SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rascal who wrote (11393)10/9/2003 4:23:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793639
 
Liberals Should Learn From Politics of Hate
by Richard Brookhiser
New York Observer

A new ritual has come to the Letters page of The New York Times. Once or twice a week there appears a unit of half a dozen letters responding to the last column by David Brooks. Most of them are from people in high-principled, high-income states—Oregon or Vermont. At least one is from an associate professor at the University of South Central Iowa. All the letters ask the same question: Wu-wu-why did God let Mr. Wigglenose die?

They don’t use just those words, though they use the tone. What they actually say is: Ha-ha-how can I be reading this in The Times?

One of Mr. Brooks’ most recent provocations was to suggest that liberals’ hatred of George W. Bush, like conservatives’ hatred of Bill Clinton before it, has poisoned discourse and harmed the country. Mr. Brooks found no takers for his case, so let me make a narrower, lower-browed case. Bush-hatred will hurt liberals, just as Clinton-hatred hurt conservatives.

I do not believe in the politics of niceness. Opposition, yes. Political warfare, yes. The zest for the struggle that united the late Lee Atwater and James Carville—if that is your bliss, follow it. But hatred inflames the joints, shortens the breath and clouds the mind. I know; I was there. I Tiresias have foresuffered all / Enacted on this same divan or bed.

One of the first effects of hatred is the loss of principle. In the presence of the loathed object, all the sacred scruples and tender reservations, all the treasured intellectual honor that felt the stain of inconsistency like a wound, goes down the toilet. Once it becomes your goal to crush the infamy, you will grab any blunt object that comes to hand. Thus in the Clinton years conservatives found themselves relying on the independent counsel and on sexual-harassment law. The first is a constitutional monstrosity belonging to no branch of government, but adulterating all three; the second was the greatest fount of petty bullying until the advent of Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-smoking campaign. Yet conservatives looked to Ken Starr and Paula Jones to rid them of the infamous Bill. I shall not instruct liberals in their own principles; I only say, watch for the warning signs.

A second, ongoing effect is the diversion of energy from more useful tasks. El Dorado might beckon, or some little 9-to-5 change that will make the world that much saner. But everything falls by the wayside in pursuit of the chimera. In the 1970’s and 80’s, The American Spectator was one of the most exciting magazines in America, as intelligent as it was quirky. Bob Tyrrell, the founder and editor, boasted, correctly, that he first introduced the liberals who would become neocons to plain old cons in his pages. But once Bill Clinton was elected, it became an Arkansas police blotter. The editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal—the equivalent of the guns of the U.S.S. Iowa, thundering five days a week on Capitol Hill and on the express from Greenwich—wasted its salvos on sleazy lawyers and Asian bagmen. Conservatives won a great victory in 1994, early in the Clinton years, when Newt Gingrich captured the House for the G.O.P. But they were unable to build on it, partly thanks to Newt’s limitations, but partly because everyone was so focused on the fun stuff.

So you lose your soul, and the main chance. But do you get what you wanted? Do you drive the demon from the light of day? This is the third pitfall of hatred—the overwhelming odds that your victim will escape. After all our most determined efforts, after all our appeals to republican virtue and demonstrations of Democratic vice, there in December 2000 sat President Clinton, finishing out his term in a blaze of pardons. There he is today, crisscrossing the nation and the globe, accumulating whatever honors strike his fancy, like a glowing constellation of himself, set in Heaven by an indulgent Zeus. And it’s not as if he hadn’t helped us, dumping evasions and indiscretions on the nation’s doorstep. Surely, we thought, as each steaming new load appeared, we have him at last. Yet he withheld the one thing that the hated object must not give his pursuers—a commensurate hatred in return.

That was the downfall of Richard Nixon. I recently heard, secondhand, a story attributed to Frank Shakespeare, Nixon’s director of the United States Information Agency. After the 1972 election, Shakespeare went to the Oval Office. Naturally, he expected his chief would feel vindicated by his splendid triumph. Not a bit of it. Nixon still spit fire at his ancient foes. Not one graduate of the Ivy League, he told Shakespeare, would ever enter the White House in his second term! Nixon pressed a button, which summoned Bob Haldeman. Tell Frank, Nixon said, what I just told you. Not one graduate of the Ivy League will ever enter the White House, said Haldeman. But very soon, Archibald Cox and Eliot Richardson were entering the White House and leaving it, and soon thereafter Nixon left. One side’s hatred is not enough to bring a leader down; it must be redoubled. Bill Clinton survived because he could split off his dislikes and stay focused on the task at hand. So, it seems, can George W. Bush. To him, his enemies are like infestations of deer ticks—forces of nature merely. He just keeps on keeping on.

