back flip
Seth accuses me of saying John Kerry panders, flip-flops on every issue and got botox injections. There is no doubt I said this. I will admit that to some degree I was exaggerating: Kerry hasn’t flip-flopped on every issue and I will leave the analysis of his rendezvous with botox to the pages of Elle and people. But let me justify my indictments of his pandering and flip-flopping.
Seth’s justification of flip-flopping is that the nation has changed since 1970 and that politicians should change with the nation. If you read my Idealistic Nation article you would know that I, of all people, have been arguing that from the start. My biggest criticism of Congressional Democrats is that they haven’t changed since the 1970s – that they are still pushing the same policies, which have become outdate and ineffective. I do not accuse John Kerry of doing this. He is a New Democrat (though not a hardcore Third Way-er, as I like ‘em). He has, certainly, updated his positions since he first came to Congress.
My problem with Kerry is that he flip-flops, not over ten years, but over ten days. His pandering and flip-flopping go hand in hand. He’ll tell an audience exactly what they want to hear no matter what he believes or how he voted. Note that I don’t accuse him of pandering to interest groups or the liberal base. I accuse him of pandering to his audience. Let me make another thing clear. I am an advocate of not speaking often or loudly about politically detrimental issues. I don’t think Democrats should try to make gay marriage and issue. As much as I support it, I think it is political suicide. So, if Kerry decided not to highlight his vote for gun control at an NRA convention, I would have no problem with that. I would have a problem if, hypothetically, Kerry touted his vote for an assault weapons ban at a Yuppies Against Guns convention and then the next day told an NRA conference that he believes kids should be able to carry assault rifles to elementary school.
Think this hypothetical situation is extreme? Check out this published in The New Republic a few weeks ago: (Although posting it in full is a copyright violation, I’m going to do it anyways. The day someone over at TNR sees the blog will be the day I can check “write for a blog that someone actually reads” of my list of things to do before I die.):
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ...
to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq.
I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a
resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions
be given more time to work and against a resolution giving
the president the immediate authority to go to war."
--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of
Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your
support for the actions of President Bush in response to
the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion,
I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's
response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established
with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991] "
What does this show us about Kerry? When Wallace Carter wrote thanking Kerry for his opposition to the Gulf War, Kerry was a hard-core opponent of the war. When he wrote criticizing Kerry, Kerry became a life-long supporter of dealing with Sadaam. This was the most basic and disgusting level of pandering. Kerry needed to be on the right side of every issue with every person. Kerry’s pandering was institutionalized in the form letters he sent out to constituents.
Was Clinton a “pander bear”? Yes. It is often said that Clinton made policy decisions based on Mark Penn’s polling data. This was an aspect of Clinton’s presidency that I didn’t admire. In fact, it corresponds with the periods of Clinton’s presidency in which you could not call him a new democrat. So I would argue that Clinton’s pandering to poll numbers was among his greatest faults. Just because I like a lot of what Clinton did doesn’t mean that I respect everything about him. I’m not looking for a candidate who is screwing an intern just because Clinton did.
In spite of my ragging on Kerry. I don't hate the guy. I'm not sure he can beat Bush but a lot of his policy proposals are good stuff.
Seth’s justification of flip-flopping is that the nation has changed since 1970 and that politicians should change with the nation. If you read my Idealistic Nation article you would know that I, of all people, have been arguing that from the start. My biggest criticism of Congressional Democrats is that they haven’t changed since the 1970s – that they are still pushing the same policies, which have become outdate and ineffective. I do not accuse John Kerry of doing this. He is a New Democrat (though not a hardcore Third Way-er, as I like ‘em). He has, certainly, updated his positions since he first came to Congress.
My problem with Kerry is that he flip-flops, not over ten years, but over ten days. His pandering and flip-flopping go hand in hand. He’ll tell an audience exactly what they want to hear no matter what he believes or how he voted. Note that I don’t accuse him of pandering to interest groups or the liberal base. I accuse him of pandering to his audience. Let me make another thing clear. I am an advocate of not speaking often or loudly about politically detrimental issues. I don’t think Democrats should try to make gay marriage and issue. As much as I support it, I think it is political suicide. So, if Kerry decided not to highlight his vote for gun control at an NRA convention, I would have no problem with that. I would have a problem if, hypothetically, Kerry touted his vote for an assault weapons ban at a Yuppies Against Guns convention and then the next day told an NRA conference that he believes kids should be able to carry assault rifles to elementary school.
Think this hypothetical situation is extreme? Check out this published in The New Republic a few weeks ago: (Although posting it in full is a copyright violation, I’m going to do it anyways. The day someone over at TNR sees the blog will be the day I can check “write for a blog that someone actually reads” of my list of things to do before I die.):
"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ...
to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq.
I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a
resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions
be given more time to work and against a resolution giving
the president the immediate authority to go to war."
--letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of
Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991]
"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your
support for the actions of President Bush in response to
the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion,
I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's
response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established
with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
--Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991] "
What does this show us about Kerry? When Wallace Carter wrote thanking Kerry for his opposition to the Gulf War, Kerry was a hard-core opponent of the war. When he wrote criticizing Kerry, Kerry became a life-long supporter of dealing with Sadaam. This was the most basic and disgusting level of pandering. Kerry needed to be on the right side of every issue with every person. Kerry’s pandering was institutionalized in the form letters he sent out to constituents.
Was Clinton a “pander bear”? Yes. It is often said that Clinton made policy decisions based on Mark Penn’s polling data. This was an aspect of Clinton’s presidency that I didn’t admire. In fact, it corresponds with the periods of Clinton’s presidency in which you could not call him a new democrat. So I would argue that Clinton’s pandering to poll numbers was among his greatest faults. Just because I like a lot of what Clinton did doesn’t mean that I respect everything about him. I’m not looking for a candidate who is screwing an intern just because Clinton did.
In spite of my ragging on Kerry. I don't hate the guy. I'm not sure he can beat Bush but a lot of his policy proposals are good stuff.
posted by Marc at 2:26:00 AM
<< Home