|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
January 27, 2004A Sign of the TimesA week ago, the voters of Iowa said they want a positive campaign, and punished both Dean and Gephardt for pummeling each other in the waning days of that contest. Today, I suspect the voters of New Hampshire will do the same -- presenting Dean with a double-digit loss and pretty much finishing the one candidate most closely associated with the politics of anger. I think there's something more going on here than maneuverings in a Democratic primary. I sense a certain underlying, perhaps subconscious, feeling ... something that will affect both parties and fundamentally shape the year to come. We're in an unnatural place, politically speaking. The natural reaction of any nation following a devastating attack such as 9/11 is to pull together. You saw it in good ol' boys from Texas packing up and going to New York to lend a hand. There was a moment two years ago when everybody felt like a New Yorker, or, perhaps, people sensed that New Yorkers were reflecting our American values in the most extraordinary ways. The natural reaction of the world, meanwhile, was deepest sympathy. Thousands of American civilians had perished in an unprovoked attack. The world understood that we were all targets -- terrorism was a challenge to civilization as a whole. In the meantime -- the two years since -- our economy has stagnated. We've had more economic uncertainty in the past three years than in the previous decade. That uncertainty affects people more than our fears about terrorism, by a long shot. Americans want a president who helps us regain that native American sense of optimism. We've been trying to figure out how to believe again, and haven't quite managed it. We would love to feel like we're coming together, not shouting at one another across a political fence. The leader who can do this successfully will balance realism with hope -- being frank about the security challenges we face, the steps we need to take to deal with them, and the fact that we can never be 100% sure of preventing the next attack. It's possible for Americans to accept the risk, while going forward with a strong sense of hope and optimism about our future. The leader of the moment will be the one who finds that balance -- realistic, grounded ... but unifying and optimistic. Posted by William Swann at January 27, 2004 10:14 AMComments
We are, indeed, in unusual times -- when reasonable people differ on whether we are AT WAR, or should be. There is also the matter of what our goals are, if we are at war, but these are difficult to reasonably discuss when there is basic disagreement on whether or not we are at war, a) due to 9/11 attacks against us, or b) wrongly, due to our war response to 9/11 instead of police response. Posted by: Tom Grey at January 28, 2004 10:47 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|