that Obama is a closet Muslim or that John McCain sired a bastard
child. Her campaign, simply put, is not categorically different from
any other hard-driving presidential bid, including Obama's own. It
should be recalled that, back in the fall, when Obama trailed in the
polls by double digits, friendly columnists positively begged him to
go after the front-runner. In an October 30 debate, Obama charged
that Clinton was "changing positions whenever it's politically
convenient" and that "she has not been truthful" about her Social
Security plans. The jibes grew so strident that Bill Richardson
called a time-out in the middle of the debate, declaring, "It's
pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need."
The point isn't to taunt, as if in the schoolyard, that
Obama "started it"; the point is that no presidential aspirant enters
the arena an innocent. Both candidates have flip-flopped, ducked
questions, taken potshots, made dubious campaign promises, and spun
the facts in disingenuous ways. They have done so for the same reason
that fish swim and birds fly: It's in the nature and job description
of politicians to do so. To plead that one or the other has done
these things more, or more nefariously, is to launch a litany of tit-
for-tat charges that would outrun the pages of this magazine.
Besides, objectively quantifying the cheap shots is impossible at
this fraught moment, when any incident is read through the distorting
lens of candidate preference. In a famous experiment from the 1950s,
the public opinion analysts Hadley Cantril and Albert Hastorf had
fans of Princeton and Dartmouth's football teams watch a film of a
rough game between the two--in which, most egregiously, Princeton's
star player was injured--and tally up the penalties. Dartmouth fans
were more likely to judge the game as rough but fair, with penalties
committed almost equally on both sides. Princeton fans said Dartmouth
was responsible for more than two-thirds of the infractions. Team
loyalty shaped or dictated perceptions. It is doing so today among
Democrats and pundits.
Take a test: Did you think Clinton's "3 a.m." ad doubting Obama's
readiness to handle crises was fear-mongering, rather than a valid,
if slightly lurid, gambit? Did you read her "as far as I know"
response to a question about Obama's religion as a shameful effort to
stoke rumors rather than an unfortunate verbal tic amid a firm slap-
down of those rumors? If so, you probably voted for Obama.
On the other hand, did you think Obama's health care mailers that
echoed the old "Harry and Louise" ads were following the Republican
playbook rather than "drawing distinctions" on the issues? Did you
hear sexism when Obama spoke of Hillary's "claws com[ing] out,"
rather than an innocent remark? If so, you no doubt prefer Clinton.
This (very) partial list of mini-controversies may not persuade
either aspirant's enthusiasts that this year's contest does not
exactly pit Richard Nixon against Mahatma Gandhi, whomever you would
cast in either role. But it should lead us all to think twice about
feeling confident in our candidate's moral superiority--and
especially about slinging terms like "Nixonian." Lines exist in
politics that shouldn't be crossed, but, unlike Tricky Dick, Hillary
Clinton hasn't tapped her rival's phones or broken into his
psychiatrist's office. She hasn't stolen his debate briefing book or
convened a mob of rioters to shut down a vote count. She hasn't used
the machinery of impeachment for partisan gain. It's been just words.
None of Clinton's alleged offenses even departs from historical
norms. Some detractors have cried foul at her hints--and they've been
only hints--that she might woo some of Obama's pledged delegates.
But, until recently, when primaries and caucuses became the norm,
jockeying for delegates was standard practice, and, even in recent
decades, it's hardly been unheard of. Late in the 1980 primaries,
President Jimmy Carter had all but sewn up the nomination, but
challenger Ted Kennedy stayed in the race, hoping that, if he won
some key primaries--as he did--he could peel off Carter's supporters,
who might not want to back a likely loser in the fall. Kennedy
continued to pursue delegates even after the party rules committee
barred first-ballot switching at the convention. In 1984, Gary Hart,
despite losing in the primaries, planned a challenge to the
legitimacy of roughly 500 of front-runner Walter Mondale's delegates,
though he ultimately relented. If no Democrat has tried flipping
delegates since then, it's only because the races haven't been close
enough for the option to be worth considering.
Nor should Clinton's tactics be faulted for giving ammunition to the
Republicans for the fall campaign. Harping on a rival's weaknesses is
part and parcel of any campaign. Al Gore denounced Michael Dukakis's
prison furlough program in 1988. Bill Bradley branded Gore a serial
exaggerator in 2000. Whether these attacks serve to toughen or soften
up the eventual nominee can't be proved either way. But historically
Republicans have needed no help in finding ways to bash Democrats.
