|
|
|
Jewish World Review Augus 11, 2005 / 6 Av, 5765 Curveballs add spin to national political debate By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Whether on the baseball diamond or in the rough and tumble of politics, I do appreciate a good curveball. Lately, I've seen quite a few. Some are even coming from people rumored to be interested in seeking the presidency in 2008.
In politics, a curveball is when a politician takes a stand that is totally unexpected. It's when someone defies his supporters and sides with those who might normally be considered his opponents. It's when someone on the left starts moving to the right, or when someone on the right slides to the left.
That kind of maneuver can anger a politician's base, but it can also benefit the politician by making him appear more complex — and thus more watch-able — in the eyes of the media and other political spectators.
Recently, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threw social conservatives a curve when the Tennessee Republican broke with the White House's position on government-funded embryonic stem-cell research. While the administration is standing by the restrictions it set, Frist advocates more flexibility.
Many pundits are insisting that Frist has all but destroyed his chances to win his party's nomination. But that may not be the case. It's hard to imagine Frist — as a doctor — taking any position other than the one at which he eventually arrived. Had he done so, he would have been roasted — in and out of his profession — as a shameless political opportunist whose principles are flexible.
This way, there is still the chance that Republican primary voters will see the virtue in his position on stem-cell research, and maybe even come to respect his courage for taking it.
Personally, I have a tough time imagining Frist as his party's nominee. But if he fails, it won't be because of his position on stem cells. It'll come down to his ability to connect with average Americans.
Of course, if I'm wrong and Frist clinches the nomination, he might find himself squaring off with another person who isn't afraid to throw her base a curveball now and then. Sen. Hillary Clinton has rattled some of her more liberal supporters by appearing to drift to the right on a number of issues. In New York, she courts the support of farm groups and talks about economic development and supporting small businesses. In Washington, she has taken up the cause of overhauling the military and appeared on television alongside more conservative Republican colleagues such as Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona. Not to mention her appearances with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to promote health-care reform.
According to an article in the Washington Post, Clinton also angered many liberals by agreeing to head up an initiative aimed at developing a more positive agenda for Democrats — one that happens to be sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council.
There has also been some tough talk on immigration, which could — and I would argue, should — concern Latino voters. Back in February 2003, Clinton tried to reassure the audience of WABC radio in New York that she is no softie on illegal immigration.
It's not the positions that are troubling. It's the fact that they may have been the result of a political calculation by Clinton to move away from her liberal roots and tap into the anti-illegal immigration sentiment fomenting in this country. Political observers call this moving to the center where, they say, you'll find the majority of voters. Cynics might dismiss it as politicians finessing their views to get elected.
Whatever you call it, the strategy could pay dividends. In every presidential campaign, there emerges some personal quality that voters embrace. In 2000, McCain gained early traction — especially leading up to and coming out of the New Hampshire primary — from the perception that he was candid and authentic. In 2004, President Bush came out on top at least in part because he was seen as forthright and sincere in his beliefs.
Could it be that in 2008, it will be those politicians who are unpredictable that voters find most attractive? If so, that would be a good thing. There's nothing wrong with politicians who are complicated. It's the ones who aren't that worry me.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
To comment, please click here.
|
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
