The results from this year's mid-term election might just prove that the center is still where elections are won: Lieberman will clobber Lamont, and moderates Kean & Steele might win in Democrat states, and Casey and Ford might win in Republican states.
If this is indeed the trend, will it effect 2008? Maybe. Maybe it will strengthen the fundraising efforts of candiates who will run as centrists: McCain & Giuliani in the GOP, and Richardson & in the Democrat Party.
These races prove that the defintion of moderate is very fluid: one can be a hawk in the GWOT and a libertarian on social issues (like Rudy & Lieberman), or a conservative on social issues and a fiscal hawk - like Casey. There is NO consistent "moderate" position in US politics, and this means that those who try to be seen as moderate to independent voters have no clear "NORTH STAR" to guide them.
This also proves that establishing oneself as a moderate is MORE about TRIANGULATION than having a consistent ideology. Which means that being PERCEIVED as a "moderate" depends largely on WHO ONE IS RUNNING AGAINST - which no one can control. Another interesting fact: the GOP moderates are not very hawkish, and if they win - which now seems VERY possible - then pressure on Bush to get more visible results in Iraq and Afghanistan will increase. And this makes it less likely that the GOP will nominate someone as hawkish as him in 2008.
I think we need a POTUS who is MORE hawkish than Bush. And someone who articulates positions based on a political philosphy, and not triangulation. I don't know which potential candidate best embodies this, right now. Maybe Romney - if he proves to be a real hawk. Maybe Rudy. We'll see...
If this is indeed the trend, will it effect 2008? Maybe. Maybe it will strengthen the fundraising efforts of candiates who will run as centrists: McCain & Giuliani in the GOP, and Richardson & in the Democrat Party.
These races prove that the defintion of moderate is very fluid: one can be a hawk in the GWOT and a libertarian on social issues (like Rudy & Lieberman), or a conservative on social issues and a fiscal hawk - like Casey. There is NO consistent "moderate" position in US politics, and this means that those who try to be seen as moderate to independent voters have no clear "NORTH STAR" to guide them.
This also proves that establishing oneself as a moderate is MORE about TRIANGULATION than having a consistent ideology. Which means that being PERCEIVED as a "moderate" depends largely on WHO ONE IS RUNNING AGAINST - which no one can control. Another interesting fact: the GOP moderates are not very hawkish, and if they win - which now seems VERY possible - then pressure on Bush to get more visible results in Iraq and Afghanistan will increase. And this makes it less likely that the GOP will nominate someone as hawkish as him in 2008.
I think we need a POTUS who is MORE hawkish than Bush. And someone who articulates positions based on a political philosphy, and not triangulation. I don't know which potential candidate best embodies this, right now. Maybe Romney - if he proves to be a real hawk. Maybe Rudy. We'll see...
No comments:
Post a Comment