James Carville

It’s hard for anyone who didn’t grow up in Louisiana to understand just how important politics is there. Virtually every government position is either an elected office or a patronage job--right down to the dog catcher.

And in Cajun southwest Louisiana, political fever is particularly fervent, fueled by both culture and history. Cajuns, descendants of French-speaking Acadian exiles, have a well-known propensity for partisanship. They lived for generations among the bayous in isolation, until a Depression-era politician named Huey P. Long got himself elected governor, in large part by appealing to the poor, long-ignored and disenfranchised Cajuns. The Kingfish rewarded his loyal supporters with schools, hospitals, roads and bridges. It was a clear message to people in towns with names like Napoleonville and Grand Couteau that government, even one as corrupt as Long’s, can bring benefit and positive change into people’s lives.

Chester James Carville was born and raised in one of those towns, which just happens to be named Carville. Thanks to schools that Long built, Carville grew up to graduate from Louisiana State University Law School, with a stint in the Marines and a few years of teaching at a junior high in between. He started working on small political campaigns, and, by 1990, Carville had rung up a string of state house and congressional victories. But it was in 1992 that Carville burst onto the national scene, as chief field marshall in Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaign.

Carville was loud, quick, crass and he talked funny. TV talk-show hosts loved him, because he always had something wild to say. After the election, he amazed all Washington by marrying his professional nemesis, Mary Matalin, a George Bush political strategist. The newlyweds wrote a book together about the 1992 campaign, “All’s Fair: Love, War and Running for President,” and 13 months ago produced a baby girl, Matty.

Carville knows how to get attention. He caused a stir in San Diego when he showed up on the floor of the recent GOP convention. He works every medium, even writing a column for the hip Internet zine, Salon. He’s forever bashing House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.} and GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole, promoting his own book, “We’re Right, They’re Wrong,” and insisting that government is not evil and actually can accomplish important things. In an early morning conversation from his office in Washington last week, he talked about conventions and campaigns, his belief in government and the failure of progressives to counter the rhetoric of the GOP right.

*

Question: What’s happened to political conventions, why are they so boring, and why should we even pay attention to them?

Answer: First of all, the Republicans achieved what they wanted to achieve. Boring conventions are what political parties want. If there is some such thing as a news god in this country, it’s Ted Koppel. And he decreed there was no news at the Republican convention and went home.

Now he was probably right--because the political parties are trying not to make news at their conventions. In 1968, the Democrats made a ton of news. In 1992, the Republicans made a ton of news. They were interesting conventions--but not particularly successful.

Q: The Republicans managed to pull off a show of unity, but there are deep divisions between the right and moderate wings of the party. Regardless of what happens in this election cycle, do you see trouble ahead for the GOP?

A: What happened in the 1996 primaries was that every facet of the Republican Party was represented by a candidate. The supply-siders had Steve Forbes. The nationalistic right was there with Pat Buchanan. The hard-line revolution guys had Phil Gramm. The moderate, gubernatorial wing of the party had Lamar Alexander. And Bob Dole ran as none-of-the-above. You don’t have to pick and choose with Bob Dole.

So the party--the Republican primary voters--chose not to choose. They drummed out the supply-siders, but what’s amazing is that they turned around and got their guy, Jack Kemp, nominated as the vice-presidential candidate, and they got Dole to run on their program. Amazing! After Steve Forbes spent $40 million or whatever, and got beat decisively, they embrace his philosophy. I’ll give the Republicans one thing--enormous political resiliency.

But the religious conservatives, who supply a lot of kerosene for this Republican fire, are not real excited about all this. They’re for prayer in school, but they’re for the minimum wage. They’re against gay marriages, but they’re also against Medicare cuts. That crowd ain’t big on entitlement reform.

Q: How is the Democratic convention going to be any different than the Republican gathering, in terms of scripting and careful control of events?

A: I think we’re going to try. The Democrats have a little bit more in the way of free spirits. But we want to bore you guys. Boring is good. We’ve tried excitement, and it doesn’t work. A boring convention means a good November.

Q: The latest polls show that the Republicans’ convention was successful in narrowing the gap between their candidate and the president. How important are these polls, and how much bounce will the Democrats get from their convention?

A: The time to determine the success of the convention phase is after both parties have had their conventions. Remember, we came into the Democratic convention in 1992 in sort of an even race with Bush. Then we went something like 20 points up. But after the Republican convention, we were five points up. So we still had a successful convention phase, but you’ve got to look at it when both conventions are over. I think if we’ve got a consensus double-digit lead after our convention, the convention will be interpreted as a success. But to me, success is 270 electoral votes. Make that 271. I always like a cushion.

Q: Is there a place when you begin to worry about complacency, if the polls show Clinton with a commanding lead?

A: No. I don’t worry about complacency. I think the experience of Democrats in presidential elections makes complacency unlikely. Just think back to 1976, when we came within an inch of losing the election. But as far as the success of the convention, let’s look at the polls about a week after the convention ends--give things time to settle. I’d put the thermometer in right after Labor Day.

Q: Let’s talk about the president, Democrats and the South. When you grew up in Louisiana, there wasn’t a Republican Party to speak of there, and now it’s hard to find a roomful of Democrats in the whole state. What happened, and is there anything the Democrats can do in this election cycle to recapture the South?

