LADY NAMED `LUCK' FLEXES ITS POLITICAL MUSCLE IN '92

~After every major election, entire forests are cut down to supply the newsprint required to publish somber discourses on why the electorate chose this or that candidate, and perhaps the even more important subject of why voters rejected other candidacies. By the very nature of the change mandated in this year's election, such discourses have not only been more somber and learned, they have also been much lengthier. By now, voters must be weary of reading why more of them voted for Bill Clinton than George Bush or why Mel Carnahan was more popular than Bill Webster.

The conclusion of many of these intellectual treatises is that voters would have acted differently if only such and such had happened or someone else had been the candidate, which is a little like saying the University of Missouri Tigers would have been this year's Big 8 champions if only they had scored more touchdowns. Changing reality to draw conclusions is always dangerous stuff, and ought to be avoided by writers who should know better.

The truth is Clinton got more votes than Bush because of only two words: The Economy.

The truth is Carnahan got more votes than Webster because of three words: Second Injury Fund.

There is another factor in the Great American Game of Politics that is often overlooked by our esteemed intellectual colleagues which perhaps plays the greatest role of all. It is a factor over which neither the candidate nor the observer has the slightest bit of control. That factor can be identified in one word: Luck.

We would submit that Luck, call it whatever else you will, played an even greater role in the Democratic sweep on Nov. 3 than either The Economy or the Second Injury Fund. Presidents have been re-elected in hard economic times since the early days of the Republic, and governors, too, have been returned to office despite scandals in Jefferson City, particularly those in which the candidate was not directly involved.

Consider what would have happened to the Democratic presidential nominee had Saddam Hussein followed a somewhat different timetable and had the Persian Gulf War occurred in the early weeks of 1992 rather than 1990. Immediately following the war in Iraq, President Bush's popularity reached unparalleled heights, the highest since someone dreamed up opinion polls. At that point, Governor Clinton would have been an historical footnote right after another governor named Dukakis.

Consider what would have happened if Morris Kessler hadn't filed an injury claim for banging himself with a file cabinet drawer. The absurdity of that claim piqued interest among the media that was not to be satiated until some of the abuses of this virtually ignored governmental program began portraying Bill Webster as the ultimate pork-barrel politician. If Kessler had waited to injure himself with a piece of furniture in his own office until last week, it is entirely possible Mel Carnahan would right now be reserving a Ryder truck for a return trip to Rolla.

Consider what might have happened had 2nd District Congresswoman Joan Kelly Horn filed not for re-election but for her party's nomination for the U.S. Senate. Such a candidacy would have certainly given her the right to oppose the re-election of the state's junior U.S. senator, Kit Bond, who managed to gain another term by winning 51 percent of the vote against an under-financed and under-recognized woman with a hyphenated surname.

As for the remainder of the Republican state ticket which went down in defeat primarily as the result of the names of Bush and Webster, consider what might have happened to these candidates had the names listed above them only enjoyed a better draw of the cards. The chances are Missouri would have had another four years of Republican dominance in Jefferson City.

One of the most discussed Missouri politicians in the campaign just ended was the late President Harry Truman, whose memory was evoked by candidates on both sides. Consider what might have happened had the governor of our state in 1940, an apple tree grower from Louisiana, Mo., spent $2,500 more to assure a primary victory over the state's junior U.S. senator, the same Harry S. Truman. That was the amount Stark needed to "buy" certain deliverable wards in St. Louis, but the decision was made not to engage in that kind of politics and Truman won by 4,000 votes. Returning to Washington for another term, he began investigating excess defense industry profits and won the attention of Franklin Roosevelt, who selected him as his vice president three years later. FDR died after his fourth term re-election, HST became president, and the rest is history.

If you don't call that Luck, call it Destiny, Grand Plan or a Crap Shoot. Luck by any other name is still the Draw of the Cards.

There has been a lot of post-election commentary on the genius of James Carville and his handling of the Clinton campaign. Without detracting from Carville, who has certainly had his share of winners as well as losers, nothing all the professional handlers in the world can do will change the dictates of a Lady named Luck. If you're still skeptical, consider previous years' "wonder workers" such as James Baker who ran the Bush campaign in 1988 and again this year, and Roger Ailes, the wunderkind of earlier winners who managed Roy Blunt's efforts in this year's GOP primary.

Campaign managers, like the candidates themselves, are not movers and shakers, as they are eventually pictured, but the mere players in a drama which has been written by an unpaid and usually unrecognized author named Luck. So much for all the intellectual mumbo-jumbo that passes for learned commentary following our great elections.