"Gotcha" Politics

I am really sick and tired of "gotcha" politics. There's a class of advocates and newsmongers who thrive on the latest trumped-up scandal. Few of these have much significance. The most recent tempest-in-a-teapot concerns Mr. Obama's relationship with his pastor -- as if that mattered. Let's be serious -- are YOU willing to accept moral responsibility for all the statements made by your pastor, preacher, priest, rabbi, or mullah --including those not made in your presence?

By the time you read this, Mr. Obama's case will probably have been dumped for some other ridiculous "scandal". Let's consider some of the recent kerfluffles:

1. The most absurd was the complaint against Ms. Clinton that one of her campaign ads featuring a video clip of her out campaigning included in the distance a lawn ornament that is offensive to blacks. Talk about a stupid criticism!

2. Then there was the brouhaha over the darkening of Mr. Obama's face in a Clinton campaign ad. This, I confess, had some small degree of significance -- it really does appear that somebody deliberately altered the original video to make him appear blacker. This was definitely wrong. But I don't think it deserved much attention. We should have chalked it up as yet another example of "Stupid Politician Tricks" and moved on.

3. The wrangle over Mr. McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist was particularly ironic. The issue that grabbed the most attention -- the possibility of a sexual relationship between Mr. McCain and the lobbyist -- was both absurd and meaningless. Who cares if Mr. McCain had sex with this woman; it's utterly meaningless! Besides, I am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. I really don't think that he engaged in anything sexually untoward. What WAS significant, I think, is the evidence that Mr. McCain awarded government favors to a lobbyist. The special treatment that Mr. McCain gave to the lobbyist's client is definitely unsavory. I don't think any crimes were committed, and I won't make a federal case out of it, but there is some small substance here -- and the press seems to have ignored that in preference to the salacious side of the story.

4. The Rezko case presents us with another remote possibility of something significant, blown all out of proportion. Mr. Rezko appears to have been a possibly shady operator, and is now on trial in Chicago for alleged misdeeds. He supported Mr. Obama in his early years, and provided Mr. Obama with what appears to be some financial assistance. This, by itself, means little; the world is full of shady operators and a politician cannot be held responsible for the actions of all their supporters. The only question is whether Mr. Obama reciprocated with any special favors. As yet, there has been absolutely nothing in the way evidence in that regard. In this, Mr. Obama's case contrasts sharply with Mr. McCain's case, for we know that Mr. McCain did favors for his supporter.

I'm not arguing here that politicians should not be accountable -- I think they should be held accountable for the actions that matter. All three of the major candidates have served as Senators; why haven't their voting records been subjected to close scrutiny? Let's keep our eye on the ball here: a politician's job is to make political decisions, and the best indication of the political decisions that they'll make in the future is the record of the political decisions they have made in the past. Yet we have seen very little discussion of this in the campaigns, because Americans are too god-damned lazy to pay attention to what matters.

Mr. Obama Versus Ms. Clinton

I strongly prefer Mr. Obama to Ms. Clinton. Many people who do not support Mr. Obama seem confused as to why he has garnered such fervent support. Since they cannot understand the basis of this support, they assume that it must be some form of madness, and call it "Obamania". But projecting one's own confusion onto others is no way to understand the universe; if you don't understand it, you should either shrug your shoulders and let it be or take the time to investigate more closely.

I know why I prefer Mr. Obama to Ms. Clinton, and I suspect that others share my thinking, if perhaps subconsciously. It lies in one's approach to the nature of our Republic. Let me sketch the two opposing schools of thought:

Winner take all
This is the political philosophy that has dominated the American body politic since the inauguration of Mr. Bush. The thinking is very bottom-line oriented: if we can get 50% + 1 of the votes, then we don't need to worry about the opposition. A simple majority permits us to do anything we want. We can cram our decisions down the throats of the opposition, and they can't do anything about it. Every political battle is fought in isolation, with the goal being victory at all costs. If we can't get 50% + 1 with our preferred policy, then we'll water it down just enough to get to that magic 50% + 1 point. If we obtain more than 50% + 1, then we have compromised too much and we need to sharpen the terms. It's all a matter of vote-counting and pushing as hard as we can for the greatest victory.

