 |
Getting Down with Raymond Strother
In Falling Up, Raymond
Strother bares the secrets of that sacred -- and sometimes shameless
-- institution called democracy. In a candid interview, he reveals
the reasons why he wrote the book-and what continues to drive
him in a career in politics.
By Clancy
DuBos
 |
| Photo
by Donn Young |
Raymond
Strother launched his political consulting career inauspiciously
-- as a driver for state Treasurer Mary Evelyn Parker during the
1967 Louisiana elections. From that race and from every campaign
since, he distilled the eternal lessons of American campaigning
-- from the importance of carrying a pistol in St. Landry Parish
to the dangers of letting potential competitors get too close
to a candidate. Along the way, he helped elect and re-elect some
of the legends of Louisiana and American politics. His clients
included Louisiana's late Sen. Russell Long, Texas Sen. Lloyd
Bentsen, Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer
and Arkansas Gov. (but not President) Bill Clinton. He mentored
the mercurial superstar of modern political consulting, Jim Carville,
and worked alongside (as well as against) the architect of Clinton's
presidential re-election, Dick Morris. He lived in hotel rooms
and in the back seats of cabs, flew his own plane from campaign
to campaign, nearly crashed and burned (figuratively) too many
times to count, and now makes his home in Washington, D.C., and
Montana.
A self-described "political hack,"
Strother's new book, Falling Up: How a Redneck Helped Invent
Political Consulting is at once an intensely honest autobiography,
a rollicking political commentary and a no-holds-barred exposé
of the dangers his craft poses to modern democracy. At the end
of the day, Strother says, luck and timing determine a candidate's
fate more than anything else. He's had his share of both.
Q: In your prologue, you describe your struggle to tell the
truth in this book. Tell me more about that.
A: I wrote the book four times. The first two times I threw
it away. The third time I wrote it, my agent threw it away.
The fourth time I wrote it, I was at Harvard, at the Kennedy
School, and I had given up on it. Then one day it came to me
like a blinding flash. I realized that I had been dishonest
from beginning to end. I hadn't told the truth. I'd cut corners
and shaded things. I worried about what people might think.
Then I said, "I'm gonna write it straight. And after I write
it straight I'll go back and take things out if I have to."
Q: Your book denounces the shallowness of today's politicians.
Do you think there's any honesty left in American politics today?
A: A great, honest man just died -- Senator Patrick Moynihan
-- the last intellectual in the Senate. The Senate and the House
today -- the House is actually better than the Senate -- is
peopled by and large by midgets. When I went to Washington [in
1980], it was peopled by giants. You had Lloyd Bentsen, John
Stennis, Gary Hart. You had great thinkers. Alan Simpson was
a great thinker. Whether you agreed with him or not politically,
he was a very sincere man.
Q: Are there any giants left?
A: I don't think there's a giant in the Senate. And I'm
really worried about that. But part of it's my fault. I share
the blame for what's happened.
Q: It is true that political consultants have given us what
you call the helmet-head politician of today?
A: That's true, but it's been a long process. When I started
in 1967, I was a driver. I didn't know what I was doing. I was
a fraud from the very beginning, but nobody else knew what they
were doing either. At that time, we wrote speeches and made
ads and anything else we thought was right. Over time, I realized
that polling was going to become important, so I would ask to
hire pollsters. At first, my clients didn't want to do it. As
I got more prominent, I could demand that polling be part of
the package -- that somebody like [New Orleans pollster] Joe
Walker could bring his kind of information and insight to be
able to put a campaign together. They thought of it at first
like tail fins on a Cadillac: it was just for appearance and
didn't have any function. Then, all of a sudden, people realized
that without a pollster you couldn't win.
Now, polling is more important
than anything else. Most candidates hire a pollster first, and
they decide what they think according to what the poll says.
Think about the downside of that: You're never going to think
creatively. You're never going to do anything independently.
You're going to be a puppet to pollsters. Polling has taken
over politics. Pollsters have become so important that we have
what I call the seamless campaign. A guy gets elected and the
next day he starts a campaign for re-election -- and he uses
a pollster to keep him on top of the issues of the day, so his
votes reflect what the polls say.
I had a candidate call me one
time and say, "Why didn't you tell me that vote would cost me
votes in the next election?" I said, "I don't govern. I do campaigns."
This person got very angry and said, "When you know that something's
coming before the Senate that's going to affect my election,
you call me." Well, I think that's awful. I think it's one of
the worst things that could happen to American democracy. But
it's happening everywhere. ... George Bush has his political
consultant, Karl Rove, in the White House giving him advice.
It's the seamless campaign.
But it gets worse than that.
Because this seamless campaign demands that you start raising
money the day after you're elected -- for the next election.
Russell Long told me once that the great thing about being a
senator is that you could be a statesman for four years and
a politician for two. That isn't the case any more. You're a
politician for six years now and never a statesman, in my opinion.