And, while it's not the job of journalists and intellectuals to look
after the Democrats' interests, a single standard should prevail. If
questioning Obama's readiness for prime time is to be shunned lest it
abet John McCain, Democrats should likewise avoid the potentially
destructive notion that Clinton is an unusually dirty campaigner.
The most compelling reason to stop the demonization of Clinton is a
philosophical one. For the claim that Clinton's attacks are somehow
beyond the pale rests on and revives a distressing view of
liberalism, politics, and power that, only recently, liberals seemed
quite united in overcoming.
With its emphasis on fairness, openness, and playing by the rules,
liberalism has always fostered an ambivalence about the exercise of
power. A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has often
led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means. Fears of power's abuse
have often constrained its use. In the 1950s, when Adlai Stevenson
carried the Democrats' standard, party chairman Stephen Mitchell
argued that liberals had to respond to the underhanded tactics of men
like Nixon in kind. In the opinion journals, he was rebutted. If won
on such terms, asked William Lee Miller in The Reporter, "then whose
is the victory?" In contrast, Miller argued, "if we stick by what we
believe, we may not win as often, but when we do we shall know what
the victory means." That's how Stevenson ran--and lost. Since the
1980s, Democrats have explained away defeats by arguing that
Republicans won only by playing dirty--a rationalization that is both
inaccurate and self-deluding.
Yet, in contrast to this "doughface" liberalism, as Arthur
Schlesinger famously termed it, another liberal tradition also
exists. Under Franklin Roosevelt, wrote Schlesinger, "American
liberalism ... had a positive and confident ring. It has stood for
responsibility and for achievement." FDR and the New Deal's
lieutenants respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put
results first. They understood that politics is, inherently, a field
of combat, not for the faint-hearted.
John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Kennedy--than whom no one
was called "ruthless" more often--grasped the importance of
confidently using power for progressive ends. They knew that
vanquishing adversaries is essential to winning elections,
implementing policies, and improving people's lives. No liberal
should excuse the occasions when these men crossed inviolable lines,
but none should forget either that the raft of legislation that
Washington produced in the 1960s was not a product of chummy
bipartisan committees and painless consensus-building.
One of the few bright spots of the Bush presidency was the
rediscovery of this liberal tradition. The Florida recount fight, the
post-September 11 patriotism politics, the rush to war in Iraq, and
the swift-boating of John Kerry--all united liberals in disdain for
the spinelessness of so many of their leaders. A hundred score op-eds
demanded more Democratic mettle. The netroots gathered force not from
any well-formed policy agenda but from a desire to fire up the base.
E.J. Dionne Jr.'s 2004 book Stand Up, Fight Back: Republican Toughs,
Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge was just the most
pointedly titled of a shelf-load of tracts arguing for a liberalism
that didn't regard an appetite for battle and a compassionate spirit
as antithetical.
Recently, though, the Bush administration's implosion and the
Democrats' capture of Congress eased the demand for a fighter. The
launch of Obama's campaign, with its Stevensonian appeals to our
better natures, dovetailed with a new--and complacent--optimism that
the Democrats would regain the White House in 2008 all but
inevitably. It's as if the angry populism from which Bush and the
right have long drawn strength has vanished from the scene. And,
while Obama has shown his own ability to fight fiercely, he has all
along retained the posture of the reluctant warrior. Accordingly, he
wins plaudits from an elite that clings to--or has reverted to--an
ideal of bloodless political warfare. In contrast, when, last
December, Clinton, after being pummeled for a month, announced, "Now
the fun part starts"--heralding her plans to strike back--she was
trashed for taking pleasure in the fisticuffs. The climate brooks no
place for a happy warrior.
None of this is to celebrate the current tenor of the race. Good
people on both sides have been needlessly caught in the crossfire.
The demand for heads to roll whenever an aide misspeaks has reached a
pitch that is dangerous, not for any singular ugliness but for its
pettiness. And the press, to its discredit, lets these campaign-
generated pseudo-events shape its coverage. But, as noted recently by
James Carville--no stranger to political combat--campaigning is
training for governing, preparing candidates to "get hit, stand
strong, and, if necessary, hit back." Without a certain humility and
hesitation about hitting back, neither Clinton nor Obama would be a
good liberal. But, without the requisite readiness to do so, neither
would be a very good politician either--or, more to the point, a very
good president.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder