Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Saturday, September 23, 2006
David Broder is still idealistic
David Broder has a column waxing ecstatic at the possibility that the leading candidates in 2008 will be people who are willing to take an independent line from their parties. Mostly, he's excited at getting rid of Bush whom he clearly disdains for governing on a party line basis.Instead, we had George W. Bush, a president who has governed on party-line votes and who, after taking the country to war in Iraq, repeatedly has used the war on terrorism as a partisan weapon against Democrats.Or, you could say that Bush tried to govern on a bipartisan basis but that the Democrats decided under Tom Daschle and have continued since to try to block and oppose everything he proposed in order to win back control of the Congress. In Broder's view, bipartisanship means doing what the Democrats like and pointing out the differences between the parties on the most important issue of our day is using terrorism as a partisan weapon.
However, what strikes me is how excited Broder is at the possibility of having candidates who are not beholden to their political parties' base. In this column, catering to the base becomes giving in to dogmatism. Apparently, politicians in Broder World don't ever actually believe in the principles of their party; they are just catering to the extremes to win votes.Look at the powerful forces working against it. Congress is rigged to promote partisanship and extremism. Most congressional districts are drawn to favor one party or the other, and contests take place only in primaries, where low turnouts favor candidates who appeal to the motivated extremes. The flow of special-interest money into congressional races adds to this tilt, and now the bloggers are pummeling anyone who deviates from their definition of ideological purity.A candidate who actually believes what the base of the party believes is not possible. If a politician says what is politically popular to his base, that politican is just trolling for votes among the extremists. But, Broder would never say that those whom he admires such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Colin Powell are choosing their positions because of political opportunism. No, being in the middle is a sign of honesty or, as Broder writes, having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
The sequencing of presidential primaries, it is said, has the same effect on the race for the White House. Democratic aspirants have to satisfy the lefties to win Iowa, just as Republicans must placate the religious right to have a chance in South Carolina.
The reason that Broder's position was so striking to me is because of a reading from a book that Broder wrote in 1971, The Party's Over, that I have been using for several years in my Advanced Placement Government and Politics class. Back in 1971, Broder was lamenting that political parties were weakening and more candidates were becoming independent of their parties. His thesis was that we need parties to be strong enough to discipline wayward members. He deplores the increasing tendency of voters to split their votes between the parties. He longs for having two candidates who present the voters with real choices. And he argued in 1971 that he only instrument he knows of that "Can nominate such candidates, commit them to a program and give them the leverage and alliances in government that can enable them to keep their promises is the political party."
And he also felt that we should strengthen the power of party leaders in Congress. I'm sure that Bill Frist wishes that he had more control over the very people whom Broder now praises, John McCain and Lindsay Graham. I suppose he's given up on the idea of a strong party being better able to get a program instituted into law.
In 1971, Broder was arguing for campaign finance reform and for the parties to have stronger control over political campaigns. I guess he didn't realize that campaign finance reform would lead to the parties have weaker control over political campaigns as independent groups gained in power and the parties were more limited in how they could coordinate with candidates.
Now, it seems that he's lost his belief that strong parties can solve our political problems and he's decided that the real solution is to elect some golden candidates on metaphorical white horses who can rescue our whole political system by being independent of their parties. I guess it is rather sweet that, after a lifetime of observing politics, David Broder can still be idealistic about the possibilities of such solutions, but if he thinks that an independent-minded president can rescue his beloved middle road in politics, I fear he's headed for disillusionment. I remember how Jimmy Carter was going to do the same thing by not being beholden to the Democratic party for his election. Well, they slapped him back his first months in office over a water public works bill and that vaunted independence never really triumphed. Perhaps a President McCain could get Democrats to support his proposals, but I somehow doubt that they would be happy to roll over and support him if it made it came down to a choice between supporting a Republican president and helping to elect more Democrats. And if he thinks that Hillary Clinton would be the bridge between the two parties, he's quite deluded.
0 comments
Comments:
David Broder has a column waxing ecstatic at the possibility that the leading candidates in 2008 will be people who are willing to take an independent line from their parties. Mostly, he's excited at getting rid of Bush whom he clearly disdains for governing on a party line basis.
However, what strikes me is how excited Broder is at the possibility of having candidates who are not beholden to their political parties' base. In this column, catering to the base becomes giving in to dogmatism. Apparently, politicians in Broder World don't ever actually believe in the principles of their party; they are just catering to the extremes to win votes.
The reason that Broder's position was so striking to me is because of a reading from a book that Broder wrote in 1971, The Party's Over, that I have been using for several years in my Advanced Placement Government and Politics class. Back in 1971, Broder was lamenting that political parties were weakening and more candidates were becoming independent of their parties. His thesis was that we need parties to be strong enough to discipline wayward members. He deplores the increasing tendency of voters to split their votes between the parties. He longs for having two candidates who present the voters with real choices. And he argued in 1971 that he only instrument he knows of that "Can nominate such candidates, commit them to a program and give them the leverage and alliances in government that can enable them to keep their promises is the political party."
