Clarence Page
Are they straddling the `crazy base'?Published May 24, 2006 in the Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON -- Anti-war protesters disrupted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) speech at the National Press Club Tuesday. She should thank them profusely. Anytime the far left wants to portray Clinton as too conservative, she seems quite willing these days to play in that briar patch.
On the other side of the political fence, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) owes a similar debt to the anti-war hecklers who last week jeered his commencement speech at New School University in New York. The insults must have sounded like music to his political ears.
--snip--
What's going on? After years of bitterly polarized politics, could the Republican front-runner be noticing a national yearning for what former Secretary of State Colin Powell famously called "the sensible center"? We can only hope.
After years of arguments about flag burning, gay marriage and other wedge issues, it would be refreshing to see a national contest of solutions to the problems most Americans wrestle with every day. McCain and Clinton might just do it, if their own partisans don't get in the way.
That's the big problem faced by moderates: They often have a better chance of winning the national election than winning their own party's nomination.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0605240008may24,0,6367116.column?coll=chi-ed_opinion_columnists-utl">Read the entire commentary
Clarence Page is usually pretty good, but I just had to email him my disagreement:Dear Mr. Page,
Are Clinton and McCain straddling the 'crazy' base?
Yes and no.
They are straddling, but is the base really crazy?
I can't speak for the Republican base because that's not where I am, but as someone who is less than happy with Democratic leaders drifting rightward in their quest for electoral success, I'll tell you what I think.
I think the politics of Hillary Clinton and John McCain are more about political calculation than about solving the serious problems that face our nation. Sure, you have to be elected president in order to solve the problems, but I think this straddling act is the modus operandi of politicians unwilling to take the bold measures that are necessary. Is the "center" really all that "sensible"?
Iraq is a case in point. Pardon my scatological French, but we need to either shit or get off the pot. Either it is a national priority that demands a full commitment of national resources and will, or it is a colossal strategic blunder that needs to be remedied by a fundamental change in foreign policy. Meeting these two 'crazy' extremes halfway will produce more of what we've seen the last three years.
Two of the main tests of leadership are determining the necessary course and convincing the citizenry to get on board. Washington politicians more often than not advance to national prominence not because they pass those tests but because they know how to play the game and raise money. In my opinion the game is fundamentally flawed, and given the plummeting approval rating of Bush and of Congress I'd say I'm not alone in that opinion. The American people may be poorly informed, but they still have an instinct for genuine leadership and sensible policy. Bush fooled them for awhile, but reality has exposed the senselessness of his policies.
I also must point out the difference between the 'base' and partisanship. The base (of either party) have principles and beliefs. Partisanship consists of allegiance to party even when that party betrays those principles. Today's Republican Party of huge deficits, military adventurism, and Big Brother big government betrays the bedrock principles of conservatism and libertarianism. Today's spineless Democratic Party responds to their current opportunity by drifting rightward and hoping to win by default. That is the game that Hillary appears to be playing, and also Nancy Pelosi when she declares that impeachment is "off the table."
That is not leadership. Our country and the foundation of our republic are in trouble. The current administration took us into a costly war on the basis of cherry-picked intelligence and deliberate deceptions. They've ruined our national reputation, divided us, driven us deeply into debt, cost the lives of more than 2400 American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, illegally spied on us, and vindictively exposed an undercover CIA agent who was actually trying to do something about weapons of mass destruction This president thumbs his nose at Congress and the Constitution by issuing hundreds of signing statements that he will ignore laws as he sees fit.
Is sensible to shy away from holding this administration accountable for fear of being branded too liberal? Liberal has nothing to do with it. Upholding the rule of law that has served us so well for more than 200 years has everything to do with it. Restoring constitutional chacks and balances has everything to do with it. Recognizing that something is terribly wrong and working hard to right it is the duty of those who serve us in the federal government. In this case, partisanship on the Democratic side consists in failing to do their duty for fear it will hurt their electoral chances.
I'd rather have our country go through a protracted investigation and impeachment than to pretend nothing is wrong and thereby sanction such constitutional violations. This is a problem that needs to be solved along with Iraq, deficits, health care, energy, global warming, etc. It is the first problem, because without restoring the integrity of our rule of law and repairing our government we cannot hope to solve the others.
The middle ground is occupied by politicians who knowingly wear blinders. Those of us with our eyes wide open will not be led by them. Those of you in the media should focus more on exposing the truth than extolling the political advantages of straddling.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
