Yesterday Jacqueline Salit on C-Span and Jonathan Capehart in The Washington Post provided truly bad analysis of Michael Bloomberg's possible presidential bid. Both fall into the same mistake in thinking about independents as a distinct group of voters to whom a middle of the road candidate could appeal. Maintaining this illusion is Salit's life's work, as she edits the Neo-Independent magazine, which she promoted while sucking up 25 minutes of C-Span's air time. Contradicting herself to the point of hilarity, she kept on bashing the major political parties while promoting the idea of an independent party. An independent party. Finally, half way through the show (which was running very short on any worthwhile content though high on pomposity) she had to provide something by way of what kinds of issue positions an independent party would take a stand on. And of course: it's being against all parties! I waited in vain for a caller to make the point that when all party organization is dismantled, it is only the billionaires who can run for high office. Nobody gets free media like Bloomberg did this week for changing their party affiliation if they don't have his level of fortune. Abolishing all parties would put offices for sale to the highest bidder. The only advantage the lower classes have in our political system is voting numbers--but to leverage this requires organization. Salit is the kind of personality that thinks destroying whatever has been built up is always progress. But, there always has to be an organization, and destroying the parties just means changing the type of organization--towards a more oligarchical one.
The same mindlessness was on display in Capehart's column, which was less painful than Salit's segment only because you can read it in less than 25 minutes. He writes:
[M]y friend and other New Yorkers are eager for him to bring his brand of party-blind leadership to Washington. If you believe the polls, the American public seems to want the same thing. Pollster John Zogby noted in an op-ed in Thursday's New York Daily News: "In a national telephone poll last month, 80% said it was 'very important' that the next President be a person who can unite the country, and 82% said the same about the need for a competent manager. . . . Another 58% said it was 'very important' the next President be able to cross party lines to work with political opponents.
These poll questions are meaningless for the issue at hand. How would these poll results mean that the respondents would favor an independent over a party candidate? It's a complete non sequitur. Secondly, what would you expect people to say: it's not that important to unite the country or provide competent management? Capehart again:
Still, what he says is needed in Washington would require a self-assured, unbeholden and fearless man or woman in the White House, one willing to walk through the meat grinder of highly organized special-interest opposition to make the tough decisions the American people are clamoring for.
I am always so skeptical of this type of talk. As with Salit's segment, it requires constantly speaking in generalities and never ever descending to specifics. When you get to the concrete issues, there's "tough decisions," but the reason they're tough is because the public is divided on them. To say that "the American people are clamoring" for someone to "make the ough decisions" is meaningless fluff. If they were, the politicians in office would give it to them double-quick and reap the political reward. As former Rep. Dick Zimmer says, while some are smarter than others, everyone in Congress is there for a reason. And that reason is that they are a very good politician.
No comments:
Post a Comment