The final pitfall of hatred, if I might sneak some high-mindedness in at the end, is that it leads you to misunderestimate the world, as our President might say. When everything takes on the colors of the struggle, then many things lose their proper field markings. Remember the moment, in the depths of Hurricane Monica, when President Clinton shot cruise missiles into the Sudan and Afghanistan? We now understand that he was targeting Al Qaeda. This episode will go down, with the Anschluss and Munich, as a precursor to a main event. At the time, however, conservatives suspected him of following the script of Wag the Dog. Didn’t that paranoid fantasy, the best political movie of the Clinton years, show a beleaguered incumbent whipping up a non-war to save himself? So instead of asking whether the cruise-missile barrage was a sufficient response, or who this Osama bin Laden fellow was and what had he done already, we harped on Mr. Clinton’s self-interest. We saw a trailer for the Iliad of the new millennium, and we thought it was an episode in a 1990’s sex farce.

Liberal Bush-haters are making the same mistake about many aspects of the war in Iraq. The Kay report found no W.M.D. sitting in warehouses in Iraq. So liberals charge Bush with incompetence and bad faith at best, the wilder ones muttering about Halliburton contracts and goosing the price of oil. But the Kay report also found that Iraq had clandestine programs to build W.M.D. Given Saddam’s past use of poison gas and his years of stonewalling, it would have been grossly irresponsible in a post-9/11 world to let him continue playing cat-and-mouse with U.N. inspectors.

Maybe Mr. Bush has dropped the ball on Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Who will find out, if liberals follow conservatives in rerunning the old tape of Wag the Dog?

nyobserver.com



To: Rascal who wrote (11393)10/9/2003 4:27:12 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793639
 
If you love Clark, you had better like Rangel!
________________________

General Clark Has Sgt. Rangel On Front Lines
by Josh Benson
New York Observer

WASHINGTON—Representative Charles Rangel of Harlem isn’t shy about reminding a listener that he played a big role in making Hillary Clinton a U.S. Senator from New York three years ago. Now, however, he’s talking about his next project: making Wesley Clark President of the United States.

"Even before he declared his candidacy, I used to tell people, ‘Think about General Clark,’" Mr. Rangel said in an interview with The Observer. "They’d say, ‘What does that mean?’ And I’d say, ‘You just trust me, because it wasn’t that long ago I told you to think about Hillary Clinton.’"

See?

Mr. Rangel, dean of the New York Congressional delegation and arguably the nation’s most important African-American elected official, is supporting the retired general despite ties to a number of the other candidates—like Richard Gephardt, his longtime House colleague, or fellow Harlemite Al Sharpton. And there’s nothing low-key or apologetic about that support.

Sitting in his spacious Congressional office on Capitol Hill, Mr. Rangel laid out his reasoning for backing Mr. Clark’s candidacy. It was, he explained, a pragmatic decision.

"Listen, I don’t want to get out there with a loser," he said. "I mean, if there’s a wart on Clark that I’m not seeing, tell me about it. People say he’s not liked by generals, he’s too articulate, he’s too ambitious, too political. Hell, that all enhances him. He looks good, he sounds good, but more importantly, he takes the question of patriotism off the table."

Mr. Rangel, himself a decorated war veteran, says he was initially attracted to the general because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. And he says that his confidence in Mr. Clark was strengthened during subsequent conversations with his colleagues—including one with Hillary Clinton, who was particularly enthusiastic about the general from Arkansas.

"I talked to Hillary and I said, ‘Holy mackerel!’" he said. According to Mr. Rangel, the Senator said of Mr. Clark: "He’s smart, he’s sharp—Bill and I love him. We go back to Little Rock. We’ve been supportive—he’s a great man."

