idea of a Palin presidency during an interview. That’s just snotty.
Otherwise I’m glad he’s governor of New Jersey. I don’t think he’s presidential.
Alex, you are definitely right about the Dems, I was noticing that tendency back in the ’80s. However another event in the ’92 election was the “Sister Souljah” incident. I hadn’t known what to make of this Clinton guy, then he was out there giving Jesse Jackson the finger publicly! You’d best believe I was pumping my fist, I fell for it hook line and sinker. Reagan had actually been making inroads for the Republicans with the Jewish vote (with no small help from Jackson) but the ’92 election set this back considerably. What is frustrating is that now Jews seem considerably less inclined to entertain Republicans than even in the ’80s despite BO’s hostility to Israel, at least if you believe the polls.
For all the nice speeches and appearance of running against his party, Paul Tsongas was a Mass politician. His words and record must be viewed in that context. Better than Clinton? Almost certainly. Someone who as president would have pushed his party more centrist? Probably not. He would have restrained some of their worst impulses, and we may not have seen the Republican 1994 tidal wave hit the house and Senate, but the roll toward progressivism would have continued if a bit slower. We well MIGHT have avoided the expansion of Fanny and Freddie that sowed the final seeds the housing bubble, but that too is hard to say.
I find the impact of Baker and Buchanan on various people’s decision to stay in the Democrat party interesting. Buchanan was never a force in the election nor was did he ever have a serious chance to gain the nomination. He was completely unqualified for the office, and that matters a great deal to Republicans, even more then than now. Most of his primary support in NH was a protest against Bush’s failure to hold to his no new tax pledge and various other hot button issues on the right. By exposing the deep dissatisfaction that the right had with Bush, Buchanan lead the way for Perot to enter the race, throwing it to Clinton.
Claiming Baker and Buchanan were the face of the repubs as an excuse for voting dem is lame. You can always pick a nutcase second-tier pol and pretend. Goes either way.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Kennedy, but I would have. Last time I thought of voting dem. Didn’t matter much, me having spent most of my adult life in GM/UAW country. But I wanted to make sure the dems who did get elected had one less vote to boast about.
I liked Scoop Jackson, if there were going to be democrats, which I suppose there must.
Tsongas spoke at my high school graduation in Concord, Massachusetts. I remember being, well, underwhelmed when I heard he got the nod for graduation speaker…then, on the day itself, I was satisfied to hear such good sense, good humor, and good advice from a good man. Kinda like a shorter, homelier Jimmy Stewart.
Speaking of iconic Yankees, Bette Davis was also from Lowell.