Centerfield

Rick,

I think this analysis is wrong, and is bordering on what could be considered partisan rhetoric.

Not only are Giuiani, McCain, Paige, and Schwarzenegger centrists they are also among the most popular people in the Republican Party, and Bloomberg is the Mayor of the host-city.

So although I agree the face that is being put on at the convention is more centrist than the Republican Party actually is, I think it is a little over the top to call it deceptive, or at least any more deceptive than John Kerry's attempt to convince us all that he is a moderate "New Democrat." After all, this is a PR campaign, and both sides are trying to pretend that they are something they both clearly are not. The difference is that one candidate actually has a record of advocating policies outside of the ideological base of his party, while the other one has only paid them lip service while accumulating one of the most liberal records in the history of the United States Senate.

I am sick of people saying George W. Bush has governed as a conservative; however, I do think it is fair to say that he is more conservative than his campaign told us he was in 2000. The fact is, the man has supported, proposed, and enacted many policies that most conservatives would describe as liberal, not to mention the fact that the list of candidates he has endorsed in Repbulican primaries are much more in the image of Nelson Rockefeller than they are Ronald Reagan. Was it conservative when he became the first President to adopt a policy that bans racial profiling in federal prosecutions, proposed worker's amnesty for illegal immigrants, or fought to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare?

No matter what Kerry supporters tell us about the Republican convention line-up, centrists should be happy not only because the speakers are of the moderate variety, but the President of the United States has moved his party closer to the center, although as he admitted to the Urban League the other other day, "the Repbulican Party has got a long way to go."

Posted by: Mathew at July 24, 2004 10:20 AM

I disagree with TNR's characterization of McCain as a liberal. I see him as, on balance, a centrist.

I also don't see how Rod "Organized Teachers Are Terrorists" Paige supposedly puts a kinder, gentler face on the GOP. In fact I think having Paige speak there is politically risky. It could easily backfire on them with the same black voters that he is presumably there to help court.

Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2004 10:24 AM

The man made one statement, Kevin, and he apologized for it. I think many reasonable school administrators have said worse about teacher unions that are more interested in self, than what is actually best for the kids they are teaching. I would hope the American People wouldn't be so petty, and would look to the Paige's record in Houston, TX that was praised by many liberal's, and to his pragmatic approach to governing the Department of Education.

Posted by: Mathew at July 24, 2004 10:30 AM

However, he's governed as a conservative.

Better define what you mean by "conservative," Rick, as many Republican conservatives both social and fiscal would dispute that statement. Just as many liberals disputed the categorization of Clinton as a liberal. To the Religious Right & fiscal conservatives Bush is a domestic business-as-usual big-government weenie and a foreign policy hawk, with tax cuts his major (and darn near only) actual domestic accomplishment, and everything else mostly lip service. Like Clinton, his greatest asset with the party extremes is that he's not The Other Guy. The constituencies happiest with him are the neocons and moderates, which is a major indicator.

That's why Bush has spent so much time this spring and summer focusing on firming up the conservative base, and saving his efforts on the moderates and centrists for the fall run-up.

Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2004 10:43 AM

The difficult thing, for me, is that Bush has had prominent centrists in his cabinet -- Powell and Whitman -- but they were largely checkmated by administration conservatives on policy matters.

It's also true that Bush has implemented centrist or even liberal policies -- on the prescription drug benefit, campaign finance reform, the farm bill, highway bill, stem-cell research, etc.

But I think most of them are bad policies, whatever their political orientation. The prescription drug benefit and stem-cell policies fall in that category, while CFR, I think, was a good idea and a credit to the president.

The centrists the Republicans are featuring tend to be the bold kind who take dramatically different positions on the cultural issues -- e.g., they're pro-choice and pro-gay rights. But those views have no place in the Bush administration. He's consistently pro-life, and just tried to enact the first anti-gay constitutional amendment.

The Federal Marriage Amendment, followed closely by a convention featuring culturally liberal Republicans, is a little hard to swallow.

