As the recall gets down to the wire, Oliphant gets nasty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS OLIPHANT
Debating Democrats avoid Calif. pitfalls
By Thomas Oliphant, 9/28/2003
SENATOR John Edwards is right on -- there really is a train wreck coming in the United States, and Americans of all political persuasions are correct in feeling deeply unsettled about a foreign policy mess that for now has linked with an economic policy mess in their worried outlook. In California, by contrast, the train wreck has already happened as the state's voters struggle to decide if it is dramatically different from other states, requiring a unique response, the product partially of politics broadly defined (both parties, gridlock), or of one party narrowly defined (the governor they reelected barely 10 months ago).
That hard-to-define moment when people really begin to pay attention to presidential politics is approaching. A tentative conclusion: So far, the illuminating contest for the Democratic nomination, contrary to past buzz, has made President Bush's position more precarious, not stronger. There is now an opposition, grounded in the broader public concerns about Iraq and the economy, that has gained, not lost, strength with time. You can quarrel with its ideas; you cannot deny its legitimacy.
In California, by contrast, politics itself remains on trial. Sometimes, as in last week's pathetic "debate," a specific event qualifies as metaphor. The contrived, childish brawling showed why the legitimacy of the recall itself remains in dispute, whether it offers the potential of legitimate change or the real prospect, in Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante's apt phrase, of perpetual politics.
In these differently charged atmospheres, it is as American as apple pie for candidates to emerge with the self-portrait of outsider or fresh face or disinterested citizen compelled into the arena by some force larger than their own ambition. Sometimes they are products of real movements, sometimes merely celebrities; sometimes they are essentially frauds, sometimes they are a couple of cans short of a six-pack. Sometimes campaigns sort all this out, sometimes they don't. One of the most refreshing qualities of all their contributions is the reminder that America is not an elitist meritocracy, that "experience" and "qualification" have broader definitions in most people's minds.
In the nation, there are in fact three of these types now in the Democratic race with a chance to move forward: Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Wesley Clark. Dean is by far the most partisan, more by campaign strategy than biography, a true bull in the china shop of his party's establishment. Edwards is more the fresh face, a reminder that progressive values really can come in moderate, engaging wrapping paper. And Clark, at least after 10 sometimes bumpy, sometimes intriguing days, is the clearly distinguished citizen drawing on a leadership ability that so many military people can display.
One of the delightful consequences of last week's Democratic debate was that it exposed the silliness of all the pre-event buzz, which distilled into the preposterous question of whether Clark can spell "cat." Of course he can, which has nothing to do with whether his candidacy will be strong or weak. Much more important, his arrival is one of those events in presidential campaigns whose significance for now is that it is causing a reevaluation of all the candidacies. What Clark has done is throw the deck of cards up in the air. This is always a wonderful, testing development.
By total contrast, the wild card in California now stands self-exposed as part traditional celebrity and part fraud.
What began in the pose of disinterested citizen is now exposed as just another Republican front man for business interests. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't touch evil special-interest money and then went and collected millions from business buddies. These interests are now paying for TV ads slamming Bustamante and even the principled conservative in the race, Senator Tom McClintock, for taking Native-American casino money, as if the actor himself didn't take buckets of the same money last year for his ego vehicle, a fraudulent initiative petition for after-school programs that to date has not funded a single program for a single child.
Because legitimacy is the issue, he lies repeatedly about the state's condition. It is truly a mess, but Schwarzenegger's false description of the budget deficit (by a factor of more than three) and false portrait of massive business out-migration are over the top.
So, too is the one lesson from the Animal House debate. Instead of the issue being that the actor can spell "cat" like Wesley Clark, it is that he really is a loud-mouth boor who thinks shouting over Arriana Huffington is a sign of strength. Schwarzenegger was so dependent on his rehearsed lines that he lacked the smarts to realize that offering her a part in "Terminator 4" tended to confirm his past comments that he enjoyed shoving a female actor's head in a toilet bowl in one its prequels.
He may or may not win, but he showed why legitimacy is still the issue in California. Back here, the outsider Democrats have moved well past it, on their merits.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.
boston.com |
