Is Clark the New Establishment Choice?
demwatch.blogspot.com
Is Clark the New Establishment Choice?
... and if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
My recently departed (and sorely missed) Uncle Warren liked to talk about "the establishment." It's probably a function of the era he came up in, but it was endlessly funny either way. After all, he referred to my Aunt Pat as "the establishment" because she didn't agree with his glowing approval of Michael Moore's Oscar speech.
But he was certainly on to something. Look at the way the media uniformly blasted Moore for the speech. Or the way Clinton was uniformly blasted for the Lewinsky scandal. Or the way Gore was constantly referred to as a liar. Or the way Schwarzenegger pretty much got a free pass for his past sexual dalliances. Or... you get the point. When "the establishment" makes up their minds about something, there's no stopping them.
So has "the establishment" made up their minds about Wesley Clark? Let's check out the evidence.
One of my favorite papers to bash, The Wall Street Journal, gave Harold Bloom space on its editorial page today to extol the virtues of a Clark Presidency. To make a long story short, whether we like it or not, the United States is an empire. Even worse, we're an empire locked in a long-term war against an ambiguous, ideologically driven enemy. Historically, that's a sure sign that the empire is about to fall apart. As such, the American empire would do well to elect General Clark its next President. He's uniquely positioned to both wage the war as needed and--due to his history protecting Islamic interests in Europe--reach out to moderate Muslims who might otherwise be pushed to support groups like al Qaeda by the Bush administration's belligerent Middle Eastern policies. Bloom also notes that in terms of realpolitik, Clark's electable whereas guys like Dean and Kerry are not.
Meanwhile, over on the front page of USA Today, Jill Lawrence reports on a campaign that has "hit its stride." The candidate Clark seems to be a natural, from connecting with voters to kissing babies. Literally.
Wesley Clark seems to be stepping into the spotlight in the midst of a political perfect storm. Kerry's losing ground to Dean, Dean seems to have peaked too early, Lieberman's not popular with early primary state voters, Edwards can't seem to get his head above water, Gephardt's got support from labor and congressmen but not many others, and the others are MIA in the polls. He's the archetypal Man In White, riding in to save the town from the nefarious Dubya.
And now "the establishment" seems to be picking up the story. Clark will do well to nurture the story and try to keep it out there as long as possible. Because as Howard Dean has showed us, nothing is permanent in this primary race.
--------------------
Oh yeah, amidst all of this talk of Clark the racehorse, it would be unfair of me to miss covering some (gasp!) actual policy. Today in New York City, General Clark laid out his plans for a military-style (albeit non-military) national service program. Volunteers would sign up for the program according to their areas of expertise and skills. They would be committed to the civilian reserve for five years and would be called up by the Department of Homeland Security if they were needed at home or abroad (according to their stated preference). In cases of national emergency, international crisis, or natural disaster, reservists would be called to duty for a period not to exceed six months in five years. The cost estimate is $100 million per year, paid for by his partial repeal of the Bush tax cuts.
He's not the first candidate to propose a national service program (see also: John Kerry), but the Clark plan is certainly the most ambitious... and possibly the most realistic. Kerry's plan is more akin to a civilian version of ROTC, whereas Clark's plan seems to be modeled after the National Guard. Dick Gephardt has a plan similar to Kerry's, though it's limited to just teachers. Still, anything is better than Team W tearing apart AmeriCorps.
posted by Scott | 10/14/2003 | E-Mail DemWatch |