No Republican from that camp has been selected for the national ticket in the past quarter century. Pick one of them to run with, Mr. President, not just to vouch for you at the party convention.

Posted by: William Swann at July 24, 2004 10:50 AM

That one statement was hugely over the top, Matthew. And this is about politics after all. Besides, most people (especially those of us with kids) understand that there is a world of difference between being sorry for what one said and being sorry for the consequences of what one said. What evidence can you offer that Paige's apology was of the former variety and not the latter?

The fact of the matter is that a lot of teachers took offense at Paige's comment. And to the best of my knowledge, teachers, especially unionized teachers, are generally held in much higher esteem among blacks than they are among the general population.

Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2004 10:58 AM

Kevin,

People make mistakes. It is simply unreasonable to hold our leaders to such a high standard that they cannot be forgiven for ONE statement... and it was just ONE statement. Rod Paige's service record, accomplishments, and commitment to schools has been praised by both liberals and conservatives, and rightly so.

Most of the teachers that took offense to Paige and have not accepted his apology are doing so for political purposes, and didn't like Paige before his statement solely because he was a black Repbulican and a member of the Bush administration.

If you think I find their outrage insincere, you would be correct, just as a I don't beleive them when they say they are going on strike for the good of the children. Give me a break, their isn't a union in existance whose first priority isn't self preservation at any cost.

Posted by: Mathew at July 24, 2004 11:12 AM

Not only are Giuliani, McCain, Paige, and Schwarzenegger centrists they are also among the most popular people in the Republican Party, and Bloomberg is the Mayor of the host-city.

They may be the most popular people within the Republican Party, but they are not the most popular Republicans among Republicans. Giuliani wasn't really taken into the bosom of the GOP until 9/11 made him an icon. Schwarzenegger probably could not have won a Republican primary.

I am sick of people saying George W. Bush has governed as a conservative; however, I do think it is fair to say that he is more conservative than his campaign told us he was in 2000. The fact is, the man has supported, proposed, and enacted many policies that most conservatives would describe as liberal, not to mention the fact that the list of candidates he has endorsed in Repbulican primaries are much more in the image of Nelson Rockefeller than they are Ronald Reagan.

I'll grant you that Bush has supported incumenbent over more conservative primary challengers. But overall my sense is that where a Bush policy is liberal (e.g. prescription drugs or steel tariffs) he's done it for unprincipled reasons of political expediency, whereas the conservative positions seem to come from his heart. Arguably, one could say the same about Bill Clinton. Posted by: rickheller at July 24, 2004 11:17 AM

So, Rick, Bush's liberal actions don't count in his scoring because in your assessment his heart was not pure? Hee hee.

Mathew, do you think that Kevin might accept Paige's apology if you would accept the apology of Democratic Senator (SD) Tim Johnson's for his statements about the "Taliban Wing of the Republican Party," even if Tom DeLay has never apologized for referring to the Republicans in Congress as "the Mullahs on the Hill?" We can leave Julian Bond and Howard Fineman, even Thomas Sowell, for another time.

After all, the only thing more pointless than name-calling in political discourse is arguing about name-calling.

Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2004 11:34 AM

I'll believe Bush is as centrist as Clinton when I hear him say, "The era of big government is back."

Posted by: rickheller at July 24, 2004 11:43 AM

Matthew,

In other circumstances what Paige said would still be egregious, but perhaps slightly less so. As it is he made the outrageous statement in direct reference to the NEA's lobbying over the "No Child Left Behind" Act.

Not only is a Republican complaining about lobbyists an absurdly over the top example of the pot calling the kettle black. But this was over a woefully underfunded federate mandate on the states. Many well outside of the NEA have criticized the Bush admin over the funding for this Act, including many state officials struggling to pay the bills.

Here in Oregon we already had standardized testing. NCLB did nothing to benefit students in Oregon. All it did was to add another expensive layer of beaurocratic hoop-jumping at a time when the education funds were shrinking. Plus it forces Oregon teachers to take that much MORE time away from educating to tutor their students to jump thru this beaucratic hoop.

Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2004 11:48 AM

But Clinton never said that, Rick. In fact, he said the opposite. Unless you count his 1998 budget...and if you're going to count budgets, then Bush already said it as clearly as Clinton.

Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2004 12:02 PM

Perhaps my flippancy above was confusing, so to clarify, Clinton said, to the dismay of party liberals, "The era of big government is over" Clinton's New Democrat positioning represented a real departure from a generation of McGovern-Mondale types.

Bush may have a few carefully targeted policies, but he has not attempted to reform his party, moving it toward the center. Thus, Clinton is more of a centrist than Bush

Posted by: rickheller at July 24, 2004 12:14 PM

Rick, mostly I agree with that (and wish we had some whimsical emoticons!). My departure would be that Clinton was more explicitly centrist in his words than Bush has ever been. In actual policy and spending, it's debateable, because they had (have) much different circumstances to deal with, so there's no good baseline. But they both moved towards the middle by co-opting centrist/populist issues such as Medicare and Welfare.

By actions, once you discount obviously doomed gestures and lip service to the Religious Right, Bush hasn't really shown all that much domestic conservatism, which is why the RR & fiscals are grumbly (and much as the liberals got grumbly with Clinton). More of a big-government Main-Streeter. Ease up on business, reward your friends, shaft your enemies, and try to keep holdin' the reins.

Foreign policy is a different subject, of course. But even Clinton had his cowboy moments.

Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2004 12:47 PM

On Ron Paige: the Houston school district has turned out to be something other than the model it was thought to be: http://www.berkeleypta.org/topics/testing/20030710a-nyt.html

Paige was no longer in charge, but there's little doubt that it was his culture and policies that were found to have drawbacks.

On Bush support for Campaign Finance Reform: I think we can distinguish between enthusiastic support for a policy and a fear of voter reaction if you do not sign it. If your memory fails, go back and read the press at the time.

On Bush as a conservative: strong alliance with cultural conservatives, strongly promotes pro-business conservative policies, but seems to have failed as a fiscal conservative as far as budget discipline goes.

I have to agree with Rick that one or two strategic centrist proposals does not a centrist make. But that's a judgment that each of us tends to make through the lens of our own world-views. On the other hand, that does not make it partisan per se.

Posted by: Erasmus at July 24, 2004 01:01 PM

Erasmus,

You are reaching on the Houston accounting issue. There are few who have charged Paige with wrong doing.

Rick,

Your analysis that Shwarzenegger could not win in a primary is puzzling. Didn't he beat a conservative State Senator by a wide margin in the runoff with the endorsements of a great majority of the conservative establishment in California? I guess you could argue that Arnold's votes came from elsewhere (Independents and Democrats), but it is pretty clear to me who Republicans preferred in that election.

So let me get this straight, Erasmus and Rick, when Bush has been a moderate he has done so out of political expediency? Even if I give you that, which I don't, there is little you can offer to prove that point but your own hunch, and that is a pretty convenient argument for centrists who support Kerry and simply are interested in making sure Bush is out of office. What evidence has Kerry given you that his entire campaign is not anything but political expediency, because it sure isn't consistent with his voting record?

Furthermore, even if it is the case that Bush is only moderate when it is expedient, it still is a fact that he has gone outside of his political base on way more than a few issues, where John Kerry has a record of being the most liberal member of his party.

Posted by: Mathew at July 24, 2004 02:01 PM

On Bush as a conservative: strong alliance with cultural conservatives

For whom he has accomplished darn near nothing. Lip service and gestures.

seems to have failed as a fiscal conservative as far as budget discipline goes

Yep, expanding Medicare will do that to you, and wars don't help much either. Kinda anti-fiscal-conservative things, no? (Not that I believe Bush would have been a strong fiscal conservative without the wars. A weak fiscal conservative, maybe.)

strongly promotes pro-business conservative policies

"Conservative" being used as a pejorative to mask the heart of the comment, the implication of "pro-business" as an inherently conservative position--does anyone want to try and name some pro-business liberal policies? Or is being "pro-business" restricted to conservatives only?

