E-mail a friendJonathan Alter
airdate February 25, 2004
As Newsweek senior editor, Jonathan Alter helps shape the magazine's news coverage. In addition, he writes an acclaimed column that examines politics, media and social and global issues. He's also a correspondent for NBC News, where he appears regularly on various broadcasts. Alter has covered the last six presidential campaigns, and his book, The Defining Moment, looks at the crucial period of time when a new leader takes office. A native of Chicago, Alter holds a degree in history from Harvard.
Jonathan Alter
Tavis: Jonathan Alter is one of the more astute and respected journalists covering politics and much more for 'Newsweek' and NBC news. It's been anything but a slow news week, pardon the pun. I'm delighted to have Jonathan Alter out here on the west coast with me for a change. Jonathan, nice to see you.
Jonathan Alter: Nice to see you.
Tavis: I'm still reading your stuff every week and loving it.
Jonathan: Well, I'm having fun.
Tavis: Yeah. Let me start with, speaking of fun, politics has got to be a lot more fun over the last few days because the storylines just keep growing and developing. So let me start with the news of the day. What do you make of President Bush now engaging in what some call the cultural war? So, you know, a year ago we're talking about the economy, we're talking about the war in Iraq. those things now both on the back burner with gay marriage.
Jonathan: This is a classic wedge issue. You know, they try to drive a wedge into the Democratic party. Personally, I don't think it's gonna work, because I think even in so-called red states where maybe they could get some votes out of this, most people feel like there are more important concerns. This kind of issue, which is just done for political purposes, this constitutional amendment is not gonna pass. It's probably not even gonna pass the Congress, much less be approved by the states. It needs 2/3 of both the houses--
Tavis: Hey, last I checked, Republicans control the House and the Senate.
Jonathan: They control, but not with 2/3. So this thing's not gonna pass. This is just done for politics. If it had been in 2000 or 1996, before September 11th, before we started having problems with jobs being outsourced and deep structural problems in our economy, it might have worked. But I think at this point, it's actually gonna hurt Bush. It's just gonna look like he's pandering to his right wing.
Tavis: Let me challenge you on that respectfully, because I've--I've been concerned over the last few days, and I discussed this on my NPR show, about how it is that those who happen to be left of center, and I'm not talking about you now. I'm talking about the Democrats and those who are criticizing the Bush White House for using this as a wedge issue. You used that word a moment ago. Wedge issue. Why is it--Is it fair to say that they're using this as a wedge issue if, in fact, it is something they truly believe in? Why is that a wedge issue as opposed to a core value that these folk on the right actually believe in?
Jonathan: Well, first of all, this is--to my mind--this is not about whether one favors or doesn't favor gay marriage. You know, John Kerry and John Edwards are both against gay marriage. A lot of politicians are and 75% of the public. This is about whether we want to basically tamper with the Constitution of the United States. You know, the Constitution of the United States, historically, has been about expanding rights. This is the first time it would be about restricting rights. Does it really belong there, or should it be left up to state and local government? You know, traditionally, conservatives believed that the states should decide these kinds of things. Now, for political purposes, all of a sudden, well, let's do this in the constitution.
Tavis: Forget states' rights.
Jonathan: In the last hundred years, we've only done this once, where we used the Constitution for some kind of little political thing to restrict people's rights, and that was prohibition, where they said you can't drink, and they put that in the Constitution.
Tavis: Then we changed it 13 years later.
Jonathan: Then they had to change that. We've only--In the history of this country, we have only on 17 occasions since the constitution was written--and mostly it's for things like "who succeeds to office" kind of procedural things. We don't usually tamper with our basic rights. It's just not something we--Why does it belong in the Constitution?
Tavis: But tell me how this boomerangs on the president? Because, to my mind, it, at the very least, ratchets up, excites his conservative base. They turn out. Folk left-of-center Democrats don't turn out. Bush wins.
Jonathan: I don't think that's gonna happen. I'm not saying Bush is gonna lose. Personally, I think it's gonna be a very close election, but I think their base strategy is fundamentally misguided, because my own sense of the way American politics works is that in primaries you bring out the base. It's a good way to get nominated in the Republican party, helped Bush beat McCain the last time. But general elections are fought on that median strip, you know, with swing voters in swing states. And it's partly about base turnout, but those folks were gonna come out and vote for Bush anyway. And the Democrats are very angry at Bush this time. They're gonna come out and vote. I don't think turnout is gonna be that much of a problem. I think where it hurts Bush is in this respect--is that Dick Cheney, just a few years ago--he has a gay daughter--he said, when he was asked about it in 2000, he said, "leave it up to the states." now, Bush has to explain what's wrong with doing that and also explain for the folks who have, in the interim--in the 7 years it's gonna take, who've gone ahead and gotten married, the gay folks who've done that, are they supposed to then be stripped of their marital rights? In other words, I don't think people have thought this through very much. I think when they start focusing on it--immediately in the first 24 hours, they went to Missouri, big swing state, and they asked very conservative voters there: is this fundamental for you? These people are really against gay marriage, and they said, you know what? We've got bigger things going on in this country, in this world than to worry about it. It's a distraction, and that's the problem for Bush. It'll look like a very political distraction.
Tavis: OK, so the president may have the issue, if you're right, come back to hurt him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is vulnerable. So let me ask that question. Is the president vulnerable in terms of being reelected, and, if you believe he is, how vulnerable is he?
