The jockeying for position in ‘96 goes well beyond the individual styles of a populist, puppy-dog Kemp or a cool, aristocratic Weld. The potential candidates represent different wings of the GOP, and if they all try to take off at once in 1996, the party could fly apart. It’s not at all clear that the successors to Ronald Reagan and George Bush can sustain the GOP’s shaky coalition of supply-siders, fundamentalists, country-club moderates and blue-collar ethnics. A guide to the civil wars ahead:
If James Baker engineers George Bush’s re-election he could inherit the throne in 1996. He will be at the very least a shadow vice president, the heir apparent poised to usher in another eight years of Republican rule. Baker has not faced a voter since he ran for attorney general of Texas in 1978 (he lost), but among Republicans in one key state, New Hampshire, he ranks first, according to a poll taken last week.
Dan Quayle finished a distant fourth in the same poll. Some GOP strategists are spreading the word that Quayle will not run in ‘96 if he’s an underdog. Quayle operated under the radar in Houston, quietly assuring party activists that he’s no quitter. He met with the Ohio delegation, telling them that he’d been bucked up by Ronald Reagan. “The harder your critics go after you, the more you know you’re right,” Quayle said the former president had told him.
A strong ideologue, Quayle is an outcast among the pragmatic inner-circle Bushies. If Quayle is the dauphin, Baker is Cardinal Richelieu; his new White House role allows him to be the arbiter of Quayle’s future. Baker could restore the moderation on social issues that Bush abandoned. In a party obsessed with where its politicians stand on abortion, Baker is one of the few whose views are unknown. What does that tell you? “That he’s a canny politician,” says Schlafly. Conservative activists vow not to allow a pro-choice candidate to be nominated in ‘96. “It would provoke a rupture that would lead to a third party,” predicts Rep. Vin Weber.
The party’s moralist streak was a mile wide in Houston. Not since the New Hampshire primary, when he won 37 percent of the vote against Bush, has Pat Buchanan gotten such respect. But no one, including possibly Buchanan himself, takes the heat-seeking commentator seriously as a potential president. Former drug czar William Bennett, a possible candidate under the values banner should Quayle falter, has said that his goal is to reshape American institutions in the same way that the Supreme Court has been transformed. But Bennett, who has no appetite for the grunt work of politics, spent the week hobnobbing with the “media elite” as a PBS commentator. Spotted in the Astrodome with right-wing radio-talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and conservative activist Paul Weyrich, Bennett wryly declared they were there to ensure that Jerry Brown got a chance to speak. When the quote showed up in an Indiana newspaper, a literal-minded conservative called Bennett to ask exactly what he stood for. Bennett is something of an intellectual provocateur, which may make him a better dinner guest than presidential candidate. On the floor of the convention before a dozen onlookers, Kemp effused to Bennett that he wouldn’t run for president if Bennett did. As reporters scribbled down the quote, Kemp grinned and protested, “That’s off the record.” The truth is if Kemp runs, Bennett won’t.
Kemp is the sentimental favorite of Reagan Republicans. He has the same optimism and true-blue belief in supply-side economics as the former president. He also has an evangelistic fervor about expanding the party to include minorities. “He’s the RFK of their side,” says Frank Mankiewicz, Robert Kennedy’s press secretary. Kemp was a whirling dervish in Houston, popping in on New Hampshire delegates to talk for “a minute … no, that’s an oxymoron, I can go 10 minutes without using a verb.” But Kemp couldn’t translate the strong feelings for him into votes in 1988, and GOP strategists question whether he has the discipline for a sustained run in 1996. Gramm is Kemp’s evil twin. Where Kemp wants to pump up the economy with tax cuts for everyone, Gramm comes at it with a starve-the-fever approach, coupled with a reputation for being mean-spirited. His keynote address at the convention was widely regarded to have bombed. Asked if the speech flopped because Gramm’s “persona” had not come through on TV, a GOP official winced: “He should hope it doesn’t.” But Gramm has more than $4 million in the bank and a bloodlust for winning that will make him a player.