But that's a judgment that each of us tends to make through the lens of our own world-views.

Exactly.

Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2004 02:10 PM

Kerry is not a centrist, though he is making some belated centrist noises. Perhaps if he wins and has to govern with a GOP congress, he will be a centrist in practice.

Arnold won because of the unqiue nonpartisan nature of the recall election. I think in a primary restricted to registered republican voters, Tom McClintock might well have won.

Posted by: rickheller at July 24, 2004 02:39 PM

Gov. Davis was to the Cali GOP what Clinton was to the national GOP - a boogyman who needed to be defeated at all costs. Comparing the political climate of the highly unusual recall election in Cali to a primary race is a huge stretch IMO. McClintock was fairing very, very well when stacked up against Shwarzenegger for much of the "race"... such as it was. It was only after it became obvious that Shwarzenegger had a better chance of pulling Indy and Dem votes that many Conservatives jumped ship to back Arnold. The polling that I remember seeing right after the election showed that many Dems and Indies had indeed backed Shwarzenegger.

Politically the GOP had engaged in a high-stakes gamble in Cali. The consequences of failing to pull it off would have had national repercussions!

Even so, McClintock took third place when it was all said and done.

Had I been living in Cali at the time, I would have voted for McClintock. Ideology aside, he very much impressed me as being very competent and he is a fiscal conservative with a very good grasp on the nuts and bolts of the Cali budget.

Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2004 02:39 PM

Matt,

Note that I have not charged Paige with wrong-doing either. :)

Posted by: Erasmus at July 24, 2004 02:51 PM

Tully,

You make some good points.

For one thing, although Bush allies firmly with the social conservatives, there is more ID by rhetoric on some issues. Not on reproductive issues, though. I think he has delivered quite a bit via executive order restricting funds to groups interested in population control, for example. The there is the 'partial-birth abortion' legislation.

I think it's my Texas residency that may color my perceptions about Bush and business. As governor Bush took the side of corporate interests every time that I know of when it came to choices for regulatory boards and those that served as his campaign fund-raisers and resulting policy. I would describe Bush as more extreme than simply 'pro-business' (I'll grant that was a bad choice of words), but I'm not sure what label to use.

Molly Ivins writes in as great detail as anyone about all this. (Yes, she's a liberal, but what she writes about is mostly a matter of public record.)

Posted by: Erasmus at July 24, 2004 03:12 PM

Erasmus, you just reminded me of something. A week or so ago Powell was the guest on the Charlie Rose show. He made an assertion that genuinely surprised me. He said that the Bush administration has purchased and distributed to foreign countries "two, perhaps three times as many condoms" as the Clinton admin had. At a bare minimum Powell claimed that the Bush admin has doubled the condom distribution that went on during Clinton's administration. I don't recall exactly, but to be safe let's presume he was comparing a four year period to a four year period - which is what he must have meant. Now... given the well-known funding situation which you referenced, I found that very hard to believe. I remember mentioning it to Carla and she too found it hard to believe. But, I've no idea where one would find the exact stats with which to check the assertion.

Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2004 03:39 PM

Kevin,

That's interesting. I hope it's true. Of course the real hot-button issue (as long as you're not dealing with the Catholic Bishops) is any counseling or association concerning abortion.

Posted by: Erasmus at July 24, 2004 07:52 PM

The condom tale is true, part of the US Agency for International Development anti-AIDS efforts in Africa. The poorly-acronymed ABC program. Abstain, Be monogamous, or wear a Condom. It's made significant inroads on AIDS rates in several countries. Uganda, for example, went from a 30% adult AIDS rate to under 7%. We supplied the rascal wraps.

