Centerfield

A New Profile of Independents

Independents have an intriguing combination of views regarding Iraq, if you believe a new poll released by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

The poll and it's results are discussed in this International Press Service article.

PIPA attempted to isolate a segment of independents that could be considered real swing voters -- people who see themselves as independent of the two parties, but who were "extremely confident" they will vote in the next election.

In other words, these folks are civic minded, engaged with the system, but independent of the parties.

This group made up about 12% of PIPA's overall sample.

Here's the interesting part. They were quite a bit more likely to believe the Bush administration was misleading the public in the evidence for going to war. 53% of independent swing voters thought President Bush was misleading, compared to 36% of the overall sample.

Likewise, they tended to think Bush was dealing "poorly" with the situation in Iraq. 46% thought the administration was doing poorly, while only 33% of the overall sample thought so. (The 46% is actually a plurality, since 16% were undecided.)

The trends reverse, however, when you start talking about our committment to Iraq. These independent swing voters were more likely to recognize the importance of staying in Iraq and to succeed in our rebuilding efforts. 82% thought we "have the responsibility to remain in Iraq as long as necessary until there is a stable government", while 72% of the overall sample held that view.

On the whole, this seems a responsible and measured combination of views. It's very likely, on the one hand, that the administration intentionally mislead us on the case for war. But the most important thing now is not the past -- it's figuring out how to succeed in Iraq. Our prestige in the world, the future of the Middle East, and yes, the "war on terror" depends on it. Failure will vastly encourage our enemies and possibly provide bases of support from which to organize attacks.

Dishonesty in the way they made the case is important, but not our primary focus. We have to figure out how to make this policy succeed. We have no other options, and our future depends on it.

Dreamboat or Gasbag?

Is Tony Blair the centrist dream candidate or a helium-filled dilettante? According to Clive Crook in the Atlantic

The most remarkable and annoying thing about Blair's appeal to Americans is that the man is adored by conservatives and liberals alike. Blair is about the only topic, in fact, on which they appear to agree. Conservatives see him as a kind of Margaret Thatcher: an unflinching ally in the new war against terror. Liberals see him as a kind of Bill Clinton, minus the character flaws: the champion of a new progressive politics. Skeptics should already be asking, can he really be both?

But to Crook, he's lighter than air.

Blair's policies, like Clinton's are nothing but a form of moderate conservatism-or, for liberals who choke on that term, you could say "center-left." Such labels sound tepid and derivative; they will not do for a strong leader. What is required is an ideology that is bold and new and uncompromising, but with no actual content, since that might inconvenience pursuit of the centrist agenda that political necessity for the moment dictates to leaders like Blair. The helium-filled Third Way, with all its grandiose vacuity, is precisely this.

Crook argues that Blair's changing views over time indicate a triumph of ambition over principle. I consider it the triumph of learning and experience. What do you think?