ased on his showing in the three small states that have voted so far, Steve Forbes will not be greatly missed following his departure from the presidential campaign yesterday. In quitting the race, however, Forbes leaves lessons both personal and systemic.
Forbes made a splash in 1996 with his 17 percent flat tax proposal, which had an appealing veneer of equity to some voters. But the plan made little sense then and even less in 2000. With the gap between the highest income earners and those with more modest salaries widening further in four years, the flat tax has not resonated with voters.
In the current campaign, Forbes essayed an unsubtle appeal to the religious right. His conversion, freighted with moralizing, was so obviously a cynical attempt to win a narrow voting bloc that he ended up capturing only a few of those votes in Iowa and turning off more broad-minded Republicans everywhere.
Yet he pressed on. Only in America could a candidate so lacking in credentials have even a faint hope of actually winning the White House. He could have run in New Jersey for Congress or governor; perhaps he still should.
But in truth Forbes's most outstanding quality as a national candidate was his checkbook. The reason that he lasted so long this year was not his tax plan or his support from the fundamentalist right, but his cash.
Several other Republicans were more plausible candidates - with more experience and better visions. Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, and John Kasich are three. All had difficulties with their campaigns, but a lack of funds meant they had no ability to recover and gain their footing.
With the enormous costs of the bi-coastal March 7 primary looming so early, the field has been winnowed too soon. The nation is lucky that vigorous two-person campaigns still exist in both parties.
But the field should not be so limited nine months before the election. Next time, money and the calendar should play lesser roles.