We've torn the fabric of democracy.
Q: You were a mentor to Jim Carville. What's your take on
him now?
A: Carville is a very interesting man. He's what's good
and he's what's bad about our business. James was a good consultant.
Maybe not the best in America, but a good consultant, and he
had a personality that demanded the candidate toe the line and
stay on message. And when he got on his feet he did an awfully
fine job and made a lot of money. A presidential campaign is
the golden calf. It's your ticket. James worked for Bill Clinton
-- and this brings up the part that bothers me about James.
There was a film producer who wanted to make a documentary about
Clinton, but Clinton didn't trust the press and didn't want
to let the guy inside -- even though he had promised the filmmaker
total access. As a result, the film guy couldn't get what he
wanted. But he was there to make a film, so when he turned and
saw this quirky Cajun who was a load of kicks, he just made
the film about James, who subsequently got a great deal of notoriety.
In fact, nobody illustrates the notion of political-consultant-as-celebrity
better than James. In our celebrity culture, the ability of
a political consultant is often misunderstood, if not exaggerated.
But, to James' credit, he worked hard to get where he is. He
paid his dues.
Q: You don't have much nice to say about Bill and Hillary
Clinton. Do you think she could be elected President?
A: I didn't think she could be elected senator, but I
was wrong. Completely wrong. What we have to admit about her,
whether you like her or not, is that she's one of the brightest
people in American politics. She has a soaring intellect. She's
smarter than her husband and her husband is very smart. I discount
Hillary Clinton because I'm not personally fond of her -- because
I've had too much interaction with her through the years. So,
will Hillary run for president? Yeah. Could she get elected?
Yes -- luck and timing are everything. When Bill Clinton ran
for president the first time, he didn't run to win. He ran to
establish himself. Clinton got in to become the leader of the
Democratic Party and, four years later, to run for president.
Then he won! Luck and timing. Right time, right place.
Q: You speak lovingly but unsparingly of Louisiana and all
its political foibles. Now that Edwin Edwards is in jail, do
you think Louisiana has changed?
A: No. Louisiana's not going to change until people here
quit laughing about political shenanigans at dinner parties.
Louisiana's fabric has been corrupted. ... It isn't that Louisiana's
people are bad; we just accept corruption that other states
won't accept.
Q: Acknowledging that you will be working for state Treasurer
John Kennedy in this year's race for governor, what's your assessment
of the current crop of candidates?
A: I think it's a pretty good crop of candidates -- as
good as I've seen in a while. I suspect before it's over we'll
see a few more candidates, and I don't think we'll know who
the favorite is until a couple of weeks out. It's going to be
a late-developing race. Louisiana's not really angry right now.
Foster's not the devil. People are tired of him, but there's
no urgency to it. I don't see this thing coalescing very quickly.
Q: What will it take to win this race?
A: I think it will be a campaign about competence. And I
think it's going to be a more thoughtful campaign. There are
a couple of people trying to demagogue oil right now. I don't
think it'll work. The public here is pretty smart -- as smart
as anywhere else. Demagoguery works very early in a campaign,
but it reflects very badly on you later on. They'll all try
little gimmicks, but in the end those things won't elect you.
You'll have to have something to say that appeals to voters.
I'll be honest, I don't know what that is right now. I don't
know if anybody does.
Q: You admit freely that you fell "up" into your career track
by learning your craft as you bounced from one campaign to the
next. But, as you note, that's because political consulting
itself was still in its infancy then. Can somebody learn the
consulting trade today the way you did?
A: It's much harder to do what I did. When I got to Washington,
I only had two competitors. Now, everybody uses a consultant.
We have 2,000 consultants in the American Association of Political
Consultants. The way to get to the top now is very, very difficult
-- almost impossible. You have to work your way up. A few will
succeed, but it's much harder today.
Q: You only worked for Democrats -- except for Buddy Roemer,
who at least started out as a Democrat -- but that was your
choice. Today, it's pretty much a rule that consultants at the
national level must work exclusively for one party or the other.
Is that a good thing?
A: It makes us more partisan, but you can only work for
one party now because there's so much information that's shared.
For ethical reasons, you have to do it that way. The year I
worked for Roemer's re-election caused me to be blackballed
by the Democrats for a year. I learned my lesson. I resented
it, because I thought I was doing the right thing for the right
reason. Like it or not, you can only work for one party.
Q: What advice would you give to a young person wanting to
run for office?
A: Get involved in the political process. Find somebody
you care about, somebody who matters to you in politics. Go
to them and work with them. Don't go into something you don't
know anything about. Go to a campaign and volunteer. Get in
the trenches. Work for nothing. The cream rises to the top.
Good people are recognized and they are hired. Carville worked
like that.
Q: If you could have a candidate who's extremely smart or
one who's merely lucky, which would you choose?
A: Lucky.