This approach is almost by definition polarizing. It forces both sides to fight every battle tooth and nail, to treat each and every battle as a matter of simple victory or defeat. It is corrosive to the health of our democracy because it encourages citizens to take sides between one team or the other rather than consider each issue on its own merits. The Republicans played this game better than the Democrats, enforcing what they called "party discipline". In truth, it was not so much discipline as the imposition of the "winner take all" philosophy upon the entire Republican party. The slogan was "You're either with us or against us"; no room was left for minor differences of opinion. This allowed the Republicans to win a lot of Congressional votes. However, the Republicans will pay for their party discipline in November. The sins of Mr. Bush will be visited upon the Republican Party. Every Democrat will rightly accuse their Republican opponent of rubber-stamping the Bush agenda, which is widely perceived as having failed badly. Mr. Bush's sub-30% approval rating will stick like tar to every Republican candidate.

Ms. Clinton seems to accept this "winner take all" style of politics. She's fighting hard, and doesn't seem to scruple at any ploy she can to win the nomination. If she gets the nomination, she will respond in kind to the dirty tricks and nasty smears that the Republicans will surely direct at her. And if she wins the Presidency, she will take full advantage of the Democratic Congress to cram her own policies down the throats of the Republicans.

I can certainly understand the desire for some payback. After all, the Republicans have driven this country so far to the right that we'll need eight years of Democratic payback just to get the country back into balance. But it is likely that eight years of Democratic supremacy will lead to a simple cycling of American politics, swinging back and forth between the extremes of left and right. That's just not healthy.

Compromise
The essence of the Obama philosophy, as I perceive it, is the emphasis on compromise. The fundamental concept behind democracy is the realization that people disagree, and that they have to come up with workable compromises that most people can live with. Without compromise, policy is subject to a tug of war, flipping from one extreme to the other. That's no way to run a superpower.

A good example of how corrosive polarization can be is provided by the abortion controversy. For 35 years now, we've been hamstrung by this controversy. Most Americans accept the basic principle of a woman's right to an abortion, but many would like to place some constraints on late-term abortions. For the most part, the current regime reflects, I believe, a compromise that most Americans can live with. However, a small and extremely vocal minority refuse to accept the compromise, and fight hard to get that compromise overturned. This in turn has a dangerous effect upon American politics. No Republican candidate dares support abortion rights -- they must all cater to the pro-life extremists, because those people can wreck a Republican candidacy. Even though the matter has been resolved in the minds of most Americans, it continues to distort the political process.

What we need to do is hammer out a Constitutional amendment putting the existing compromise down on paper. Yes, we might have to fiddle around with the compromise to get a workable wording. But, if we had a reasonable political system, we'd be able to work something out and settle the matter once and for all, thereby removing this distorting element from American politics. Unfortunately, we all know that this is a political impossibility. There is no way that a Constitutional amendment reflecting the desires of, say, 70% of the American citizenry could pass. We are so divided that we cannot find a solution that 2/3 of the politicians could vote for. And that's not healthy.

Mr. Obama will not solve the abortion question. But he can start us down the road towards a new philosophy of political discourse, one emphasizing agreement through compromise rather than the battle for absolute victory. I think that Americans are sick to death of the Swiftboating, the ugliness, the nastiness, the dirty tricks and Rovian tactics of the last eight years. I think that many Americans want a government that works rather than one consumed in political wars.

The first President Bush promised "Read my lips: no new taxes!" and then famously broke that pledge. The second President Bush promised to be "a uniter, not a divider" and then proved to be the most divisive President in American history. I believe that Mr. Obama will be a true uniter, and Ms. Clinton will end up being a divider.