|
 he
verdict is in: The Jim Jeffords switch means that the Bush administration
and the Republican party generally are
too right-wing.
This we learned from, among others, Rick Berke in Friday's New
York Times. Of course, Berke would write this story in any circumstances.
A plague of locusts could consume St. Louis, a meteor could destroy
the eastern seaboard, John McCain could be assumed bodily into heaven
midway through a press conference with Granny D. — and Berke would
herald it all as a signal that the GOP had drifted too far right.
Is it possible to imagine Berke ever writing that the Republicans
had become too mealy-mouthed and ideologically indistinct?
The last couple
of days have partly been just another occasion to trot out the same
tired old clichés about the GOP. But make no mistake: The
Jeffords switch is still a major propaganda victory for the Democrats
and the Northeast/McCain liberals in the GOP. It would be nice if
someone would actually take responsibility for this setback, instead
of the usual buck-passing under the guise of "taking responsibility."
Although it doesn't seem that a challenge to Trent Lott is imminent,
he does appear to be a limp and diminished figure, perhaps in a
state similar to Newt Gingrich after the infamous coup attempt against
him: still standing, but likely to be dumped from leadership at
the next bump in the road.
Meanwhile,
the post-Jeffords commentary represents another salvo in an ongoing
liberal power play to define conservatism as a kind of deviance.
This was evident in the Ashcroft and Chavez nominations, when conservative
positions on issues like affirmative action and abortion, positions
that enjoy majority or at least close-to-majority support in the
country, were defined as "controversial" or "divisive,"
whereas the liberal positions on those issues — which enjoy about
30% support from the public — are taken as just part of the mainstream.
Sen. Chafee's spokesman criticized the other day "the divisive
nature of this administration's agenda."
Oh, really?
Is it divisive to support a tax cut that passes with 58 votes in
the Senate, or is it divisive to oppose it? The fact is that any
legislative measure beyond, say, a proclamation honoring Memorial
Day, will be divisive (heck, even the World War II memorial is divisive).
In this context, "divisive" is just a liberal swear word
directed exclusively at conservative policies. And, for that matter,
by any reasonable standard, the Bush administration hasn't been
particularly divisive. Its tax bill passed with almost 60 votes;
its education bill passed the House with about 350 votes. It's hard
to get more bipartisan, short of unanimity.
The tax bill
raises an interesting phenomenon. It used to be we were always told
that the wonderful thing about GOP "moderates" was that
they were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, i.e., pro-abortion
and pro-tax cuts. Now, we learn, they aren't even in favor of tax
cuts. Jeffords was driven out of the party, and other moderates
were driven to distraction, because Bush pushed, not a constitutional
amendment banning abortion or allowing school prayer, but a tax
cut, a relatively modest effort to reduce the scope of Washington.
Even this was too much to swallow for these "fiscal conservatives."
(McCain's vote against the cut marks another important step in his
odyssey away from conservatism and the GOP — one he would surely
take all the way to completion, if this man of principle could actually
get away with it with Arizona voters.)
What lesson
is in all this for Bush? He does risk being too closely identified
with corporate interests, and should spruce up his PR by emphasizing
the more creative aspects — and there are plenty of them — of his
agenda (unilaterally reducing U.S. offensive missiles, cutting payroll
taxes as part of Social Security reform, introducing faith-based
initiatives, and improving inner-city schools). But he should not
drastically alter his program. A politician's character is his most
important asset, and keeping his promises is the best way to maintain
it. As soon as the Democrats and the press bully Bush away from
his promises, he'll be savaged for betraying them and for failing
on his own terms. And he'll have no defense. Oh, and Rick Berke
will write Bush's obituary on the front page of the New York
Times — his defeat, of course, a sign that Republicans have
moved too far right.
|
