Uniting Or Dividing?
David Ignatius asks a question in his column today that warrants some thought. In discussing the new book The Way To Win by Mark Halperin of ABC News and John F. Harris of The Washington Post he reviews a few races around the country. He looks at the central thesis of the book that there are two main styles of politics in play and sees how the races match up.
Halperin and Harris postulate that the two approaches are the "sythesizer" one favored by Bill Clinton and the "clarifier" method of George W. Bush. Under these interpretations, Clinton tried to pull together the center while Bush tried to divide by sharpening distinctions between groups.
"Clinton Politics is the politics of the center. It holds that Americans for the most part, with the exception of irate groups at the edges, are less interested in ideology than in practical solutions to basic problems. People would prefer politics to be polite, civil, and compromise-minded."
"Bush Politics is the politics of the base," the authors continue. "A successful leader will stand forthrightly on one side of a grand argument. Then he or she will win that argument by sharpening the differences and rallying his most intense supporters to his side."
People from the Old Media, like me, instinctively prefer a centrist style of civilized debate. Of course we do, say Halperin and Harris. We are the gatekeepers of the old order. The shrill voices of the New Media — the bloggers and talk-radio hosts and other partisan megaphones that Halperin and Harris describe as the "Freak Show" — don't just threaten our beloved center. They might eventually put us out of business. (The 'Freak show' comment was the subject of a post here).
In reviewing some local races this year, Ignatius sees some people running a centrist style campaign, others not so much. Then at the end he asks the key question:
The great synthesizer himself, Bill Clinton, was out campaigning this week for Deval Patrick, a member of the Clinton Justice Department who is running for governor of Massachusetts. "Everyone knows that, somehow, the wheel has run off of our national discourse and our common life," Clinton said Monday. "And people don't want us to shout at each other any more. They want to be talked to, reasoned with, lifted up."
Is Clinton right about the country? Are Democrats doing well in this campaign season because Americans want to find their way back to the civilized center? Or are they profiting from the Democratic base's rage at George W. Bush? That's the troubling question that lingers after reading Halperin and Harris's book: If the Democrats win next month, will they be the heirs of Clinton's vision of politics or of Rove's? Are we heading for unity or even sharper division?
I don't actually agree with Halperin and Harris' interpretation all that much. I think they see Clinton in a better light than he deserves and Bush in a worse one. That aside, I don't think there really can be much of a question of how the Democrats are, in general, running this campaign. They have made a concerted effort, admitted openly, to suppress the conservative vote and split the Republican coalition. Halperin and Harris meant their book to be a guide for the 2008 elections. I think it is pretty obvious which way the Democrats plan to head.
By K T Cat, Wednesday, 18 October , 2006 @ 7:31 am
The metric used in the analysis is whether or not a political party won or lost races. That’s fine for the political party, but it means nothing to the country as a whole. Despite the fiery rhetoric of Newt Gingrich, Republican control of every branch of the government has led to…not a whole lot. As far as the presidency is concerned, good for Clinton that he was a uniter. That’s great. He also got his butt kicked all over the globe and left us all with long-term problems.
If the only thing you want to do is win political battles, that’s all you’ll get. Meanwhile, the external forces that want something else will get what they want.
By daveinboca, Wednesday, 18 October , 2006 @ 9:38 am
Clinton is doing his Cheshire Cat pose of the month, then he will wag his finger and remind us of all the horse-manure he shovelled into the politcal arena.
The Dems are simply disunited and because of their single-interest multiple constituencies—the Repubs have religious and corporate of their own—the Dems will always be imitating the human helicopter of Arianna PuffHost hysteria. The Dems have no center, just a dozen vectors often pulling in opposite directions.