AMERICA’S last election of a new president came just days after the Yankees beat the Mets in the 2000 Subway Series. Now a different kind of all-New York contest – among Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani and Mayor Bloomberg – might determine who next holds the Oval Office.
For much of U.S. history, this would have been no surprise. The nation took for granted that New Yorkers of varying persuasions would contend for the White House. Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt – all rose to the presidency not only on their personal strengths, but because the Empire State was the biggest and most powerful in the land.
From the first election after the Civil War, to the first after World War II, Americans cast 21 ballots for president. On 15 of those Election Days, a New Yorker led at least one major-party ticket.
Three presidential opponents from the same state would be unprecedented. Only four times since the Civil War has a state produced two nominees at once; in three of those cases, both were New Yorkers. Teddy Roosevelt beat Alton Parker in 1904, while FDR bested Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Tom Dewey in ’44.
Yet the last time New York sent a favorite son to a major-party nomination was 1948, when Dewey lost narrowly to Harry Truman. (Dwight Eisenhower in 1952/’56 and Richard Nixon in 1968/’72 listed New York as home, but neither had real roots here.)
Why the decline in New York-grown presidential timber? One reason: political arithmetic. In the ’40s, the state controlled 47 Electoral College votes – more than 10 percent of the total. Second-place Pennsylvania was far behind, with 35.
But for more than half a century now, New York has seen its share of the nation’s jobs and population – and thus its share of political power in Washington – fall sharply. In 2008, winning New York will mean only 31 electoral votes – compared to 55 for California and 34 for Texas. By 2012, we’ll likely be down to 29 Electoral College votes because of continuing population shifts to other states.
So how is it possible that three New Yorkers just might be on the presidential ballot next year?
One answer lies in the crucible of critical attention facing powerful leaders in the world’s information capital. Just as they’re merciless with underperforming sports teams, New Yorkers tend to be demanding when it comes to the politicians they elect to high office. Success here can be good preparation for the challenge of a White House run.
Another factor: Voters say they’re tired of ideological battles and desperate for leadership that gets things done. Of course, people across the country see New York as extremely liberal – which helped dash the presidential hopes of New Yorkers such as John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller. But the state’s three potential 2008 candidates can all credibly portray themselves as centrists – liberal on social issues, fiscally moderate and opposed to an immediate abandonment of the field in Iraq.
Bloomberg works effectively with leaders in both parties, while Clinton and Giuliani take harsh attacks from their respective parties’ left- and right-wing bases.
If Bloomberg does enter the race, it may help his fellow New Yorkers Clinton and Giuliani knock out other competitors, by making a centrist approach even more attractive to voters.
Typical Americans will respond far more favorably to his practical problem-solving than to the ideological approach favored by the likes of Moveon.org and Rush Limbaugh. In any race, when one candidate wins support with a certain approach, the entire campaign’s tenor tends to follow.
The candidates who fail might find comfort in the life of Alexander Hamilton. Never president, he shaped U.S. and world history more than any other New Yorker – with the possible exception of FDR – by playing central roles in creation of the Constitution and American capitalism, and thus the building of a great world power. There is life beyond the White House.
Robert B. Ward is deputy director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.