The Jeffords Power Play
The post-Jeffords commentary represents another salvo in an ongoing liberal power play.

May 29, 2001 2:30 p.m.

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.