JEFF JACOBY

Why is Bush still a mystery?

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Staff, June 14, 1999

Republicans, so often divided, seem to be of one mind on the subject of Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and the giddiness it has lit in New York Democrats.

"To say to a state that you have no connection to, no history with, no previously demonstrated interest in . . . that you deserve to be its senator," writes Peggy Noonan, the incandescent GOP wordsmith, in The Wall Street Journal, "is an act of such mad boomer selfishness and narcissism . . . of utter and breathtaking gall."

Asks columnist Mona Charen, "Why in the world does this compromised figure set the pulses of liberal New Yorkers racing?" Instead of shunning her for her role in the Clinton scandals, "We seem determined to conclude all over again that character doesn't matter."

The Republican National Committee rains contempt on her efforts to don a New York persona. "If Hillary Clinton thinks New Yorkers are too dumb to see through this phony White House photo-op," needles RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson, referring to last week's White House reception for the New York Yankees, "she's got an even lower opinion of New York than we thought."

The Republicans' animus toward Mrs. Clinton I understand. I can't abide her, either. But their dudgeon over her Senate race and the reaction thereto mystifies me.

Why shouldn't she run for New York's Senate seat? Because she's not a New Yorker? Because she's never run for public office before? Those to whom such factors matter can vote against her; why should those with other priorities be denied the chance to vote for her? Surely, an eight-year sojourn in the White House -- in this White House -- is as useful a preparation for the blood feuds and mosh pits of New York politics as anything she might have learned by running for the Nassau County Board of Supervisors.

She's popular in her party; she can raise money by the sackful; her name recognition is 100 percent; she has powerful political allies. She may be self-righteous and she may be ethically challenged, but those can hardly be fatal flaws in a state that has put Chuck Schumer and Al D'Amato in the Senate. New York voters may eventually turn Hillary down -- that's the outcome I'll be rooting for -- but there is nothing about her candidacy or the excitement it ignites that anyone should find hard to understand.

If Republicans really want to talk about a baffling political craze, they need look no further than their own tent. What explains the mania for George W. Bush?

He is barely into his second term as governor of Texas, has minimal experience in national politics, and is a virtual unknown outside his part of the country. It is only today that New Hampshire voters are getting their first look at him. Yet, since at least last fall -- two years before the 2000 election -- Bush has been hailed as the candidate to beat for the GOP nomination. Hundreds of Republican officials, including 19 governors, a dozen senators, and 114 members of the US House, have already endorsed him. Incredibly, many of these endorsers have never met Bush or seen him in action.

There has never been anything like it. The closest parallel to the Bush hysteria is Dwight D. Eisenhower's vast popularity after World War II. But not even Eisenhower, a five-star war hero, had the Republican establishment kneeling at his feet this far in advance of the election. On the contrary, the foremost Republican in Washington, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, contended with Eisenhower for the nomination.

After losing two elections to Bill Clinton, Republicans are understandably desperate for a candidate who can win. But there is something surreal about the stampede to Bush. It is like the rush to buy Internet stocks, a frenzy to invest in a start-up with great PR but no earnings history.

By most accounts, George W. has a cheerful personality. He polls well. He has carried Texas, a crucial state, twice. His brother is governor of Florida, another crucial state.

But who is he? What does he stand for? What are the principles for which he would sacrifice his popularity? He talks about his "compassionate conservatism" the way his father talked about a "kinder, gentler America." But George Sr. could never quite articulate what he stood for; indeed, he had only disdain for "the vision thing." George Jr. may have a compelling answer to the question of why he wants to be president, but so far he hasn't offered one. Neither have his supporters.

When Ronald Reagan ran for president, nobody wondered what his priorities were. The Gipper's philosophical clarity held a powerful appeal; he was elected and reelected in back-to-back landslides. By contrast, George Bush and Bob Dole never stood for much of anything, and the voters gave them short shrift.

And George W.? Is he a Reaganite or his father's son? Is he seeking the White House because of a conviction that his country needs him, or is he just surfing a wave? He spent the winter and spring declining to answer questions about where he stands on the issues or what he would do if he were president. Now, at last, the presumed front-runner is ready to start running. Now, at last, we will learn about his deeply-held political beliefs.

Yet it's hard not to wonder: If George W. Bush had deeply held political beliefs, wouldn't we already know what they are?