Because the GOP’s ‘96 field is crowded with right-to-life conservatives, there is an opening for a Yuppie moderate to slip through. The religious right controlled the party machinery this time around. But the voices of moderation vow they won’t be caught off guard again. “Pro-choice Republicans will be very active and very loud the next four years,” says GOP polltaker Frank Luntz. Half the GOP voters in New Hampshire say they would prefer a pro-choice candidate in ‘96. Some GOP strategists believe that Weld and California Gov. Pete Wilson represent the future of the party. But first, each must survive a contentious re-election fight in his home state. Wilson didn’t even attend the convention because of California’s budget crisis. Weld thinks he has found a formula for the future: fiscal conservative, social liberal. But in a party that still celebrates the values of the 1950s, the past dies hard.
title: “Eyes On The Prize” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-31” author: “Barbara Dziedzic”
Atlanta was one long, golden day for Johnson. But his all-weather dedication may finally reap its reward in Sydney, where it is often wet and cold in September. “My job will be easier if it’s raining because so many of my competitors will get freaked out,” says Johnson. In a sport where every few years there’s a new fast kid off the blocks, Johnson’s longevity at the top is rare–this will be his third Olympics. Only one male runner in any of the sprints–Carl Lewis in the 100 in 1984 and 1988–has ever successfully defended a sprint title. Johnson is an overwhelming favorite to repeat as 400-meter champion.
But Johnson has learned there are things even he can’t plan for. A severe leg cramp, which felled him in the 200 meters at the Olympic trials in July, deprived him of the chance to repeat his historic Atlanta feat, when he became the first man ever to win both the Olympic 200 and 400 meters. In Sydney, running both the 400 and the 4 x 400-meter relay, he’ll have a chance to add to his cache of three gold medals. “What I’m most proud of is not this gold medal or that world record, but that I was consistently the best over 10 years,” says Johnson, who will turn 33 the week the Olympics begin. “And winning gold. Not silver or bronze–don’t have any of those. I’ve got gold!”
Atlanta made him one of the rare track celebrities in this country, but the last four years have been dotted with disappointments. In his two most publicized races since the ‘96 Games, Johnson pulled up lame. (The first was in a 1997 made-for-TV 150-meter match race against Canadian Donovan Bailey, the ‘96 Olympic 100-meter champ.) “That’s part of a sprinter’s job description,” he says. “You’re gonna get hurt.”
Johnson says the biggest problem for an aging athlete is how much longer it takes to bounce back from injury. But after the cramp at the recent trials, he was back on the track in a week, demonstrating the discipline that has been the hallmark of his career. “I knew from the very beginning he had great speed, but I’ve had a lot of speedsters,” says Hart, who is entering his 38th year as coach at Baylor University. “But they didn’t have all those extra intangibles–the work ethic, the focus, the character–that Michael does.” Hart says Johnson didn’t dwell on the trials disappointment. “He just moved on to the next goal,” says his coach. “Michael is a very positive person, and that’s helped him to be so successful.”
For all his success, Johnson remains a complex figure–sometimes prickly and petulant, sometimes classy and generous. Immediately after his injury at the trials he met the press to praise the winners and to debunk the suggestion that he still deserved one of the three 200-meter slots in Sydney. “Then these three guys who worked hard wouldn’t have an opportunity,” he said. He joshed the media for building up the race as a Michael Johnson vs. Maurice Greene showdown. (Greene also failed to finish because of an injury.) “You wound up pissing those other guys off and they went out and ran very fast,” he said.
At other times Johnson can be disingenuous and far less charming. He insists he never wanted the race with Bailey to include just two runners–but he took the money and ran. And while he decried the posturing and trash-talking that dominated the run-up to his duel with Greene, he gave every bit as good as he got. He glowered at Greene and engaged in childish stare-downs every time the two crossed paths. Yet Johnson claims he’s above such petty rivalries. “Having done things out there that no one has ever done before,” he says, “there’s no athlete out there that’s going to be another feather in my cap if I beat him right now.”
