Every so often, a politician decides to make a Quixotic run for president as a relatively late-entry independent candidate, fueled by delusions of holier-than-thou grandeur (Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996, who was technically a third-party candidate), more-intelligent-than-thou (John Anderson in 1980), or ideologically purer-than-thou (Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004).
The result from those examples was that the candidate farthest away from the independent or third-party entrant won the election, since he pulled votes from the one whose beliefs were closer to his. That's why many Republicans hate Perot, a successful businessman and military supporter, and why many Democrats despise Nader, a champion of consumer's rights.
This ridiculously early campaign season, however, could be different. The timing might be right for someone to get into the race -- probably as an independent rather than a third party -- and make a bid to be the first president without a political party behind him. But he, or she, would have plenty of supporters around the country.
First, let's look at some facts. This week, a Zogby/Reuters poll found that just 11 percent of Americans supported the Democrat-led Congress, while only 24 percent were happy with President Bush. While both numbers reflect significantly lower support than other poll results, it's clear that we are not happy with our governmental leaders.
But there's more. We are showing similar levels of disappointment in a number of cultural areas as well. Television ratings released today show major drops in prime-time viewership, even when DVR playbacks are factored in. Established shows are still doing well, but the viewing public does not trust Hollywood to put out new worthwhile entertainment, so the new programs are struggling.
The National League Championship Series featured one of the best stories in baseball in recent years: the nearly unbeatable Colorado Rockies, against the young and exciting Arizona Diamondbacks. Viewership was the lowest in years.
Newspapers are struggling across the country. While some blockbuster movies still do very well at the box office, those that are less so are money-losers.
Bottom-line? We're not just apathetic about politics and culture anymore. We're fiercely apathetic.
That's a rare combination of feelings that someone ought to be able to capture. But it's not going to be a Republican who can do so, nor a Democrat. The overwhelming majority of the public sees the GOP as incompetent and would rather suffer from psoriasis than elect someone else from George Bush's party to the White House. The Democrats are on the wrong side of too many issues and have disappointed too many people with their failure to capitalize on their 2006 Congressional victories by governing responsibly.
Who then? I unfortunately can't name anyone specific. He or she will nominally belong to one of the major party, odds are, but can't be linked too closely to that party or the public will reject him. He or she needs to have a traditional viewpoint as opposed to stridently conservative or liberal. The person will need to speak clearly on the war and national security needs, be willing to hold the line on taxes and spending, protect our health care expenses for the poor and those hit by catastrophic expenses, be willing to solve illegal immigration and entitlement reform, and attack cultural issues such as drug abuse and gang violence.
The person most mentioned as an independent candidate is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but he is considered to be a too-liberal money man too close to the political establishment that got us into trouble in the first place.
The tragedy is that there is someone who could have played the role of the presidential candidate to the rescue, but he entered when everyone else did and thereby diminished himself and his candidacy. Mitt Romney. If he'd stayed out of the race, he could have entered as an independent early next year as the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games (which were worse off than the United States is in 2007 by a long shot) and the moderate Republican governor of a liberal northeast state.
Unfortunately, he entered the race already, has run a mediocre campaign and can't fill this role.
I will name someone who can fill a vice-presidential spot on an independent ticket, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman. The left likes him for his stands on most issues. The right likes him for his support of the war on terror. But Lieberman is not a presidential kind of guy. Someone else will need to step forward and offer to clean up the Washington, D.C. cesspool.