And he also felt that we should strengthen the power of party leaders in Congress. I'm sure that Bill Frist wishes that he had more control over the very people whom Broder now praises, John McCain and Lindsay Graham. I suppose he's given up on the idea of a strong party being better able to get a program instituted into law.
In 1971, Broder was arguing for campaign finance reform and for the parties to have stronger control over political campaigns. I guess he didn't realize that campaign finance reform would lead to the parties have weaker control over political campaigns as independent groups gained in power and the parties were more limited in how they could coordinate with candidates.
Now, it seems that he's lost his belief that strong parties can solve our political problems and he's decided that the real solution is to elect some golden candidates on metaphorical white horses who can rescue our whole political system by being independent of their parties. I guess it is rather sweet that, after a lifetime of observing politics, David Broder can still be idealistic about the possibilities of such solutions, but if he thinks that an independent-minded president can rescue his beloved middle road in politics, I fear he's headed for disillusionment. I remember how Jimmy Carter was going to do the same thing by not being beholden to the Democratic party for his election. Well, they slapped him back his first months in office over a water public works bill and that vaunted independence never really triumphed. Perhaps a President McCain could get Democrats to support his proposals, but I somehow doubt that they would be happy to roll over and support him if it made it came down to a choice between supporting a Republican president and helping to elect more Democrats. And if he thinks that Hillary Clinton would be the bridge between the two parties, he's quite deluded.
0 comments
David Broder has a column waxing ecstatic at the possibility that the leading candidates in 2008 will be people who are willing to take an independent line from their parties. Mostly, he's excited at getting rid of Bush whom he clearly disdains for governing on a party line basis.
Instead, we had George W. Bush, a president who has governed on party-line votes and who, after taking the country to war in Iraq, repeatedly has used the war on terrorism as a partisan weapon against Democrats.Or, you could say that Bush tried to govern on a bipartisan basis but that the Democrats decided under Tom Daschle and have continued since to try to block and oppose everything he proposed in order to win back control of the Congress. In Broder's view, bipartisanship means doing what the Democrats like and pointing out the differences between the parties on the most important issue of our day is using terrorism as a partisan weapon.
However, what strikes me is how excited Broder is at the possibility of having candidates who are not beholden to their political parties' base. In this column, catering to the base becomes giving in to dogmatism. Apparently, politicians in Broder World don't ever actually believe in the principles of their party; they are just catering to the extremes to win votes.
Look at the powerful forces working against it. Congress is rigged to promote partisanship and extremism. Most congressional districts are drawn to favor one party or the other, and contests take place only in primaries, where low turnouts favor candidates who appeal to the motivated extremes. The flow of special-interest money into congressional races adds to this tilt, and now the bloggers are pummeling anyone who deviates from their definition of ideological purity.A candidate who actually believes what the base of the party believes is not possible. If a politician says what is politically popular to his base, that politican is just trolling for votes among the extremists. But, Broder would never say that those whom he admires such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Colin Powell are choosing their positions because of political opportunism. No, being in the middle is a sign of honesty or, as Broder writes, having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
The sequencing of presidential primaries, it is said, has the same effect on the race for the White House. Democratic aspirants have to satisfy the lefties to win Iowa, just as Republicans must placate the religious right to have a chance in South Carolina.
The reason that Broder's position was so striking to me is because of a reading from a book that Broder wrote in 1971, The Party's Over, that I have been using for several years in my Advanced Placement Government and Politics class. Back in 1971, Broder was lamenting that political parties were weakening and more candidates were becoming independent of their parties. His thesis was that we need parties to be strong enough to discipline wayward members. He deplores the increasing tendency of voters to split their votes between the parties. He longs for having two candidates who present the voters with real choices. And he argued in 1971 that he only instrument he knows of that "Can nominate such candidates, commit them to a program and give them the leverage and alliances in government that can enable them to keep their promises is the political party."
And he also felt that we should strengthen the power of party leaders in Congress. I'm sure that Bill Frist wishes that he had more control over the very people whom Broder now praises, John McCain and Lindsay Graham. I suppose he's given up on the idea of a strong party being better able to get a program instituted into law.
In 1971, Broder was arguing for campaign finance reform and for the parties to have stronger control over political campaigns. I guess he didn't realize that campaign finance reform would lead to the parties have weaker control over political campaigns as independent groups gained in power and the parties were more limited in how they could coordinate with candidates.
Now, it seems that he's lost his belief that strong parties can solve our political problems and he's decided that the real solution is to elect some golden candidates on metaphorical white horses who can rescue our whole political system by being independent of their parties. I guess it is rather sweet that, after a lifetime of observing politics, David Broder can still be idealistic about the possibilities of such solutions, but if he thinks that an independent-minded president can rescue his beloved middle road in politics, I fear he's headed for disillusionment. I remember how Jimmy Carter was going to do the same thing by not being beholden to the Democratic party for his election. Well, they slapped him back his first months in office over a water public works bill and that vaunted independence never really triumphed. Perhaps a President McCain could get Democrats to support his proposals, but I somehow doubt that they would be happy to roll over and support him if it made it came down to a choice between supporting a Republican president and helping to elect more Democrats. And if he thinks that Hillary Clinton would be the bridge between the two parties, he's quite deluded.
Comments:
Post a Comment