Naturally more than just passing out condoms was involved, and the USAID was not the only player by a long shot. The respective governments did most of the heavy lifting of getting the message out and coordinating religous and social groups to supply the peer and community pressure.

Erasmus, if you wish to claim that US funding via the UN for forced involuntary abortions in China is a respected "liberal" position, I'll happily agree that not funding them is thus a conservative one--but it doesn't say anything good about liberalism. Clinton originated that policy, BTW, not Bush.

In the expert opinion of people I know who are actually in the abortion business, the partial-birth AB ban don't really amount to all that much. One particularly gruesome and particularly rare procedure was banned, but the ban keeps collapsing in court and no one has yet been prosecuted, much less prosecuted successfully. A half-dozen more common procedures that accomplish the same thing remain solidly legal. Window dressing.

I know these issues are not presented in this light in many circles. The pro-lifers tout the PBA ban and the UNPF funding ban as great milestone achievements, and the pro-choicers tout them as an enormous travesty of reproductive rights, the start of some slippery slope. Propaganda is often shrill and overblown, even when there's a large grain of truth.

Posted by: Tully at July 24, 2004 09:49 PM

Well, it certainly seems to me that pro-Bush centrists have a very legitimate feather to stick in their cap on this increased condom distribution thing if it's true, and I've no reason to doubt you, Tully.

What I find interesting here is precisely what you alluded to there at the end - propaganda. It seems that the Bush folks have been cranking out waist-deep propaganda for their conservative base while merrily increasing condom distribution underneath the rader screen. LOL I admire that in an odd sort of way. It's very cheeky in a way that's admirable to me. Largely because a greater good was being accomplished at the end of the day. It's nowhere near enough to get me to change my mind about Bush, of course. But, I believe in giving props where they've been earned.

Erasmus - Do a Google search on "government condom distribution". I didn't get a lot of hits. But, I did find some examples in devoutly Catholic South America where politicians have been nailed HARD for promoting condom distribution schemes. Perhaps not on par with abortion per se. But, to a Catholic the difference is nearly moot in terms of Vatican dogma.

In any case, I think y'all would enjoy watching the Powell interview. He handled the AIDS thing at the end like a seasoned Centrist. Abstinance and condom distributions are the two co-equal prongs in the Administrations approach to fighting the spread of AIDS, according to Powell. I sure don't here that kind of rhetoric from anyone else in this admin!

BTW - One of the hits I got on my Google search earlier was a piece by a fellow centrist. I thought y'all might like to check him out: http://www.politixgroup.com/comm208.htm Scroll down to the very bottom. That's where he mentions his centrism as well as his personal website.

Posted by: Kevin at July 24, 2004 10:55 PM

That's the trouble with trying to track reality in Washington, Kevin. Things are rarely as they are touted, or as they seem. There's the reality, and then there's the propaganda game, and rarely the twain do meet.

For example, I didn't argue with Erasmus' contention that Bush is even more extremely friendly to business than would seem appropriate for a Main Streeter. I didn't argue because I agree with it. And the phrase you were looking for is "Good Ol' Boy," Erasmus, as in "GOB network." Sounds innocuous, but in reality means "bought and sold." Tool. Lapdog. Owned. Sadly, I think it applies to Kerry too, just with different owners.

In particular, I think Bush sold his soul to the pharmaceutical industry long ago, and can cite reams of data and events supporting the contention, including this article from the Saturday New York Times.

And that's another of the many reasons I'm not a partisan, and why I'm a cynic who doesn't believe in white hats or black hats in Washington, only gray ones.

Posted by: Tully at July 25, 2004 12:14 AM

Tully,

No white or black hats! That in itself makes you a liberal to many on the far right. And it's characteristic of centrists, I think.

Posted by: Erasmus at July 25, 2004 05:53 PM

It also makes me a conservative to many on the far left, Erasmus. And it is VERY characteristic of pragmatic centrists who got that way through actually working in politics.

Posted by: Tully at July 25, 2004 11:34 PM