A triple-shot of horrible

Howard Schultz’s Venti-Size Disaster

A triple-shot of horrible developments in American politics have been poured into one 2020 presidential candidate.

By JEFF GREENFIELD

What, exactly, explains why a billionaire former CEO of a coffee chain thinks he can launch an independent run for president in 2020?

Let me float three reasons behind Howard Schultz’s long-shot bid, which he announced in a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday evening, followed by an introductory tweet that met with widespread derision from political insiders.

Reason No. 1 is the notion, at least a century old, that a successful business career suggests presidential timber. It’s why Henry Ford was at one time a leading contender for the White House (he won the 1916 Michigan Republican primary). It’s why Mitt Romney based his 2012 presidential campaign on the strength of his business successes, rather than his record as governor of Massachusetts. And it’s why the fictional portrait of Donald Trump as a firm, decisive business leader on The Apprentice was the key to his political credibility in 2016.

The second development is the now-limitless ability of very wealthy people to spend as much as they want in the pursuit of office. It’s not that wealthy politicians always win—they often don’t. But big money now provides direct access to the playing field. It offers an ability to become a serious candidate with no other asset, such as the potency of your ideas, or a track record of public service, or the support of a significant constituency.

And the third is the powerful draw of “independence,” the idea that an alienated majority is waiting for an alternative to the two major parties.

All three of these notions are either wrongheaded or deplorable. Combining them into one candidacy would not only increase the odds of a second term for President Trump, but it would also encourage other rich people to follow Schultz’s lead. Instead of one Trump, we may be about to see dozens of Trumps.

It’s not that success in business can’t lead to success in politics. Our current president is evidence that one can lead to the other, at least if you define success by winning elections. And Trump’s career of running enterprises into bankruptcy while lying about nearly everything turned out to be an excellent guide to his presidency. Still, the skills to build a successful business tell us little about an ordinary CEO’s ability to work in Washington, with its competing power centers and ideologies. At the least, aspiring tycoons-turned-presidents should test their political skills by running for a lesser office, as Michael Bloomberg, Romney and many others did. Seeking the presidency first suggests, at the least, an excess of self-esteem.

As for the role of money, it’s true that before the 1970s, politicians like the Kennedys and Nelson Rockefeller could dip into their family coffers with impunity. But post-Watergate reforms tried to put sharp limits on the practice. Sadly, barely two years after President Gerald Ford signed these reforms into law, the Supreme Court began to erode them.

In the 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo, the Court held that any limit on what a candidate could spend in pursuit of office violated the First Amendment. Only two justices—Byron White and Thurgood Marshall—dissented. In his dissent, White wrote that “limiting the importance of personal wealth” would “assure that only individuals with a modicum of support from others will be viable candidates.” It would also “discourage any notion that the outcome of elections is primarily a function of money” and would “equalize access to the political arena, encouraging the less wealthy, unable to bankroll their own campaigns, to run for office.”

Now, four decades later, candidates and supporters alike can put limitless amounts into campaigns through Super PACs and independent expenditures. White’s words seem hopelessly quaint. Under the “money is speech” philosophy begun by Buckley v. Valeo, we can expect the Court to one day declare than the offer of a $100,000 bribe in return for a congressional vote or a presidential order is simply an act of extraordinary eloquence.

And lastly, every election year, polls show that a majority of Americans say they would like to see a third party or independent candidate—and then they never vote for one. The fantasy of a Democratic-Republican unity ticket looks appealing until it runs up against the brick wall of policy. Schultz’s initial ventures into specifics are less than encouraging. Asked what he thought the corporate tax rate should be, he said, “I don’t want to talk in the hypothetical about what I would do if I was president.” Memo to Howard: That’s called “running for president.”

In Schultz’s candidacy, these three troubling developments in American politics—the businessman daydream, the elimination of all limits on money, the independent fantasy—have intermingled to persuade the former Starbucks baron that he does not need to submit the ordinary rigors of political primaries.

Michael Bloomberg’s decision to run as a Democrat is much more appealing. Yes, Bloomberg used his wealth to win and keep the mayor’s office in New York City. (He spent more than $250 million in his three bids.) But he has seemingly concluded not only that an independent can’t win, but also that he needs to persuade a major political party of the virtue of his ideas if he wants to be president. That’s what Trump did, after all.

By contrast, an independent run by Schultz would simply mean that his money was enough to put him on the ballot in the fall, regardless of whether the public was eager for his candidacy. Even Ross Perot in 1992 did not jump into the fall presidential campaign on pure whim; by the time he entered, his TV appearances had earned him a huge and enthusiastic following.

Schultz does not need to be nearly as popular as Perot to prove a disaster for Democrats. Even with a tiny share of a state’s vote, he could deliver key states to Trump. And if he did win a state or two, that could be enough to throw the election into the House of Representatives. (It almost happened in 1948 and in 1968.) Under the arcane rules of that unlikely scenario—one state, one vote—a Republican would have a good chance of winning even if Democrats still had the majority of House members. (Don’t ask.)

Schultz is ignoring what Trump, Bloomberg and Ronald Reagan all came to understand: Under all but the most unlikely of circumstances, an independent run is the triumph of arrogance over wisdom. If he wants to be president, he should win the Democratic nomination first.