A: It was the civil-rights movement that started moving people away from the Democrats. Then there were a lot of people in the South who became more prosperous, and a lot of Republicans moved into the South. But I think the president has done a lot to win support in the South. Some of his more moderate moves have been popular. I remind people in the South how important a role government has played in people’s lives--everything from the TVA to the defense industry. Education is a cornerstone, and Democrats have always been a thousand times better on that issue. Our party offers the best bridge for improving race relations, too.

Q: And what about California? Is there any way that the Dole-Kemp ticket can carry the state?

A: There’s always a way. But here’s what you have to remember about California. Every strategic decision in a presidential race starts in California. You start by figuring out how much time and money you’ll spend in California, and then that affects every decision you make about every other state. The problem the Dole people face is, if they decide not to contest California, then the president doesn’t have to spend lots of time and money there, and it frees up resources for other states. So, you end up having more money in Ohio, Georgia or Missouri.

California is a very complex question for the Dole campaign, and a very simple question for the Clinton campaign. We’re there, and whatever you do, we do, too. We know we have to win California. If Dole doesn’t go to California, we get to spend less money. It’s like the arms race, and it’s up to Dole to make the strategic decision.

Q: How do you explain the president’s popularity in California?

A: Well, I’ve been to California in 1992, and I’ve been there in 1996. There’s a lot more going on now.

Q: So you think it’s just the economy, stupid?

A: That, and I think the president did a brilliant job after the earthquake. I think he’s shown that he’s concerned about the kind of economic transitions that are going on there, and he’s performed. There are issues that work for him in California--like his stand against tobacco and the assault-weapons ban. And some of his New Democrat stuff plays well out there.

Q: It’s pretty clear that Clinton is the better campaigner of the two presidential contenders--he seems to enjoy the process more than does Dole. How do you rate the president’s campaign skill?

A: He’s the best I’ve ever seen. And you know what it boils down to? He likes people. And he’s a hard worker. I don’t know if voters understand that this is a guy with unbelievable energy. He’ll just flat work at it.

Remember, the hardest part of a presidential race is not the general election. It’s when you are in the primaries, and you’re not the incumbent, and you are struggling. In the end, what a political campaign comes down to is a battle with fatigue. You’re in little planes, going here and there. Now I keep myself in pretty good shape, I run every day and consider myself to be a pretty vigorous guy. During the 1992 primary races, sometimes I’d got so tired I just couldn’t take it anymore. And Bill Clinton, he’d just keep going and going, doing TV interviews at 11 p.m., just tearing it up. They say the mark of a great athlete is that they can play hurt. Bill Clinton can play tired.

The other thing about Bill Clinton is that, until you really get to know him and have been around him, you can have no idea of how unbelievably smart this guy is. And quick. So, yes, he is an excellent candidate and an excellent campaigner.

Q: This is a president who has put Republicans like David Gergen and Dick Morris in his inner circle. That irks lots of traditional Democrats. What do you say when people ask you why the president has these guys in his camp?

A: There’s only one person who should be held accountable, and that’s the president. If you look at the totality of his record, you’ll find it’s something every Democrat can be comfortable with. The President has a right to take advice from anyone he wants. If he takes a position, don’t blame Dick Morris, blame the president. It’s his decision. He’ll listen to anybody, but he’s the man who makes the call.

Q: Do you think you’re making any headway in your campaign to convince people that government is not the enemy, and that it can accomplish great things?

A: My next book is going to be about the enormous consequences of not participating in the public debate, or just assuming that you’re right, and not getting down and doing the research. The reason that so many people feel the way they do is not because they have the facts, but because the Republicans have just spewed it out, and spewed it out, until it just became an assumption. Progressives and people who believe there is actually a role for government to play never did get out there and counter that stuff.

The result is that we’ve come to accept completely erroneous assumptions. “The government is a significant cause of illegitimacy.” Well, that’s stupid, but it’s become so ingrained it’s almost useless to argue. Or, “The government is just a big rat hole that sucks up our money.” Well, over half the money we’ve spent since 1965 goes to three things--defense, Social Security and Medicare. Look at the results. The elderly poverty rate in 1965 was 28%, and today it’s 11%. That’s almost wholly attributable to Social Security cost of living adjustments. But have you seen an editorial that says, “Sure, Medicare’s expensive, but the only medical statistic that the United States leads in is life-expectancy.”

Look at the environment. Or tobacco. In 1965, 44% of adults smoked. Today it’s 26%. Where did the impetus come from to change this addictive behavior? It came from the institution that the Founding Fathers put there to tackle the big issues.

It wasn’t General Electric that cut down the smoking rate. It wasn’t IBM that reduced elderly poverty. What government does best is pick a big target, marshal its forces and do something about it. What about that interstate highway system? Did Texaco build that?

Q: Any final thoughts on your way to Chicago?

A: I didn’t go to my first political convention until I was 40. And even though I’ve been making my living for a pretty long time working in political campaigns, every time I go to one of these things, I can’t believe how lucky I’ve been. And how much fun it is to be in politics, how much I like it. And actually, how much I like politicians. I actually like politicians--I’m probably the only guy in America who’d admit that.