David Ignatius is another Beltway reporter that loves bland centrism, loves our military empire, and will call anyone that defends those issues courageous, a maverick, even a radical. He’s Joe Klein’s more conservative doppelgänger.
The disaster in Iraq is causing the Establishment to scamper for cover. How do they cover the disaster without allowing it to call into question the rationale for our huge military footprint in Asia and Africa? How do they prevent a backlash from the public over the size of our military budget and the resulting deficit? How can we extract ourselves from Iraq without it causing pressure for us to withdraw from Kuwait, Qatar, the U.A.E.?
The first thing to do is to trot out statements by bin-Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi every so often to boast that a withdrawal from the region is a victory for terrorism. Therefore, anything but a continuation of our ruinous $10 billion a month policy is characterized as appeasement. The next thing to do is to groom a replacement for Bush that has credibility, but who will not fundamentally change or question the status quo when it comes to the military budget or our foreign relations in the Middle East. The second part of the plan is what Ignatius is all about this morning.
McCain is A Man Who Won’t Sell His Soul.
You won’t find much better demonstrations of the heroism of bland centrism than the following:
McCain is a walking embodiment of the Catch-22 of presidential politics. To get the nomination, a candidate must appeal to his party’s activist wing. But even as he buffs his credentials with the base, the candidate inevitably tarnishes his image with the center. A successful campaign almost requires some fibbing — the candidate is either less extreme than he’s telling his party’s base, or more extreme than he’s telling the general public. The trick is not to get caught — not to be too obvious in the tactical compromises that are necessary in the marathon race of a presidential campaign.
Part of McCain’s appeal is that he seems to straddle such partisan political calculations. He’s the victim of torture who opposes torture, the man caught in the “Keating Five” ethics scandal who insists on reform, the critic of Iraq policy who insists that America must win the war, the conservative who is beloved by moderates. A McCain candidacy, if he makes the formal decision next year to run, will be rooted in his image as a man of principle. But it will also be something of a balancing act — one that the candidate himself is likely to find uncomfortable.
It’s true that our winner take all elections, as well as our electoral college, make it difficult for a candidate to win if they run as an unapologetic leftist or rightist. They must behave as a principled partisan to win the nomination and then common wisdom says they must soften that image to win the general election. Naturally, this entails dishonesty. Either you lie to the base about your purity, or you lie to the general population about your centrism. But, even if it is a structural deficiency of our political system that candidates feel the need to obfuscate their true beliefs, that does not make the practice heroic. It is, and will always remain, a sickening practice that revolts the electorate and contributes to cynicism and apathy.
McCain and Lieberman are two peas in a pod. They give their party most of the votes they demand, and they support their leaders. But, they will leave the reservation at critical moments to score political points, hog publicity for themselves, and brand themselves as mavericks and bipartisan. This is then termed, centrist, and somehow radical, somehow heroic. It’s ridiculous. Barry Goldwater was a maverick. Barry Goldwater was a radical. Cynthia McKinney is a maverick and a radical. Centrists are merely people whose beliefs do not mesh perfectly with either party. They may be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, or vice-versa. It used to be called Rockefeller conservatism or Cold War liberalism.
The Washington Establishment still wants to reside in a town that is dominated by Rockefeller conservatism and Global War on Terror liberalism. But, they do not. They live in a town dominated by neo-conservatives. And the neo-conservatives have not only discredited themselves but they have called into question the old consensus about the need for America to act large on the world stage, spending oodles on an Empire at the cost of social services for the people. Americans have seen Iraq and they’ve seen Katrina. And they are moving to the left. Anyone that can hold the line and keep a populist like Feingold from rising to the top is now a hero. McCain is a bulwark against the coming and much needed backlash. Ignatius is carrying his water. McCain, in turn, will be carrying the whole beltway’s water in 2008…along with Hillary.