His hypersensitivity led to a strange spitting contest in the pages of USA Today, where Johnson served as a guest columnist during the trials. When other runners felt “dissed” by some of Johnson’s predictions in the paper, Johnson dismissed them as immature. Why couldn’t they grasp, he wondered, that he was “wearing two hats” and had journalistic responsibilities? But when a USA Today columnist wrote that Johnson wasn’t winning any popularity contests, Johnson called the paper to demand a retraction, then ridiculed the writer in his own column. “I’m really angry,” he wrote. “I was told [the column] was in jest. The humor was lost on me and my fans.”
Whatever inconsistencies he may have shown off the track, on the track he has been one of the most consistent runners ever. He has lost only a handful of 400s in his lifetime, and his coach believes Johnson might still be undefeated if he didn’t insist on rushing back too quickly from injuries. Johnson is at his best at the biggest meets. Despite the draining multiple heats that conspire against world records at major events, he broke the 200-meter record (with 19.32) at the ‘96 Games and the 400 mark (43.18) at last year’s World Championships in Seville.
Which, given Johnson’s stated goal of sinking the 400-meter record to an almost unfathomable sub-43 seconds, can only heighten the anticipation for Sydney. Johnson, though he remains coy about record possibilities there, feels it too. “There is no better feeling,” he says, “than to beat the best athletes at their best.” After the Games, Johnson envisions a life with just a handful of races and a lot of time spent with his wife and infant son, Sebastian. But that doesn’t mean his competitive fires will burn less fiercely. Asked if he plans to give his Olympic medals to his son, Johnson says with a huge grin, “Let him win his own.”
title: “Eyes On The Prize” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-21” author: “June Joshua”
The prize, one of the world’s most prestigious for literary fiction, has always had a reputation for honoring fusty, turgid tomes. But this year, things will be different. Last month the judges–bleary-eyed from reading 130 nominated books each–attacked publishers for submitting works they called “portentous,” “pretentious” and “pompous.” That day, the committee announced the six surprising new novels that they’d chosen as finalists. The judges had turned down hot twentysomething author Zadie Smith and the established Anita Brookner in favor of unexpected, quirky choices such as Yann Martel’s “Life of Pi,” a witty, highly entertaining read that’s somewhere between fact and fable.
Yesterday, on the Booker Prize’s Web site, it was mistakenly–and embarrassingly–announced that Martel had already won. A spokeswoman said the posting was an error. “The judges haven’t met yet,” she told The Guardian. “I can guarantee that this isn’t the actual result.”
The fresh, diverse shortlist wasn’t the only change. From now on, the award will be called the “Man Booker Prize,” a title that reflects a new sponsor, the Man Group, a British brokerage house. Plus, controversial plans are underway to offer American authors a shot at the [Pound sterling]50,000 ($77,000) prize, which is currently only awarded to authors from Britain, Ireland and the Commonwealth. Americans could be eligible just two years from now.
As for this year’s nominees, the winner will be announced on Oct. 22. NEWSWEEK reviewed the candidates:
William Trevor, “The Story of Lucy Gault” (Picador)
Trevor’s subtle, understated prose tells a story of loss and absence. Set in southern Ireland in 1921, a local Protestant landowner accidentally wounds a young arsonist with a warning shot fired from an old rifle. Fearing reprisals, he moves his family to England. But a rash act of defiance from his young daughter furthers the family’s problems. The book’s style, poignancy and beautifully drawn characters make it the likely winner. Odds: 2-to-1.
Tim Winton, “Dirt Music” (Picador)
Former nurse Georgie Jutland is losing her mind in the small, windswept town of White Point, Australia, living with a fisherman she doesn’t love and his two kids, whose dead mother she can’t replace. Hers is a claustrophobic community, bonded by age-old secrets. Mesmerizing descriptions of the country’s unforgiving landscape heighten the tense drama that unfolds. Winton nearly burned the manuscript for “Dirt Music” because he was convinced it was a dud. Good thing he didn’t. Odds: 3-to-1.