At the end of the conversation, according to Mr. Rangel, the Senator said: "Charlie, I want to make it abundantly clear that I’m not endorsing anyone and that I can’t endorse anyone."

Mr. Rangel replied: "Look, Senator, if at some point in my political career I ask you for some endorsement and you can’t see your way clear to giving it, then just give to me what you just gave to Clark." The Congressman added that he was "overwhelmed" by the Senator’s non-endorsement. "Because I didn’t know he was that good—I just thought he could win," he said.

Correctly anticipating a follow-up question on the much-speculated-about topic of collusion between Ms. Clinton and the Clark camp—some have suggested that the general is a stalking horse for the Senator—Mr. Rangel dismissed it all as "crazy conspiracy theories."

A Key Ally

Although few political endorsements are decisive in Presidential campaigns, Mr. Rangel’s could be particularly important to Mr. Clark. For starters, Mr. Rangel says, he has already begun to organize some of his House colleagues for Mr. Clark, putting them to work on the general’s behalf to provide his campaign with some of the organizational support that it currently lacks.

More importantly, Mr. Rangel sees himself in a position to sell Mr. Clark to black voters. "Rangel’s is an extraordinarily powerful endorsement," said Democratic consultant Josh Isay. "He’s got tremendous credibility in the African-American community, and he’s seen by insiders as a political mastermind."

But there is no guarantee that Mr. Rangel’s help will translate into minority support. To this point, there has been no firm sign that black voters are rallying in significant numbers to any one candidate.

Asked why he thought that the African-American community would support a white military man, Mr. Rangel laughed.

"The real assurances that I have to give my people is that he can whup Bush’s ass," he said. "That’s the first thing that I have to deal with—that he can win this damn thing. That’s before they can even get into the whole civil-rights struggle—that we can get in there and whup this man and make up for all of the things that happened in Florida and the United States Supreme Court, and all of the injustices that this man has caused them since he’s been in office. That’s the goal and the battle plan."

Asked whether Mr. Clark’s past support for Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon might be a problem for Democrats, Mr. Rangel argued that it wouldn’t. "A reporter once told me, ‘Well, a guy who went to school with Clark in Little Rock said that he supported segregated schools,’" Mr. Rangel said, breaking into a wide grin. "So I said, ‘Well, can you imagine what a great President he would be to show that type of growth?’ I mean, damn—to a guy who now supports affirmative action in the military and in the [University of] Michigan case. Now that’s a true American—not just a guy who was born thinking one way and dies thinking the same way. That’s intellectual growth.

"I actually want to find where we have a problem with this guy," he continued, "so I can see if we can work it out. Right now, he looks almost too good."

For now, Mr. Rangel sees his primary task as helping to pull together the disparate elements in the Clark camp with whom he is in regular contact, including about 20 Representatives and any number of major New York–based Democratic donors and activists. Despite the apparent chaos surrounding the campaign at the moment, he said, it’s starting to come together.

As an example, Mr. Rangel talked about his recent dealings with various donors.

"Those damn Democratic contributors had some type of a conspiracy not to give any money to anybody," he said. "They were so proud of themselves: ‘The crowd’s too big; there’s no solid voice; we have to wait and see how things go; we’re not going to throw good money after bad.’ But pow!—in comes General Clark, and he got all their money. That may be very disorganized, but it works."

He described something similar going on with his fellow House members. "I’m carrying around more damn pieces of paper in my pocket with all these ideas for the campaign. My job is to tell about all of this wonderful advice to the general without making him crazy."

Mr. Rangel said that he’ll be attending a meeting on Oct. 8 with Mr. Clark’s campaign manager, Donnie Fowler, to discuss ways to get the campaign better organized.

Looking past the short-term campaign logistics, though, Mr. Rangel is confident that his instincts are going to be borne out again and that he’s picked himself another winner. Asked if he thought that Mr. Clark was the only Democrat who could succeed, Mr. Rangel said: "You could have what you think is your best team on the field, and then someone tells you, ‘Hey, there’s a superstar who’s eligible. And he’s better than the opposition.’ The others will say, ‘Look, I’ve been with this team for a long time,’ and so on. But in the end, it comes down to whether you just want to be liked, or whether you actually want to win."

nyobserver.com