The Unknown Candidate: Spin, Davey, Spin

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Spin, Davey, Spin

(Click on Cartoon for Larger View)

In todays NY Times op ed David Brooks makes a lame attempt to redefine Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut primary as the emergence of a viable third major party in America--the McCain-Lieberman Party. Say what?

It's almost funny, that, according to Brooks, this third party represents the "center" of the political spectrum. Exactly what is centrist about two neo-con, pro war politicians who have staunchly supported BushCo's pre-emptive war policy--no matter what. I'd say that on the foreign policy front, at least, these two are so far to the right that they're radical.

The Connecticut primary was first and foremost a rejection of the Bush war policy--which, by the way, has been accompanied by a power grab and concurrent attack on our rights and freedoms at home and a complete disregard for the will of the American people. Congress was complicit in this policy and voters are merely exercising their rights to refuse to vote for those who arrogantly fail to represent them and support those who want to change the current course.

Sorry, Brooks, but the message coming out of Connecticut is that Democrats (and I suspect a fair amount of Republicans and Independents as well) are tired of the bogus, never-ending war on terrorism and the complete lack of representation of average Americans in Washington. The message is this: Americans want universal health care, 'secure'--not privatized-- social security, medicare, education reform, environmental reforms, a responsible alternative energy plan and an end to congressmen who put corporate lobby-interests over those of ordinary taxpayers.

I'd also like for someone to please tell me when support for traditional Democratic values like education, healthcare, women's rights, civil rights, and the environment became "left wing" or "liberal" instead of "centrist" Democratic causes. Guess what? They're not radical ideas at all. They are the issues Democrats have historically embraced without shame. Just as they once wore the word "liberal" proudly.

What happened? Spin. Lots and lots of Rovian media spin. The sad thing is, the media's liberal bashing never would have worked if the Democrats had stood up to the initial denigration by pointing out that without liberals we would not have had the clean air and water standards, worker safety protections, social security, the civil rights movement, the equal rights movement, the womens movement, birth control, the Voting Rights Act, federally subsidized student loans, the Freedom of Information Act, and on and on and on.

Now, the American people are finally letting the hacks in Washington know that they have had enough. Enough lies. Enough wars. Enough spin. And not enough real help when and where they need it.

You and your specious argument is twisting in the wind, Davey-boy.

Party No. 3
By David Brooks
The New York Times

There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America. There is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party.

All were on display Tuesday night.

The Democratic Party was represented by its rising force — Ned Lamont on a victory platform with the net roots exulting before him and Al Sharpton smiling just behind. The Republican Party was represented by its collapsing old guard — scandal-tainted Tom DeLay trying to get his name removed from the November ballot. And the McCain-Lieberman Party was represented by Joe Lieberman himself, giving a concession speech that explained why polarized primary voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics.

The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.

The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. They rationalize their behavior by insisting that circumstances have forced them to shelve their integrity for the good of the country. They imagine that once they have achieved victory through pulverizing rhetoric they will return to the moderate and nuanced sensibilities they think they still possess.

But the experience of DeLay and the net-root DeLays in the Democratic Party amply demonstrates that means determine ends. Hyper-partisans may have started with subtle beliefs, but their beliefs led them to partisanship and their partisanship led to malice and malice made them extremist, and pretty soon they were no longer the same people.

The McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.

On policy grounds, too, the McCain-Lieberman Party is distinct. On foreign policy, it agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.

On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.

On globalization, the McCain-Lieberman Party believes that free trade reduces poverty but that government must invest in human capital so people can compete. It believes in comprehensive immigration reform.

The McCain-Lieberman Party sees Democrats in the grip of teachers’ unions and Republicans who let corporations write environmental rules. It sees two parties that depend on the culture war for internal cohesion and that make abortion a litmus test.

It sees two traditions immobilized to trench warfare.

The McCain-Lieberman Party is emerging because the war with Islamic extremism, which opened new fissures and exacerbated old ones, will dominate the next five years as much as it has dominated the last five. It is emerging because of deep trends that are polarizing our politics. It is emerging because social conservatives continue to pull the GOP rightward (look at how Representative Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, was defeated by a conservative rival in Michigan). It is emerging because highly educated secular liberals are pulling the Democrats upscale and to the left. (Lamont’s voters are rich, and 65 percent call themselves liberals, compared with 30 percent of Democrats nationwide.)

The history of third parties is that they get absorbed into one of the existing two, and that will probably happen here. John McCain and Hillary Clinton will try to reconcile their centrist approaches with the hostile forces in their own parties. And maybe they will succeed (McCain has a better chance, since the ideologues on the right feel vulnerable while the ideologues on the left, perpetually two years behind the national mood, think the public wants more rage).

But amid the hurly-burly of the next few years — the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi, a possible economic slowdown — the old parties could become even more inflamed. Both could reject McCain-Liebermanism.

At that point things really get interesting.

Photo credit: David Brooks. (The New York Times)
Cartoon: By Tony Auth/Slate