Sarah Waters, “Fingersmith” (Virago)
Set in a Dickensian, 19th-century underworld of London thieves, “Fingersmith” is a sensational historical melodrama, replete with treachery, betrayal and madness. In the book, a gang of tricksters set out to defraud an heiress of her fortune, but life in her country house–where the library is bulging with pornography–turns out to be darker than it seemed. It’s the Marquis de Sade meets “Les Liasons Dangerouses.” Odds: 7-to-2.
Carol Shields, “Unless” (Fourth Estate)
Known for her beguiling, lyrical depictions of everyday life, Pulitzer prize-winning novelist Carol Shields explores grander themes in “Unless” without losing her exquisite touch. Having skirted the compromises most women face by emphasizing her role as housewife, Reta Winters finds her suburban existence poisoned when her oldest daughter disappears and is found begging on the streets with a sign around her neck that says GOODNESS. Her child has become a stranger to Reta, whose grief forces her to take a hard look at her own life. Odds: 5-to-1
Rohinton Mistry, “Family Matters” (Faber and Faber)
Strong on storytelling and rich in description, “Family Matters” is a classic Booker novel. It’s a sprawling, touching chronicle of three generations of a Parsi family in modern Bombay. Patriarch Nariman Vakeel realizes too late in life that he repudiated his true love to marry within his faith. At age 79, he falls badly and is confined to bed. That’s when his family life truly begins to unravel. A traditionalist’s choice–but this definitely isn’t the year for it to win. Odds: 5-to-1.
Yann Martel, “Life of Pi” (Canongate)
Martel’s witty, outrageous “Life of Pi” falls somewhere between a fairy tale and a classic sea disaster yarn in the tradition of “Moby Dick” or “Gulliver’s Travels.” The book’s short preface sets the scene: traveling through India in search of material, Martel came across an elderly man who told him he knew “a story that will make you believe in God.” He told the tall tale of Pi Patel, a 16-year-old Indian boy who, after a shipwreck, finds himself sharing a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. The book straddles the tantalizing gray area between fact and fable. Will it win? Miracles can happen. Odds: 10-to-1.
title: “Eyes On The Prize” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-08” author: “Mickey Brush”
She shouldn’t be. Foreign fund managers have been gaga over India for quite some time, actually. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS–the $165 billion U.S. pension fund that puts a premium on corporate-governance practices–decided in April to start investing in Indian companies. Where CalPERS goes, other international investors tend to follow. Last year alone, more than $7.5 billion was pumped in, the highest in any year since the country opened to foreign capital in 1993. According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development study, major foreign direct investment is expected over the next few years in the country’s industrial sector–automobile manufacturing, machinery, chemicals and, to a lesser extent, electronics.
The bullish attitude can be traced mostly to India’s booming economy. GDP growth this year is forecast to reach 7 percent, rivaling China’s. “India has really turned a corner and emerged as one of the most attractive investment destinations globally for foreign investors,” says Vikas Bali, a principal at the global management-consulting firm A.T. Kearney in New Delhi.
India’s economic reforms are far from complete–not every Indian state has gotten religion on the virtues of unfettered capitalism–but the concept has been widely accepted by the country’s political and economic elite. New Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a reformist. His government’s first budget will raise social spending, but also raises the foreign-ownership limits in several business sectors. “This is a budget with an eye on the big picture,” says Sunil Munjal, president of the Confederation of Indian Industry. “It presents a vision for growth and development.”
Although China still attracts far more foreign investment annually, India’s governing institutions are much more mature. Besides being the world’s largest democracy, the country has a transparent legislature and an independent–if grindingly slow–judiciary. But where India really has an edge over China is its large pool of English-speaking and relatively inexpensive technological manpower. That talent base has helped persuade global industry leaders like General Electric, Microsoft and Intel to set up their own R&D facilities on the Subcontinent. “India offers more long-term advantages than any other huge emerging market today,” says a Western diplomat in New Delhi. That’s a happy thought for prospectors.