Q: Why do you think people run for office -- is it more a
genuine desire to serve or is it mostly for the ego stroke?
A: I'm afraid it's more ego driven now. I run into people
who do what's expedient rather than what's right. In the end,
for democracy to work, you have to have people who really care.
Q: You don't spare the press in your criticism of American
politics. What reporters do you still respect and why?
A: It's not that I'm against the press. I'm against the
blow-dried press. I'm against the newsreaders. The people who
are "pundits" with no reason to be pundits. You get people making
pronouncements on television and I wonder what their credentials
are. Why are you there? What do you know? Then you look at journalists
like Jack Germond, Jules Witcover and others. These guys paid
their dues. They think about things. They write. Some of them
appear on camera, but not often. We have the [MSNBC Hardball
host] Chris Matthews generation that screams at each other.
That's not news. That's show biz.
Q: Which American politician do you most admire, and why?
A: Congressman John Lewis of Georgia. He got into politics
for the right reason, serves for the right reason, and doesn't
pay attention to opinion polls. John Lewis, who was a pioneer
civil rights activist, has a speech impediment because he was
beaten so badly. He was a client of mine and I asked him later
about Bull Connor, who had beaten him so much that he couldn't
speak. He said that Bull Connor was a man of his generation
and that it's not his fault. John Lewis is a man who is completely
forgiving. He is the American hero, to me. The quintessential
American hero.
Q: At one point in your book you seem to show a higher regard,
in terms of talent, for Buddy Roemer than Bill Clinton.
A: I was representing them both at the same time, shuffling
back and forth between Baton Rouge and Little Rock in the 1980s.
Roemer had all the equipment, more so than Clinton. He was at
least as smart as Clinton, maybe smarter. He cared about things
and he had a vision of things he wanted to do. Clinton knew
how to get things done. He could manipulate people better. Buddy
was a little too straight, where Clinton was willing to bend
backwards to get what he wanted. Buddy was more like Gary Hart.
He didn't really like people. He'd sit with his back to a restaurant
full of people so nobody would bother him when he ate dinner
in Baton Rouge. But as far as skill, intelligence, vision --
Roemer was better than Clinton. The ingredient missing in Clinton
is not his intellect, not his memory, but his creativity. Clinton
is not creative. Roemer is creative. He could also write. He
wrote some beautiful speeches that I probably got credit for
along the way, but I didn't write them. Roemer had a sense,
a feeling of rhythm. He was lyrical. Clinton never said anything
that was memorable.
Q: Talk about the role of race in Southern politics, particularly
in light of your role in the Roemer-Edwards-Duke race of 1991.
Do you still see race -- and racism -- playing a role in campaigns?
A: That's what I feel strongest about in the world --
racism and anti-Semitism. We keep telling ourselves, "Look how
far we've come." And we have made some progress. However,
when David Duke ran in this state, he was known as a KKK leader
and a former Nazi -- and he got over half the white vote every
time he ran statewide.
But let's take Louisiana out
of it, because we're no worse here than any other Southern state.
Let's look at Georgia, which is considered an enlightened Southern
state. Georgia has had some incredible governors. But, when
it came time to vote in the last Georgia governor's race, the
only issue was whether they should keep the rebel flag as part
of their state flag. The rebel flag was incorporated into Georgia's
state flag in 1956 in defiance of a Supreme Court decision.
It had nothing to do with their heritage, but people were saying,
"Let's return to our heritage." It wasn't their heritage, it
was defiance of the Supreme Court. But the issue was so prevalent
that, in the southern part of the state, voter turnout was enhanced
up to 300 percent in some counties. And the Republicans made
the flag the major issue -- subtly though. The candidate himself
never brought up the flag except when asked. He said, "We should
have had the right to vote on that flag." Well, they didn't
vote on it in 1956. So the election revolved around that.
In South Carolina, the governor
was defeated because of the Confederate flag. So, anytime you
think that racism in the South is dead, remember: it cost two
governors their elections. Lyndon Johnson said he thought that
because of civil rights legislation the South would become Republican
for a lifetime.
And
he was right. Why did whites become Republican? It wasn't because
Republicans were for better economic opportunities or for Social
Security or for education. It was because of race. What we've
learned to do is hide our racial prejudices. What we've learned
is polite, plausible deniability. We've learned the language
that allows us to be racist without exposing ourselves. But
we're still racist.

Other Stories This Week in Features:
Cover Story
The Running Man
Blake Pontchartrain
New Orleans Know-It-All
Shoptalk
A Delectable Fish Tale
Recently in Cover Story:
New Trials 05 13 03
Butt Out! 05 06 03
The Mackie Report 05 06 03
Cover Story Archives
Other Stories by Clancy DuBos:
The Perfect Comeback 05 13 03
Blossman in Hot Water 05 06 03
We All Should Know Better 04 29 03
Clancy DuBos Archives

|
 |