by John McG - December 28, 2007
The Democratic primary campaign is a clash of styles while the GOP race is a difference of policy directions. That is not to say the Democratic race is unimportant. For one, it is very likely that the Democratic nominee will win the general election and become President, and thus will have a large say in what policies are pursued and in shaping the national conversations over the next four years. The three current front runners for the nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards, each represent a different vision of how this conversation will go.
The nominees, along with most of America, are in agreement that the Bush presidency has been a disaster. Where they seem to differ is in the root cause of this disaster. To summarize:
- For Clinton, the problem is the person of George W. Bush. The 2000 question of, "What part of eight years of peace and prosperity don't you like?" has even more appeal after eight years of war, rising gas prices, and general incompetence. We were on the right track, Bush took us off-track, now let's get back.
- For Obama, the problem is the polarized state of the political environment. Both Democrats and Republicans take extreme positions that appeal to their bases and turn off their political opponents. Whoever can cobble together 51% wins. For the past two elections, it has been Karl Rove and the Republicans. This year, it appears to be the Democrats, but that doesn't mean they should emulate Rove's tactics.
- For Edwards, the problem is Republicans and entrenched special interests. The US needs a President who will go in and fight them, and make government serve the people rather than help make the rich richer.
I'm not sure these candidates would completely embrace these summaries. In particular, I suspect the Clinton campaign likes to see itself more as a real change than as a restoration of the first Clinton Administration. But I think this captures the animating spirit of each campaign.
In an excerpt from The Conscience of a Liberal published in Slate, Paul Krugman called for progressives not to be seduced by calls to compromise, but to capitalize on their political advantage to pursue a progressive agenda in a similar manner to the way in which Bush has pursued a conservative agenda. This seems to map to the Edwards mindset, and indeed much of Krugman's writing has tended to be critical of Obama.
Krugman hasn't been as critical of Senator Clinton, who isn't so much the "anti-Bush" as the "not-Bush." There is a vindictive undertone to Krugman's writing, and it may be that he would like to see Senator Clinton win because Republicans can't stand her.
Which approach is better?
First, I reject the Clinton vision, because the problems that led to the Bush presidency are deeper than just George W. Bush. These trends were set in motion by the first Clinton Presidency, and I am not eager for an ėncore.
That leaves the Obama and Edwards visions.
Since I consider myself right of center, it should not be surprising that I favor the Obama approach. An Edwards presidency would leave me out in the cold for the next several years - a fate conservatives might deserve but would not embrace. But I think there are reasons beyond self-interest for my belief that the Obama approach is superior.
I have no doubt that there are people who currently have access to power who use that power to unfairly benefit themselves. But I am not convinced that these people are rotten to the core, and that they set out to screw over the lower and middle classes just for the fun of it. They know how the current systems work, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. So, for example, including insurance companies in the conversation about health care may not be a bad idea.
But even if one accepts the premise that there are some who have gamed the current system and are thus undeserving of a spot at the table to discuss the path forward, it still seems unwise to begin to change things by telegraphing to these folks that they will be losers. Remember, these are supposed to be treacherous people who cheerfully deny treatment to poor people so they can have another car in their over-sized garages. You don't think they'd find a way to sabotage a plan they were shut out of creating?
Sometimes, Krugman is right; conflict is unavoidable, there is no common ground, and it's foolish to pretend there is. As an opponent of the death penalty, I would not accept one execution. As an opponent of abortion, I would not accept a single abortion. The idea that I could effectively partner with a death penalty proponent or supporter of legal abortion is a product of wishful thinking.
But for the challenges the next president will deal with -- notably the environment and health care, and how to get out of Iraq -- these are more shades of grey issues than black and white issues.
One of the lessons of the Iraq war ought to be that pissing off half the electorate (and world) is a bad way to start a grand project. Which is why a consensus approach is preferable to a Rovian 51% strategy.
As Bush has learned, 51% can quickly turn to a much lower number. Bush will very likely leave office without a lasting positive legacy. A Democratic president who pursues a similar strategy will meet a similar fate.
John McG. is a father and software engineer living in St. Louis, MO. He blogs at Man Bites Blog.