Political Creativity and the McCain Factor

by Cliopatria

Am I the only person who is really, really annoyed that the Bush campaign is using Kerry's consideration of John McCain for the VP slot as an opportunity for attack? Not because I'm a Democrat; because I'm a moderate in favor of creative and cross-party approaches. It was a bold and creative move for Kerry to even consider a Republican, particularly one with such a strong conservative record. It was remarkable that the idea lingered into the short-list phase, which means that Kerry was serious about it.

Everyone whines about polarization and the importance of bipartisanship (or multi-partisanship, if like me you consider two parties not nearly enough, or non-partisanship, if you're trying to be ecumenical), but Kerry made a stab at it. Yes, there's electoral politics at work as well, which makes you wonder a little bit, but you don't make a move like that unless you are dead serious about it precisely because of the backlash if it fails (or if it succeeds!). Of course, trying to create ideological diversity on a ticket is the kiss of death, but the willingness to actually cross parties in a meaningful fashion is something to think about.

Maybe it'll take a more moderate pairing to make it work: a Democrat who votes with Republicans sometimes and a Republican who votes with Democrats sometimes.... Perhaps forming their own moderate party.... McCain-Lieberman in '08? Seriously, though, the near-deadlock between the two big parties could paralyze us, policy-wise, unless we do something about it.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 7/9/2004

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I think there ARE hard-core libertarian and religious wings in the Republican party, and if the moderates bolted, that's what would be left. Then, with no buffer between them those groups would (though Mr. Burkhart is right that they have some common cause) probably split into separate parties.

And if the environmental/social justice wing of the Democratic Party "folded into" the Greens, the Greens wouldn't be a small party anymore.

I agree that there are important religious constituencies in the Democratic Party, and I never suggested they should be divested, but they don't drive the party with theology the way the Republican party's Christian Right does. Perhaps they would prevent the merging of the Democratic Left with the secular Greens. Perhaps not.

My problem with the "big tent" parties is not that they are a bad idea, in principle. It's that, in practice, they are losing constituents while their "elected" leaders are becoming a permanent ruling class. I'm all for syncretic thinking, but there comes a point when it's more a muddle than anything else, and that isn't really helping things much.

Carl Patrick Burkart - 7/9/2004

Right. To say nothing of the problem of multiple parties in a winner take all system like the US.

However, I would disagree somewhat with the contention that social conservatives have to be a loggerheads with libertarians. A reduction in the welfare state (a libertarian goal) would increase the role that religion places in providing stuff like medical care, housing, and food to the nation's poor. Even services like education could be turned over to religious organizations. Extended families would also be strengthened as low income retirees became forced to live with family members. Ever so often, one of the more traditional columnists at the National Review points this out.

Of course, the consequences for politics of such a switch are difficult to predict. The resurgence of religious fundamentalim in Egypt, for example, in the decades since 1970 tend to suggest that such changes would not bode well for a pluralistic society. Perhaps some of the Cliopatriarchs can give examples of situations where a decline in social services is picked up by religious organizations.

Sorry that this strays from the original topic, but it is something that I've been thinking about.

Ralph E. Luker - 7/9/2004

I can't understand, Jonathan, why you would think that libertarian/religious is a natural Republican constituent base. Libertarian and religious are often at daggers. You seem to love abstractions that have little to do with on the ground realities. A Democratic Party that makes no appeal to religious constituencies is a Democratic Party which will lose -- again and again and again. And why would any self-respecting Democrat want to be "folded into" a miniscule party of _any_ sort? I see big virtues in two big tent parties with multiple constituencies which necessitate compromised and blurred platforms and policies. Multi-party systems in a society as big as ours would be a nightmare of incohesion.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/9/2004

I tend to agree: I think a breakaway moderate party, leaving the Republican party to be really libertarian and religious (and I think that would split shortly thereafter), and the Democratic party to be really Social Democrat (perhaps getting folded into the Greens), would reinvigorate the process considerably. And it would more effectively represent everyone.

Carl Patrick Burkart - 7/9/2004

I don't know. It seems that this approach cedes too much ground to the right. If a Kerry/McCain ticket were to win, McCain would probably be marginalized or relegated to a certain kind of issue like foriegn policy. If he were to take a role akin to Cheney's then US politics would become a battle between moderate Republicans and Bush conservatives. When the debate is conducted entirely to the right of the Rockefeller Republicans that seems to lead a great deal of people unrepresented in the government. For better or worse, the Democratic party has to represent the left of the political spectrum. If the party isn't doing well, it should refine it's message, try new things, etc. rather than just drift to the right.

Derek Charles Catsam - 7/9/2004

Wasn't Bush a "uniter and not a divider" who was going to work with both parties to govern? Seems a long, long time ago, doesn't it?
dc

David Lion Salmanson - 7/9/2004

On the other hand, deadlock sometimes leads to government surpluses, lowering interest rates, and creating an economic boom, as happened during the Clinton years. It's almost enough to make a guy libertarian. Almost.

Robert KC Johnson - 7/9/2004

Another remarkable point on this issue: McCain, in his spring appearance before Meet the Press, said that Bush had approached him about running for VP in 2000. So, by the logic of ther current Bush attacks, Cheney was Bush's second choice, and therefore should be dismissed.