Force The Controversy
Both Dems and Repubs have official stands which may play well with their base, but lose with the middle. So they've got to thread the needle.
This can lead to interesting (if not necessarily illuminating) moments in televised debates, when a question is designed to trap them. For instance, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants (excuse me, undocumented workers--that correction got Dennis Kucinich applause). The nation is deadset against the idea, but it's the kind of solution that most of the Dem candidates would support if they could do so secretly.
The previous debate, Hillary seriously hurt herself when she wouldn't unambiguously oppose the idea. (Or maybe she got around to opposing it, but it took her a week--see, her thinking is so complex on the issue it takes her that long to answer). You'd think her main opponents would have been ready, but Obama fumbled the same question last time. But that's why it's a trap--you don't want to come out and say you'd fight the idea (or the partisan crowd might boo, plus you don't really think that) but if you say you like them they'll tie it around your neck.
Meanwhile, Hillary was able to turn the beat around, making it seem like everyone was unfairly ganging up on her if they criticized her at all. But I don't see how it'll stop the criticism since as the actually voting is coming up soon (not soon enough), Obama and Edwards have to do something.
One of the most depressing aspects of watching the debate (or in my case, reading the transcript) is how deadset against free trade the candidates are. Clinton fought for it--why did the Dems pick this issue to be wrong on, when there are so many other ideas they could reverse?
Just yesterday, Obama criticized Hillary not because she supports NAFTA, but because she used to support NAFTA. It's not enough to be against free trade today, you've got to be ideologically pure.
I'd like to at least think this is another one of those positions where, if they had a secret vote, they wouldn't actually do what they say they'd do. It's a slim hope, but what else have I got?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:03 AM
3 Comments:
I'm not a Bill Maher fan, but I caught one episode of his show on HBO that made an interesting point. He asked, essentially, how Republicans continue to create intense voter interest in issues that are no different now than they have been in the past.
The past example he gave was Iraq -- i.e. that Saddam Hussein was no different of a tinpot dictator than he had been in the years before we decided he was wholly untenable and quite dangerous. Eh, that one's debatable (absent hindsight).
The current example he gave is illegal immigration. And there I'm with him. The problem is absolutely no different than it's been for as long as I can remember. I mean, has there been a sudden influx of Mexicans into the red states that I missed? [They took our jerbs!] Or is it just a wholly specious linking of terrorism with the issue?
In any event, he's absolutely right that the democrats can't seem to get that same kind of traction on their "boogeyman in the closet" issues. Maybe it's just that they haven't been able to promise the wholly impossible without being called on it by their competitors? (See, e.g. Giuliani, Rudolph, who claims he will "end" illegal immigration.) Dunno.
Actually, I'm a Bill Maher fan, but I always think it weird that he's so shortsighted that he says look at what Republicans do and can't see his own party (that's right, I said it) does the same thing. I remember a few years ago when he said how can the Republicans be so mad all the time when they run the government, as if the Dems didn't spend all their time red-faced and shouting and calling Repubs racists, etc.
Anyway, the first question is, why care about anything? Well, you gotta care about something. The idea that the Repubs can fool people into caring about stuff that doesn't or shouldn't matter is mostly silly. (When the Repubs see the Dems do it, the Dems can't see it--now we're talking about something important).
Look at gay marriage, which I support. The Dems will wonder how did the people get whipped up into a froth over something that's no threat (because it's not happening much and if you're not gay you don't have to do it, just like you don't have to get an abortion if you don't want and if you're a white male you'll do just fine no matter how much affirmative action we have). Really it's just a symbolic issue if anything. There are two answers to this whining the Repubs can give. 1) Excuse me, we were perfectly happy with things, you and yours forced this issue on us. 2) Oh, it's symbolic, and not a big deal, like everything else we care about? Okay, then it should be no big deal for you to go along with us on it and save yourself so much trouble. What's that, can't do it? I guess it's important to you too, then.
Let's look at Bill Maher's case in point, Saddam Hussein. Even back in the 80s when we tipped toward him (though we didn't give him massive amounts of weapons like France--we armed him less than Sweden). Even then we recognized he was a dangerous sociopath. But you can't fight everyone everywhere, and Iran, which had taken hostages, was considered a bigger deal. Then, he attacked Kuwait and we had to do something. We also discovered at the time he was a real threat (and his WMD programs were further developed than our intelligence suggested). We decided the best strategy was to keep him in a box, though it was expensive and dangerous (and bloody for the Iraqis), while the peaceniks who opposed us said we were starving to death hundreds of thousands of kids. Around this time, Bill Clinton starting talking about how incredibly dangerous he is, and the Democratic Senators sent an official letter screaming "We must do something about Saddam Hussein!" We adopted a strategy of regime change and dropped bombs on Baghdad. Bush lowered the rhetoric a bit, but his supporters were split between taking greater action (the side I agree with) or working something else out (like what? Permanent boxhood, which is tough to pull off, especially now that we know he was paying off our allies in the UN to free him up to do whatever he wanted). After 9/11, while the facts on the ground didn't change, our interpretation of what was safe and what wasn't changed, and we finally did the right thing and decided to take him out (a decade too late, so it cost a lot more lives). The idea that somehow Bush et al were able to whip up some sort of horror out of nothing was, and is, bizarre. Did they take advantage of the situation at the moment? "Advantage"? You have a problem, you try to fix it--that's what politicians do--sorry if you disagree, but recognize it's a disagreement, not one side lying and the other side telling the truth.
I mean, look at any issue people care about. The environment. It's always been in trouble as far as I can remember. Why does everyone (like Bill Maher) want us to suddenly care so much that it's what we vote for.
The economy--people vote for that more than anything, but it always muddles along, sometimes better, sometimes worse. My goodness, when we weren't getting any growth after the recession and 9/11 that started the Bush years, you had all the Dems stating this was the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. (But that's not taking advantage of the situation, that's just telling the truth).
And look now. Hillary and others (Michael Moore too) are trying to whip us into a frenzy over health care. Now really, did health care just become more important than ever? Then why should anyone go nuts over it?
Maher's understanding of politics is extremely limited. But he's got some funny lines and that's why I watch his show.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Ann Coulter is right--the only reason the Dems can't talk openly about what they believe is because if they did, no one would ever vote for them.
You were reasonable until you cited Anne Coulter
Post a Comment
<< Home