Candidates agree, nation needs break from Bush

The common wisdom is that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary produced no clear message for American politics. The campaign moves on to the West and South as if nothing has been settled.

But in truth, quite a lot has been settled, and perhaps it is not too much to say that the most important thing about Election 2008 was established in the deep freeze of Iowa and the snows of New Hampshire. Not the nominees, to be sure. Nor the question of whether a major party will select an African-American or a woman for the nation’s highest office, though it is increasingly likely that one or the other will win that distinction – a landmark breakthrough by any measure.

But in the long sweep of history, John F. Kennedy is not remembered principally for being the first Catholic president. He is remembered instead for mobilizing the American sense of idealism. In the long sweep of history, Abraham Lincoln is not remembered for being the first Republican elected to the White House. He is remembered instead for saving the country and redeeming its ancient promise.

Campaign themes set

And so if you listened carefully to the speeches Tuesday night from three of the four figures who have won one of the first two important political tests of the year, you will have seen that the theme and the message of the current campaign – if not the messengers – already are firmly set.

Listen to one of these political figures: “Tonight, we have taken a step, but only the first step, toward repairing the broken politics of the past and restoring the trust of the American people in their government.”

Now another: “The oil companies, the drug companies, the health-insurance companies, the predatory student-loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you.”

And now a third: “(I)f we mobilize our voices to challenge the money and influence that stood in our way and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there is no problem we cannot solve, there is no destiny that we cannot fulfill. Our new American majority can end the outrage of unaffordable, unavailable health care in our time. We can bring doctors and patients, workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans together, and we can tell the drug and insurance industry that, while they get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair, not this time, not now.”

Calling for a new start

It will grieve their speechwriters to read this, but in truth it doesn’t matter a whit which one of the candidates uttered each one of the remarks above. They are all saying the same thing. Indeed, for the first time in about a third of a century – since Ronald Reagan, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter all struck basically the same chord, calling for a redemptive new start in American politics in 1976 – the leading political figures of the age, regardless of party, are singing from the same hymnal. Who says this country is not united?

(For the record, the remarks quoted above, in sequence, are from GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.)

Though the identity of the finalists in the November election won’t be known for some time, what they will say all spring, summer and fall is apparent in January.

They’ll argue that the lobbyists have a chokehold on the political process. They’ll say that the partisanship of the Bush era must end. They’ll argue that the laissez-faire attitude of Washington must be adjusted – and though dissenters may argue that Sen. McCain’s economic views diverge from those of the Democrats, make no mistake that he favors more federal intervention in the economy, the workplace, the marketplace and the home than does President Bush. This comment, from his remarks in New Hampshire Tuesday night, implicitly acknowledges a role for government: “(W)hat government is expected to do it must do with competence, resolve and wisdom.”

Economy causes concern

Another theme in common, besides the banishment of the lobbyists from the temple of government: growing worry about the economy and deepening concern about the ability of the poor, the weak and the infirm to survive the hard times that are coming. Mr. McCain spoke of displaced workers finding new jobs, security and dignity; Mr. Obama spoke of putting money “in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it,” and Mrs. Clinton spoke of “the promise that the middle class will grow and prosper again.”

All this as America girds for the likelihood that this campaign will be conducted in unusual circumstances: in the middle of a recession. In the last three-quarters of a century, the United States has been in recession only twice during a presidential campaign, with a normal economic downturn in 1960 and with a short but sharp recession in 1980.

This is not to say that McCain, Clinton and Obama (or former Republican Govs. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas) agree on everything. They don’t. The Democrats and the Republicans have distinctly different views about the war in Iraq. But they all operate from the same starting point, which is that the country must have a distinct break with the Bush administration on Jan. 20, 2009. That seems to be the public’s wish, and it will get its wish.