 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
POLITICAL CALCULUS For months commentators, politicians, and political junkies have been calculating (and re-calculating) the dynamics of the 2006 mid-term elections and predicting possible outcomes. Much attention has centered on how these elections will affect the Really Big Question of 2008 – namely, Will She or Won’t She? – run, that is – “She” being Hillary Clinton. Media people want her to run so badly they are drooling onto the lapels of their $900 suits. In a business where the main question is “Where’s the Conflict?”, a first-ever run for the White House by a controversial Democratic woman who has a genuine shot at winning would be the media’s end of the rainbow. Mrs. Clinton is indeed a savvy politician in the mold of her darling Billy, who perfected the art of political triangulation – a canny technique which makes one appear to support both sides of an issue. Lavishly assisted by a favorable press, Mr. Clinton’s legerdemain so bedazzled voters that a majority often failed to note the fundamental inconsistencies of his triangulated positions. Welfare reform was a prime example. Essentially forced to sign a reform bill passed by a GOP Congress in the election year of 1996, Mr. Clinton triangulated the issue by springing to the other side before the ink on his signature was dry. Beating his breast with passionate mea culpas for not realizing how “bad” the bill was, he promised his Democratic welfare constituency that he would support a restoration of former benefits at the earliest moment. (That moment never came.) Thus, he got credit for signing the long-overdue reform – which no Republican president could possibly have engineered – while maintaining faith with voters who opposed the legislation. This brilliant strategy all but guaranteed his re-election in 1996. Mrs. Clinton has attempted to triangulate divisive issues, like abortion. On one hand, she publicly criticizes the high national abortion-rate. This, she says, is bad for the country and for individuals. She wants abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare” – echoing Bill’s famous line. Her liberal supporters remained quiet when she said this, knowing that the leopard had not really changed her spots. For when push comes to shove (in actual voting), Mrs. Clinton consistently shows herself to be as great a “friend” of abortion as ever. But her “moderate” comments remain on the record to assure voters that she really is in touch with Middle America’s concerns. The war against terrorism (in general) and in Iraq (in particular) present other classic triangulation opportunities. To pose as a reasonable, middle-of-the-road statesman, Mrs. Clinton praises Mr. Bush’s efforts to eradicate the Taliban and stabilize Iraq. She opposes timetables for withdrawal and disagrees with radical Democratic elements who call for immediate pullout. On the other hand, she ceaselessly nitpicks Mr. Bush and his administration for their management of the war. She decries American casualties and the stubbornly persistent violence in Iraq. Thus, she appeals to both supporters and opponents of the war by straddling the issue. Except that, in this case, triangulation is not working its fabled charm. The Democratic anti-war faction – whose “spiritual” leader is DNC Chairman Howard Dean – refuses to nod and smile while Mrs. Clinton supports the war to placate the pickup-truck bubbas. Anti-war warriors raise a stink when she says anything favorable about America’s ongoing contest with Islamist terrorism in the Iraqi theater. The senator has already drawn fire from anti-war Democrats who want her in their camp entirely – not just when it suits her purposes. These moves are the opening gambits of the 2008 presidential race. What Mrs. Clinton must do to placate this prickly faction might determine whether she runs in aught-eight. Another Democrat who has tangled seriously with the anti-war faction is Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Being Jewish, Mr. Lieberman supports the war in Iraq as part of our wider fight with world-wide terrorism. He sees these efforts as critical to our interests and vital to the survival of Israel, of which he is (and has been) an uncompromising champion. In his public statements, Mr. Lieberman has said the situation in Iraq is “improving” and that precipitous abandonment of its people would be a ruinous mistake which would permanently blacken the trustworthiness of America. Very popular with both Democrats and Republicans, Senator Lieberman has held office for three terms. But he is fighting for his political life in the primary campaign for the Democratic senatorial nomination against Nick Lamont – a TV mogul who is the avowed anti-war candidate. A political lightweight, Mr. Lamont served only briefly as a Connecticut selectman, two decades ago. Yet he is giving Mr. Lieberman a contest spirited enough to make the senator say he will file as an independent candidate if he fails to win the August primary. This announcement has enraged Democratic leaders who warn that it might split the Party’s vote and let Republicans win the seat. Senator Clinton has said she will support Mr. Lamont if he is nominated. If Mr. Lieberman loses the primary contest, the anti-war wing will be perceived as gaining in strength. Many analysts believe the senator can win the general election as an independent. How he fares – either as an independent or as the Democratic nominee – will measure the anti-war wing’s muscularity (or weakness). Some commentators say this race – in both the primary and general election phases – could be a precursor of the 2008 presidential election. My observation is that Connecticut is not exactly a microcosm of the country. Mr. Lieberman’s fate is of interest, but not decisive. Worth watching, however. The War is the big dog in the Congressional elections this year – mostly because Democrats have chosen to make it so. Many Democrats believe it is unpopular enough to cause voters to embrace anti-war candidates and hand control of the House and Senate to Democrats. Most Republicans disagree. They are staking their continued political success on the historical fact that voters don’t like “changing horses in midstream”. So long as there is some progress in a war, voters usually prefer to keep things stable, politically, for the duration. Democrats have happily embraced public disquiet with the war as their political revival vehicle because they know the cupboard is bare of anything else that might bring them success. Corruption was their Great Hope, earlier this year, but several untoward incidents deflated the “culture of corruption” campaign Democrats hoped to wage against the GOP. The ID-badge/inappropriate-touching flap between Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and the Capitol Police; an obviously inebriated Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s (D-RI) early morning car-crash at a Capitol Hill checkpoint; and Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-LA) “cold cash” bribery case all worked – in some instances, with a certain burlesque hilarity – to sink the strategy. The country has changed in significant ways since the halcyon days of Democratic supremacy. Only 12.5% of American workers are now union members, versus 33% in 1950. Over half of all voters are invested in the stock market, versus only 20% as recently as 1980. Immigrants streaming into the country are working hard to be entrepreneurs and business owners. They tend to avoid becoming poor “victims” who can be exploited by Democratic politicians. While Democrats were preoccupied with becoming the party of abortion, gay marriage, sexual license, high taxes, welfare, victimization, racial enmity, no more war, and dumbed-down education, the GOP became the party of low taxes, traditional values, unborn-child protection, educational choice, strong defense, meritocracy, middle-class investment, and personal financial empowerment. A growing majority of voters – including increasing numbers of minorities – identifies with the Republican platform. Disquiet with a long, difficult war (which everyone knew would be long and difficult) and the presence of a few highly publicized bad apples in the political barrel are not likely to turn voters back to the 1960s or 1930s. Voters want to win the war on terror; they want a strong, vigorous America; and they want to build a secure personal future in a decent, moral society they can still recognize. That’s what our elections are going to be about for years to come – at least, until Democrats rediscover the voters they forgot about. Clintonian triangulation will not do this.
|
|
| ||||||
