Politics: Tug of War
Adam Nagourney has a sharp political analysis in today's New York Times about the various political constituencies that Democratic candidates for president must appease. The story proceeds fairly straight: Gephardt, Kucinich and Lieberman all dropped what they were doing to run down to Miami for the tail-end of the NAACP meeting there, after Kweisi Mfume scolded them for skipping the event. Republicans relished the idea of candidates (and potentially a future opponent) quickly asking "how high" when an interest group shouts "Jump!"
Nagourney caught James Carville pointing out that Bush doesn't have to show up at the NRA because those groups are politically savvy about their interests. Carville says, "They understand what it is to win an election. They don't make Republican presidential candidates go there and hold assault weapons up in the air."
The piece doesn't quite get to the rub of it, which is the quid pro quo of all this campaign foolishness. Democrats have to visit the Human Rights Campaign and NARAL during these vital fund-raising and volunteer-grooming months because they believe they will have to turn their back on these constituencies to win in November. Basically, trips to NARAL are a sign by a candidate reading "I agree with you, now let's never speak of it again." Often this pledge also indicates a pledge to take no pro-active effort on this issue, but merely to ensure that the worst possible thing doesn't happen. I frequently gnashed my teeth when President Clinton (who really perfected the appearance-based constituency mollification method outlined here) just barely managed to hold the line on environmental, handgun and war-mongering questions, and then tried to rest on his good liberal reputation so often.
Meanwhile, with Republican candidates generally -- and President Bush in particular -- the opposite is true. Bush doesn't need to visit the NRA, because some functionary will make sure that the message gets across. And Bush follows-up on the promise, delivering the goods, looser gun control laws, so-called partial birth abortion laws, right-wing ideologue judges to restrict our rights for decades, whatever it takes. Democrats shrug and say, "we visited your forum last month, uh, right?"
Carville points out that the understanding it missing. NARAL and NAACP want the power of having candidates visit their meeting to kowtow to their ideals. I would much rather they keep campaigning and then actually do something for us when they get into office.
(Also posted at Naw where I'm doing a little guest-gig.)
Adam Nagourney has a sharp political analysis in today's New York Times about the various political constituencies that Democratic candidates for president must appease. The story proceeds fairly straight: Gephardt, Kucinich and Lieberman all dropped what they were doing to run down to Miami for the tail-end of the NAACP meeting there, after Kweisi Mfume scolded them for skipping the event. Republicans relished the idea of candidates (and potentially a future opponent) quickly asking "how high" when an interest group shouts "Jump!"
Nagourney caught James Carville pointing out that Bush doesn't have to show up at the NRA because those groups are politically savvy about their interests. Carville says, "They understand what it is to win an election. They don't make Republican presidential candidates go there and hold assault weapons up in the air."
The piece doesn't quite get to the rub of it, which is the quid pro quo of all this campaign foolishness. Democrats have to visit the Human Rights Campaign and NARAL during these vital fund-raising and volunteer-grooming months because they believe they will have to turn their back on these constituencies to win in November. Basically, trips to NARAL are a sign by a candidate reading "I agree with you, now let's never speak of it again." Often this pledge also indicates a pledge to take no pro-active effort on this issue, but merely to ensure that the worst possible thing doesn't happen. I frequently gnashed my teeth when President Clinton (who really perfected the appearance-based constituency mollification method outlined here) just barely managed to hold the line on environmental, handgun and war-mongering questions, and then tried to rest on his good liberal reputation so often.
Meanwhile, with Republican candidates generally -- and President Bush in particular -- the opposite is true. Bush doesn't need to visit the NRA, because some functionary will make sure that the message gets across. And Bush follows-up on the promise, delivering the goods, looser gun control laws, so-called partial birth abortion laws, right-wing ideologue judges to restrict our rights for decades, whatever it takes. Democrats shrug and say, "we visited your forum last month, uh, right?"
Carville points out that the understanding it missing. NARAL and NAACP want the power of having candidates visit their meeting to kowtow to their ideals. I would much rather they keep campaigning and then actually do something for us when they get into office.
(Also posted at Naw where I'm doing a little guest-gig.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home