A Bridge Too Far

The lexicographer, Doctor Samuel Johnson, wrote how death concentrates the mind wonderfully. So, it would seem, does presidential politics, whether or not related directly to the White House. Just a mere whiff of a story sets the American media concentrating on a quarry like a pack of hunting dogs. Suddenly, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey finds himself in the role of the fox being pursued by the pack.

Last week, The Bergen Record, a publication of which few of us were previously aware, blogged about lane closures from Fort Lee to the George Washington Bridge last September. It claimed they were politically motivated. Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, ordered “some traffic problems.” Mayor Sokolich of the town of Fort Lee was being punished, supposedly by Christie because the mayor had not endorsed Christie in his campaign for re-election last fall.

On any view, this is bush league politics. Why would people caught in traffic jams associate the cause solely with the Democratic Party? Would drivers really blame Sokolich for his way of running Fort Lee? Additionally, Sokolich is a Democrat. Why would he endorse a Republican candidate in any event and why would the latter need the endorsement? Initially, Christie brushed the story off but he soon realised his error and took action by firing Kelly, removing close adviser Bill Stepien from his political organization and answering 94 questions at a lengthy press conference.

According to most polls, Christie is the front runner in the race for Republican nominee for president in 2016. David Axelrod, Obama’s long-time chief political strategist, believes Christie will survive “Bridgegate” but I disagree. First, Republican politicos have stayed silent for the past few days. Unlike the ordinary voters, they don’t seem to want to support Christie. Perhaps the influence of the Tea Party can be seen.

Second, history is against Christie. Ever since President Lyndon Johnson lied about the conduct of the Vietnam War to the American public, the media has treated Presidents and contenders for this office as targets on a political firing range. There are so many examples. In his 1988 run for office, George Bush promised “no new taxes.” He didn’t break the promise but the media characterised increases in tax rates during Bush’s administration as “new taxes.” In 1992, his opponent Bill Clinton, who was mired in a sex scandal, romped home, with phrases like “it’s the economy, stupid,” as he castigated Bush for new taxation.

The Democrat nominee in the 1988 race, Michael Dukakis, ran into trouble with the media over law and order issues. After a stump speech, he was asked what he would do to the killer of his wife and children. He fluffed the answer, trying to be fair and reasonable. Thereafter, he was portrayed by the media as weak on crime and ineffective. His campaign was damned.

Some presidential hopefuls get laughed out of the race, courtesy of the media. 1988 was a vintage year. Gary Hart, a contender for the Democrat nomination, was conducting an extra-marital affair with Donna Rice. The press took a photograph of the pair on a yacht, aptly named “Monkey Business.” Goodbye Gary.

The 1972 campaign was replete with dirty tricks. The Democratic contender most feared by President Richard Nixon was Ed Muskie. Nixon’s people played politics to remove Muskie from the race, using Muskie’s wife as bait in an episode known as “The Canuck Letter.”

The author of the letter claimed to have met Muskie and his staff in Florida and to have asked Muskie how he could understand the problems of African Americans when his home state of Maine has such a small black population. A member of Muskie's staff was said to have responded, "Not blacks, but we have Canucks". The author claimed that Muskie laughed at the remark. "Canuck" was a term often considered derogatory when applied to Americans of French-Canadian ancestry, especially in New England.

One night before a primary, Muskie delivered a speech in front of the offices of the Union Leader who had published the letter, calling its publisher, William Loeb, a liar and lambasting him for impugning the character of Muskie's wife, Jane. All mainstream newspapers reported the event and that Muskie cried openly. Muskie’s conduct was not considered to be presidential and his campaign was over. These examples are evidence that just one slip by a candidate is sufficient to end a campaign. Sometimes the slip is minor but in others it is serious, such as Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate burglary.

There are parallels between “Bridgegate” and the Watergate scandal. Nixon did not approve or have knowledge of the Watergate break-in before the event. Similarly, I do not believe Christie either ordered the bridge lane closures, or had prior knowledge. Unlike Nixon, I don’t believe Christie has lied to the press and he has taken decisive action to remove staff. So, why do I think Christie’s campaign for president is holed below the waterline?

The American voter will focus on the kind of administration Christie runs because the media will eventually ensure it by moving onto the larger picture. “Bridgegate” may not be an isolated incident. Either Christie encourages his staff to play dirty politics or he is unaware that his staff does this kind of thing behind his back. If the latter, presumably the staff thinks that this is the sort of thing that Christie likes. Either way, the voters may decide that this is the kind of conduct that will dominate Christie’s White House, in which event they will not support him.

Even in the cynical and politically divided America of the twenty first century, the majority of American voters expect a great deal from their president, including respect for the office and doing what is morally right. I believe it is this factor which will end Christie’s run. Put simply, people won’t believe he is clean.