William Safire: The Dangers Of Lopsidedness

[NATO AIR]

good reasoning from Safire

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/opinion/04safire.html?hp

The Dangers of Lopsidedness
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Published: November 4, 2004

Nobody "blew" it. Both the Kerry and Bush campaigns successfully turned on and turned out their troops, resulting in the kind of massive vote - the highest percentage of eligible voters taking part since 1968, also a wartime election - that should make America proud.

Fierce partisanship, rooted in policy disagreement and driven by 2000's "we wuz robbed" resentment, left the former voter apathy dead. This year's hot competition served a great purpose in putting millions more selves in self-government.

But there is a rhythm to politics - a time to divide and a time to unite. Kerry's heartfelt and eloquent concession speech yesterday, hoping "to bridge the partisan divide," was in stark contrast to the fire last time. President Bush, re-elected with a substantial popular majority, properly responded with "a new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation."

It would be foolish to deny the continued reality of that divide. On foreign policy, it pits hawk vs. dove, idealist vs. realist, uni- vs. multi-. On domestic affairs, liberals and conservatives will clash, now more one-sidedly, on taxes and paternalism. On cultural values, 11 states rose up against gay marriage, which had much to do with mobilizing the evangelical right.

Can Bush stick to principles that elected him while taking some of the poison out of the political atmosphere? The atrophy of the usual checks and balances requires a certain internal restraint.

Danger comes from the temptation to bull ahead that awaits lopsided government. Bush has the re-legitimated White House power backed up by a more rightist House of Representatives, now bolstered by a Senate with a 55-to-45 Republican majority. On top of that array of political muscle, a Supreme Court already tilted slightly rightward will soon be ready for an infusion of new justices.

This imbalance will ultimately trigger Rayburn's law: "When you get too big a majority," said Speaker Sam Rayburn, a Democrat, after F.D.R.'s 1936 landslide, "you're immediately in trouble."

Another danger to Republican self-restraint is the Democratic Party's post-Clinton ideological split, the central cause of its widespread losses this year. The isolationist, union-financed Deaniac left will unfairly attribute Kerry's defeat to his ambivalence on Iraq. This will erode the minority discipline that had been enforced for a decade by the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, who was just trapped in the G.O.P.'s senatorial avalanche.

Republicans are hoping that Democrats will pick Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a well-liked journeyman politician who is only fair on television, to replace Daschle as minority leader. A stronger choice to speak for the Democrats and dicker with the majority leader Bill Frist for compromises on Bush's initiatives would be Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The strongest choice would be the well-known John Kerry, world-class TV debater, who now understands where the nation's power center lies. (Bush should offer a domestic cabinet post to Daschle, an understanding pol who can be depended on to turn it down.)

What initiatives would bridge the divide while keeping campaign promises? Legislation to set up personal retirement accounts in Social Security, along with appointing a commission that would recommend raising the retirement age to 70 for those now under 50. In Iraq, follow Kerry's campaign advice to attack Falluja, the terrorist haven, and take up Kerry's suggestion of a cordial summit with Chirac, Schröder and other allies seeking rapprochement before their own dreaded election tests.

Then I would urge the further development of the president's thoughtful compromise of two years ago granting federal support for research using lines of discarded embryonic stem cells. This would not double-cross Bush's base; on the contrary, it would be a natural progression of his cautious, ethical policy. And for the Supreme Court, find a brilliant, moderate female Hispanic strict constructionist from Massachusetts.

Elections are wondrous things. Yesterday's losers of squeakers, as I recall from 1960, can come back to win another day. At the moment, we are on a democratic election roll: the recent victories of John Howard in Australia, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Bush in the U.S. augur well for a democratic election a few months from now in Iraq.

In democracies, the pendulum always swings. Cheer up, this week's saddened losers, and take heed, this week's euphoric winners - Hillary Clinton's restoration campaign is already under way.
E-mail: [email protected]

 

[Merlin1047]

Well, I got a good chuckle out of that article.

Seems that whenever the Democrats win an election they close ranks and charge ahead with no regard for the opposition. But whenever the Democrats lose an election, then they start singing about bipartisanship, "reaching across the aisle", working together and "bringing the nation together".

If you recall the Johnson-Goldwater election of 1964 (of course you don't, you child you), Johnson defeated Goldwater by portraying him as a fanatic who would embroil this nation in a nuclear war. The truth was that Goldwater was an intelligent man of principle and Johnson was a cunning rat who lived in the political sewer. Had Goldwater been elected we would not have had the debacle in Viet Nam. Because being a man of principle, Goldwater would have done one of two things - he would have done whatever was necessary to bring a successful end to the war or he would have ended our involvement in it before it had a chance to develop into a major effort.

Likewise today, George Bush is faced with a choice. He can stick by his principles and pursue the course that he knows is right or he can allow the whining pleas from leftists to water down his resolve. If the latter happens, then Iraq will in fact turn into a quagmire. The liberals will have been the catalyst, but Pres. Bush will bear the blame.

This is a time for bipartisanship - but not on the terms suggested by the New York Times article and certainly not on the terms suggested in kerry's watery-eyed departure speech. If there is to be bipartisanship, let it be because the liberal Democrats have heard the voice of the people in this last election. Let the LIBERALS be the ones who change their reckless and irresponsible philosophies and come on board with the Bush administration and with the majority of the American people. This is a good time to come together as Americans and unite this nation in the continuing struggle against terror. Let's see if liberals are willing to put aside their petty partisan hatred and work for the good of the nation and the safety of our military. Personally, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

It is important to try to unify the country. It is far more important to do that which is right. The American people handed Pres. Bush a mandate by turning out in record numbers this last election. He should not squander that by pandering to the very element which was so soundly rejected by Americans this past November 2nd.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Don't fall for this nato. As soon as I saw, "Daschle should be offered a cabinet seat", I just stopped reading.