As the primaries and caucuses continue winnowing the field for 2008, I've reluctantly - but not that reluctantly - reached a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of many eager Democrats.
2008 isn't going to be a Democratic year - and that could be a very good thing.
To begin with, I'm increasingly convinced that - for all the excitement generated by the first credible Black candidate for president, and the first credible female candidate for president - the Democratic field is fatally flawed.
There is, of course, the obvious fact that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a resume which inspires confidence. Neither has any serious administrative or foreign policy experience. Neither has an impressive legislative record - particularly in critical areas such as budget and finance. Thus far, the Democrats seem to be eliminating candidates in reverse order of qualification - a trend which could, if followed to its logical conclusion - result in the nomination of Mike Gravel.
More disturbing, however, is the emerging appearance of troubling character flaws in the two leading Democratic candidates. Since New Hampshire, each has shown an increasing tendency toward petulance - as though each believed himself or herself somehow entitled to the party's nomination. The Clintons - both of them - have stepped up their attacks on Obama. In response, Obama has played the race card.
And away we go!
This should not, of course, be that surprising. The Democratic Party has long been more of a coalition of interest groups than a party devoted to something like principled governance. Given that fact - and the fact that two of the largest Democratic constituencies are African-Americans and Boomer generation feminists - it was almost inevitable that things would get intense between two campaigns with strategies rooted in identity politics.
But with Obama playing the race card against the Clintons - long great favorites with African-American voters - the Democratic nomination fight is teetering on the brink of unprecedented nastiness. Someone will win, of course - but whoever does seems destined to do so at the cost of alienating a large chunk of the Democratic base.
How sad that John Edwards - whose third-place campaign could only benefit from staying "above the battle" - seems determined to get down in the muck with the others.
In addition to the emerging flaws of the two principal contenders, it's beginning to look more and more like the next President will be saddled with three enormous problems: a recession; Iraq; and President Bush's legacy of deficit spending, administrative incompetence, and executive overreach.
However those of us who consider ourselves liberals and/or progressives may want an activist administration to tackle challenges such as health care, global warming and improved education, it seems increasingly clear that the President elected in 2008 will spend most of his or her term cleaning up Mr. Bush's mess.
And on a rather straitened budget.
In other words, as I have suggested before, progressives might actually be better off voting for a respectable Republican in 2008 - if there is one; and focusing on nominating and electing good candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives this year; and start working on electing a competent, experienced liberal/progressive President in 2012.
At least, that's what I've come to. The next President will have to spend four years cleaning up after Mr. Bush - certainly one of the worse presidents in American history. It's a thankless job, and whoever gets it will have a hard time winning re-election.
So, are progressives better off winning in 2008 - putting an inexperienced, budget-strapped, and damaged Democrat in the White House? Or surrounding a moderate-conservative Republican with strong Democratic congressional majorities - and thinking long-term?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Certainly there are a lot of things to clean up, and different Democratic candidates have different potentials in different areas, but the prospect of having another Republican president facing a Democratic congress does not seem inviting to me.
I'm a computer programmer, and this reminds me of a classic situation, where there is a huge, old, poorly-functioning system in place and the question is what to do about it. The more academically inclined look at it and shudder and want to start over and do it right. Those who consider themselves more pragmatic want to get right to work patching the most immediate problems.
I tend to be a patcher who looks for opportunities to build capabilities while working on a short term problem. I think you can see Franklin D. Roosevelt's activity in this light. Over time he had more and more to work with.
The problems with a rewrite from scratch are:
1) the organization may not survive long enough
2) nothing is seen as getting better in the meantime
3) hard to get people to agree on a new design
4) people who are best at redesign are worst at saying, OK this new design is good enough, let's stop designing and get to work now.
The desire to establish a new coalition operating under a new paradigm suffers similar drawbacks, I think.
The US has recently been striding willfully in wrong directions in the world: militarily, economically, morally, and technologically; squandering the temporary advantages we enjoyed after WWII. Meanwhile the European Union, Russia, and Asia have chosen different lessons from our example and are aiming to surpass us in different ways. I think it's too late for focusing on the long term; we had our chance for that and mostly blew it. Now I think we need to humbly accept that we've screwed up badly in many areas and try to clean up each mess as best we can. Maybe we can gradually attract and retain people in government service who patiently try to make things better with the situation they've got. The years since the Gingrich revolution have been tough on people like this, but they've always been our key strength.
I'd pick the Democratic candidate who looks best able to get people to work on essential repairs. As a NH voter, I went for Edwards, but the others make a good case for their areas of concern and ability. Clinton is not my top choice, for example, but she has an phenomenal ability to keep abreast of multiple interrelating facts. Obama has amazing cultural skills -- he knows what triggers Americans into mindless opposition, and is often able to sidestep it entirely.
This is not a good time to wait for a better choice with resignation and chagrin. These people have a lot to offer the country, and they're enduring an awful, inhumane campaign system to offer it.
While I accept your logic, as related to computer systems, governing is neither logical nor particularly systematic -- and a nation which ignores the long-term in favor of patching up the short-term is always at a disadvantage in a world in which most cultures are more mature (i.e., longer-term in their thinking) than the young United States.
You cite Russia, Europe and Asia as gaining from our folly. True, but... Suppose they had devoted themselves to a symptomatic approach to their own problems. Europe, instead of gradually unifying, might have chosen to remain an American dependency. Asia might have continued as a producer of raw materials, rather than exportable manufactures. Russia might have -- oh, who knows what dreadful things the Russians might have done, instead of rebuilding on the basis of energy exports and a resurgent national pride.
There are, to be sure, immediate problems which the US needs to clean up -- especially within the intelligence and national security communities. But do you really think a Democratic administration will be as effective working with these folks as a righteous Republican?
We also need to fix health care, now. But, much as I admire the rhetoric, I suspect the health care fix will come from a GOP president. As only Nixon could open the door to China, I suspect only a Republican can face down the corporate interests by enlisting OTHER corporate interests (and small business interests) to get this done.
As for the Democrats - I question whether they will EVER get their act together, but if they do, it will take time. The leadership in the Senate is weak, in the House, a bit better, but hampered by its dependence on several dozen conservative Democrats elected from red states.
The party itself is still in the hands of the old guard -- witness the plight of insurgent Edwards vs. the candidate of the DLC and the candidate of the Chicago machine. It will take at least another four years for the younger generation to begin having a real impact.
Doug, old friend, I appreciate what you say, but I caution you: The Democratic Party is more of an obstacle to reform than a vehicle for change - and its survival depends upon persuading people to believe the same old line: "Sure, we're bad, but look at the other guys."
Post a Comment