February 4, 2008
Column: For once, it is all about electability
Tracking this astonishing election, you have to remind yourself that the US, when all is said and done, may end up with the president it first thought of. For the moment, Hillary Clinton is still the favourite to win. Aside from that, who could have predicted the current state of the race?
On the eve of “Super Tuesday” and its flurry of crucial primaries, Barack Obama has narrowed Mrs Clinton’s lead to the point where, far from being inevitable as she once seemed, she is seriously worried. If that is surprising, look at the Republicans. They are preparing to nominate John McCain, a maverick who delights in offending allies and opponents without prejudice. This is the Republican who worked with Edward Kennedy, no less, on a law that would have given amnesty (of a sort) to illegal immigrants. He was written off for dead last summer, flat broke and with an imploding campaign, despised by many in the party as no better than a goddamn Democrat.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
Clive Crook states that centrist policies are not always best, but his emphasis on the importance of unifying the country certainly implies reaching out to the center. But can this work in a country that has endured seven years of rule by the hard, intolerant, right?
Look at immigration as an example. Last year’s McCain-Kennedy “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill was one of the most centrist, bipartisan proposals to come along in a long time, and was supported both by President Bush and his most bitter critics in the Democratic party.
It combined a tough, expensive, long, rocky and uncertain road to legal status (not “citizenship”) for some, not all, illegal immigrants, with tough border and workplace enforcement, significant restrictions on civil liberties and access to the courts for immigrants, and, very important but almost unnoticed in the media, drastic reductions in future legal immigration, a goal long sought by the Latinophobes among us.
The bill was supported by everyone from Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John Kyl on the right, to Ted Kennedy on the left. How unifying, bipartisan and centrist can you get?
Yet, as we all know, the bill went down in flames, amid outraged howls of rage from Lou Dobbs and the “No amnesty for illegals” mob, who are the ideological descendants (as Senator McCain had the courage and wisdom to point out at one of the early debates) of the Know-Nothings who were screaming “No Irish need apply” in the 19th Century. The country would have been better served if, instead of trying to reach a compromise which pleased no one, each side had stood its ground and let the public choose between bigotry and tolerance toward Latino immigrants, which is what the immigration issue is all about.
Or look at the contentious issue of Guantanamo, which people on the left regard as a stain on America’s reputation and a threat to our democracy, while those on the right look at it as a vital protection against another terrorist attack. Both Democratic candidates want to close it down. Romney, however, wants to build a second Guantanamo. What would be a “centrist” position, or one that would “unify” the country on this issue, splitting the difference and leaving open the one we have?
A truly unifying president would be, to borrow Hillary Clinton’s example, without the slightest disrespect to Martin Luther King Jr. who, after all was not a president, Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was the president who, after blocking many civil rights bills as the Senate majority leader, finally said “no” to the evil of racial segregation, and determined to abolish it even though this initially divided the country.
As a result, America eventually became unified in its opposition to this evil. If Johnson had backtracked on his principles in the name of “consensus”, the country would, in all probability, still be divided on this issue today. In the view of many, Barack Obama has the courage, conviction and personality, far more that Hillary Clinton who, rightly or wrongly, has come to be identified with old style machine politics, to unify America behind basic principles of racial, social and economic justice.
Ever since the time of Socrates, striving for a truly just society has almost always been at odds with the expedient politics of “consensus”. This very real passion for justice is, much more than any reaching out for an illusory “unity”, Obama’s best chance of winning the White House.
Posted by: algasema | February 4th, 2008 at 4:26 am | Report this commentI meant to write: “than Hillary Clinton”, not “that Hillary Clinton”, in the third from the last sentence above. One day, I hope to be able to write a comment without a single typo, probably at the same time that someone succeeds in unifying America.
Posted by: algasema | February 4th, 2008 at 5:16 am | Report this commentThe point, since the beginning of this race, is that Obama has (in addition to the qualities you enumerated above) a far more positive image among American voters than does Mrs. Clinton. She is undoubtedly an able woman with an ability to thrive in “old boys’ clubs” like the Senate and do constructive legislative work with unlikely allies among the Republicans. But she is a highly divisive figure within the electorate, and for the good of the Democratic Party she should lose gracefully and resign herself to becoming Senate Majority Leader someday, a strong right arm to a Democratic president. Or so we can hope!
Posted by: Ralph Hitchens | February 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Report this commentIf John McCain becomes President it is possible that there will be an escalation in the war on terror (Afghanistan and Pakistan)and also increased efforts to ensure US military and political success in Iraq.
It is also possible that military action or a threat of military action could be used to try and neutralise the threat of an Iranian progression in nuclear weapons development.
John McCain’s position on this issue is expressed in his song: “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran.”
Hillary Clinton could also be considered to be a moderate as some of her domestic policy positions are close to McCain’s policies and she is also a person that can work across the aisles to bring about consensus but she will be less likely to adopt John McCain’s foreign policy.
If these two candidates are chosen as the nominees then which candidate does Clive believe will be the “true moderate” and more “electable”?
Posted by: Just Politics | February 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentI completely agree with Ralph Hitchens. My concern is that the Clintons will follow the old adage of machine politicians everywhere, namely that it is better to lose the election than to lose control of the party. At the same time, while the Clintons obviously have done their best to draw blood from Obama, to the benefit of the Republicans, they have in fact increased his stature by showing that he can stand up to and, potentially, win out over one of the toughest, most capable, experienced and well financed opponents imaginable.
If Obama is nominated, he will have a big advantage going into the election. If the Republicans pick Romney, Obama will be running against a flip-flopping lightweight opportunist whom few people trust, even those who support his suddenly acquired hard right ideology. If they pick McCain, well, didn’t that voice of the powerful Republican lunatic fringe, Ann Coulter, just say that she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than for McCain?
Posted by: algasema | February 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment