I have to put in a gripe today about the New Republic. I know the magazine is not, strictly speaking, merely a “liberal” publication. Its editorial line blends economic liberalism with contrarian analysis and hawkish foreign policy stances. But why on earth are they inviting a National Review editor for a point-counterpoint on Bush hatred? It’s not like the National Review doesn’t have enough column inches or influential reach that TNR needs to afford its writers another soapbox.
Meanwhile, their contrarian streak has them harping on pandering in the Democratic party campaigns. I see their point: often candidates say things that are either a) stupid or b) not what they believe because the group they’re standing in front of (unions, NAACP, HRCF, NOW) expect them to say those things. But take a look at Spencer Ackerman’s latest take on Wesley Clark:
. And with both John Kerry and Howard Dean questioning why the newly-declared Democrat voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, today’s debate in New York presented a golden opportunity for some serious pandering.
It didn’t happen. Clark’s first debate question was about his past support for both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, citing a speech he gave in May 2001 praising W. and his staff. The general never once said he regrets the votes–instead, without apology, he tied the vote into his criticisms of the administration. “We elected a president we thought was a compassionate conservative. Instead we got neither conservatism or compassion.” Then he used his background to frame the issue, again without apology: “I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.”
Not a bad opening salvo. Now let’s see how he does in front of the various interest groups that have already collected their pounds of flesh from the other candidates.
There may be tactical reasons to support a candidate who is either seemingly or really non-partisan, but there are also reasons people support and belong to political parties - they stand for a series of principals and stances about how to use political power. It’s not stupid for those who think that Reagan and Nixon are the antithesis of those ideals to question a candidate who at one time agreed with those figures.
Similarly, I wonder that if the Ackerman’s ability to marry a person of his choosing was forbidden by law (and for all I know it is, though I have a suspicion it’s not), whether he’d be equally inhospitable to the interest groups trying to extract promises from presidential candidates to support gay marriage or at least civil unions. One person’s special interest is another’s universal cause.
No comments have been added to this post yet.