The Center
Pundits have a vocabulary all their own, but their jargon doesn't quite fit the reality the rest of us reside in. Take, for example, "the center." When used by pundits it doesn't refer to the actual middle of the whole range of the political spectrum, it usually means that section between Democrats and Republicans in Congress, which I would place somewhere about ten giant steps to the right of center.
Sometimes, however, pundits use it to mean the American public which is supposed to be a monolithic and common-sensical aggregate all clustered around the precise mean on any given issue. I think that's partially the sense James Klurfeld, vice president and editor of the editorial pages at Newsday, had in mind in an op-ed piece I read in today's Sacramento Bee.
Sadly, there is no center in American politics today.
That was clearly demonstrated Wednesday, when the Senate failed to find the 60 votes necessary to pass a bipartisan measure sponsored by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., that would have mandated that troops be granted home leaves as long as their most recent combat deployments before being sent back to war.
That measure represented the best chance for forcing the Bush administration to come to terms with its failed policy in Iraq. ...
The result is that there will be no change of policy in Iraq until there is a new occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That means 15 more months of the same policy, barring dramatic, unforeseen developments. That means that we will go through a decisive, at times demagogic, debate during our presidential election, with candidates locking themselves into positions to appeal to their base voters in primaries.
And that, of course, makes it even more difficult to eventually find a center.
This, despite the fact that most voters say they want a change in policy in Iraq, despite the fact that most Republicans realize that staying in lockstep with the president might jeopardize their seats in next year's election. The extreme voices in both parties, even if they don't represent a majority view, will determine policy. ...
I do blame President George W. Bush, who, from the day he was first elected (with fewer votes than his opponent), has never shown any interest in compromise -- especially when it came to Iraq.
But in pursuing his unilateral war, Bush has ignored a basic lesson in any democracy: You cannot fight a war without the support of the people. He chose not to even try to build a center for his policies.
The next 15 months of drift will be the result.
While I agree with much of what Mr. Klurfeld has to say, I'm not so certain I agree with the route he takes to get there. The problem isn't so much that there are only far right and far left (far left? what is that man smoking?) members of Congress. The problem is that no one has yet displayed the spine to do what the people of the United States (allegedly the real center of power in our democracy) elected those congress critters to do in November, 2006: end this misbegotten and illegal war and bring the troops home.
And that is why the polls rate Congress pretty much the same as the President.
Oh, and Senator Warner? Thanks for nothing.
Sometimes, however, pundits use it to mean the American public which is supposed to be a monolithic and common-sensical aggregate all clustered around the precise mean on any given issue. I think that's partially the sense James Klurfeld, vice president and editor of the editorial pages at Newsday, had in mind in an op-ed piece I read in today's Sacramento Bee.
Sadly, there is no center in American politics today.
That was clearly demonstrated Wednesday, when the Senate failed to find the 60 votes necessary to pass a bipartisan measure sponsored by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., that would have mandated that troops be granted home leaves as long as their most recent combat deployments before being sent back to war.
That measure represented the best chance for forcing the Bush administration to come to terms with its failed policy in Iraq. ...
The result is that there will be no change of policy in Iraq until there is a new occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That means 15 more months of the same policy, barring dramatic, unforeseen developments. That means that we will go through a decisive, at times demagogic, debate during our presidential election, with candidates locking themselves into positions to appeal to their base voters in primaries.
And that, of course, makes it even more difficult to eventually find a center.
This, despite the fact that most voters say they want a change in policy in Iraq, despite the fact that most Republicans realize that staying in lockstep with the president might jeopardize their seats in next year's election. The extreme voices in both parties, even if they don't represent a majority view, will determine policy. ...
I do blame President George W. Bush, who, from the day he was first elected (with fewer votes than his opponent), has never shown any interest in compromise -- especially when it came to Iraq.
But in pursuing his unilateral war, Bush has ignored a basic lesson in any democracy: You cannot fight a war without the support of the people. He chose not to even try to build a center for his policies.
The next 15 months of drift will be the result.
While I agree with much of what Mr. Klurfeld has to say, I'm not so certain I agree with the route he takes to get there. The problem isn't so much that there are only far right and far left (far left? what is that man smoking?) members of Congress. The problem is that no one has yet displayed the spine to do what the people of the United States (allegedly the real center of power in our democracy) elected those congress critters to do in November, 2006: end this misbegotten and illegal war and bring the troops home.
And that is why the polls rate Congress pretty much the same as the President.
Oh, and Senator Warner? Thanks for nothing.
Labels: 110th Congress, Iraq War
posted by Diane at 1:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home