Jonathan: Very. I mean, I wouldn't, you know, bet against him right now. I give it kind of even odds on what's gonna happen, but not only is he behind by 10-12 points in a number of polls now--which isn't very relevant, because it's so early, but in the swing states--take Ohio: if the Democrats carry Ohio, they don't need the South. They win the election. You know? Last time they said, "Florida, Florida, Florida"? This time you could say it's Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. They've lost 240,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 3 1/2 years. That's a lot of folks who lost their jobs, and so they're are these other underlying issues that are gonna be problematic for this president. He does not have a strong record to run on. He is going to be the first president since Herbert Hoover who had a net loss of jobs. Now, for the people who have jobs, a lot of them are doing fine. The economy's growing, and unemployment itself is not that high. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. There's a lot of good news in the economy, but the problem is, if it doesn't translate into jobs, if people don't feel that it's trickling down to them, if they worry that they're gonna lose their job, that really hurts the incumbent.
Tavis: Let me shift gears from the right to the left, as it were--although not too left, with these guys--but let's talk about the Democrats for just a second. First of all, before I get to Super Tuesday, what do you make of what McAuliffe, Terry McAuliffe, the D.N.C. head, tried to do by front-loading these primaries? What was the plan, and why did the plan not work?
Jonathan: I just think it was a big mistake. I mean, he thought--He was operating under some kind of, you know, hackneyed political thinking that you gotta unify around your candidate right away, or you're weaker in the fall, and the whole experience of the last 25, 50 years is that as long as you get together at the convention, you can run a good fall campaign. By letting it play out a little bit longer, it would've given the Democrats a chance to really assess which one of these guys is their strongest candidate against Bush. Everybody's just assuming it's Kerry, but Edwards has some very good arguments to make. He's probably not gonna have the time to make them. The sooner the Democrats settle on a candidate, the fatter the target they are. Then Bush unloads his $100 million on that person. If they had actually let it go on along into April, May, then Bush would've had just a couple of months in which to really target the Democrats.
Tavis: So what do you make of John Kerry, and what's gonna happen on Super Tuesday? We're less than a week away now, I think.
Jonathan: I think what's happening is that Edwards keeps getting this last-minute surge and falls just short. I think that is what's gonna happen again, is that Edwards will pick up a number of delegates, but not enough to stop Kerry's momentum, and so many delegates have been selected. I think after Tuesday, people will say that it looks like Kerry's the nominee. Edwards might win a couple of these states, but not enough to--He's pretty far behind. Kerry is not necessarily a stronger candidate than Edwards. I think you could make a good case that because Edwards comes from the middle class, he might be strong in some of these border swing states. Smaller target on his back because he doesn't have a long record. He's got a very well-honed message. So you've got the situation where you have experience, Kerry, vs. message, Edwards--focus on the economy in Edwards' case--gravitas, Kerry, vs. Buoyancy, Edwards. And that buoyant approach, that uplifting, positive thing, that's what wins presidential elections. Those are the guys who usually become president, whether it's Ronald Reagan or anybody else.
Tavis: If you're right about that, then why aren't Democrats in these primaries giving Edwards a shot? If that's what wins elections?
Jonathan: Because Terry McAuliffe front-loaded the schedule so much that nobody has any time. I mean, there are not even any ads in most of these states. There's no campaign. It's just a pure momentum thing, and so Kerry wins these primaries, and people think that because he's won the primaries, he must be the best candidate. If you actually look in the exit polls, a lot of times, Edwards has done better with moderates and Republicans. That's what you need in November. So, you know, maybe that's an argument for Edwards.
Tavis: Let me ask you, since my time is running--We're talking about a minute to go here. 'Cause I don't understand this, and you're much brighter than I am. Tell me why it is that people keep talking about a Kerry-Edwards ticket, because Edwards could presumably carry the South. If this guy doesn't carry the South on Super Tuesday, and he hasn't carried it as yet, how does that argument work, that Edwards would help Kerry in the south, and therefore it would be a strong ticket?
Jonathan: They're not gonna win any of these deep Southern states. It's about border states, getting somebody who is a little bit more of a--a little more middle-class oriented. It's about energy and youth on the ticket. But having said that, I think there's a decent chance that it won't be Edwards, and that Kerry will pick--
Tavis: Speculate for me.
Jonathan: Maybe a Sam Nunn? If Bush comes down--
Tavis: What about Bob Graham in Florida?
Jonathan: Bob Graham to try to win Florida, or they might go for Gephardt to try to win Missouri, which is a pivotal state. So this thing is gonna be wide open for number 2.
Tavis: And in 30 seconds, what do you make of--Speaking of running for president--what do you make of "Ahnold" on 'Meet the Press' not necessarily ruling out that maybe we should change the Constitution, speaking of the Constitution, so that immigrants can run for president?
Jonathan: Well, they want that, you know, Constitutional amendment. It makes some sense if you've been in the country for 20 years, but it'll be seen as the Schwarzenegger amendment, and for that reason, the Democrats and state legislatures will block it in those states that Democrats control. You have to go to the states to get a Constitutional amendment ratified, and I don't think they want to see the Republicans nominate Schwarzenegger, so I don't think that amendment's gonna pass.
Tavis: I don't know how the governator is going to interpret that comment, but welcome to California anyway.
Jonathan: Nice to see you, Tavis.
Tavis: Nice to see you, Jonathan. Up next, the very funny Anthony Anderson. Stay with us.
Anthony Anderson: I ain't never heard anybody do a countdown from 10 to zero on live TV.
Tavis: I'm laughing already. Most people grew--Ha ha ha!
Anthony: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...Negative 1, negative 2.
Tavis: He's cutting up already, clowning my stage manager. Anyway, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by Anthony Anderson--
Anthony: Oh!
Back to February 25, 2004