So what does one do on a New Year's Day when one has a really bad flu, can't go into work, and spends most of the day with a thermometer in the mouth (as it is at the moment)? One reviews all those time-shifted tapes of political programs that one didn't get to on Sunday. One program in particular I reviewed was this past weekend's Meet The Press. The guests were three of the more extroverted members of the current GOP freshmen one hears so much about. I must say, for an unreformed liberal like myself, it was a refreshing experience. Here were people with heart and conviction. Linda Smith, who has become something of a hero for me because of her dogged determination to see some sort of campaign reform pass this congressional session, was never more appealing. Something about that open Midwestern uncomplicated face really got to me. It reminded me that ideologues of all persuasions, whether liberal like myself, or conservative like Ms. Smith, have in some way a lot more in common with each other than with their paler cousins to the center. Conviction, principle, philosophy, belief -- these qualities are always appealing, and our nation's media, with its lionization of compromisers and deal-makers (Nunn, Breaux, Dole, Clinton, Domenici) and its demonization of all ideologues (usually referred to as extremists or radicals) tends to diss and regard with deep suspicion anyone who really seems to believe in something. It is conventional wisdom to speak of the biased press. Conservatives scream of a liberal bias, while liberals tend to scream of a conservative pro-corporations and big business bias. But in truth the bias of the press seems to be more in the direction of those who refuse to accept any consistent ideology or political philosophy. Since most journalists these days are conditioned, or rather brainwashed, to strive for an impossible level of phony "objectivity", they appear to be constitutionally incapable of accepting the fact that there are some principled, conscientious people who really DO have a consistent set of convictions, and yet can still play a useful constructive role, -- not in spite of those beliefs but very much BECAUSE of them.
Linda Smith belongs in that category. There is a lobbying reform bill that got passed in large measure because of her efforts. There is now bipartisan legislation being pushed in the House and the Senate by Ms. Smith, Rep. Chris Shays, Senator John McCain-R, and Senator Russell Feingold-D, which would approach the area of political campaign finance reform in a meaningful significant manner. This did not come about because Pete Domenici or John Breaux saved the day after deadlock between liberals and conservatives. This came about because principled liberals and principled conservatives got together and pushed something not for the sake of a successful legislative product, but for the sake of doing something both sides believed in deeply.
"But wait a minute," I hear you say. "Wasn't it yesterday you were talking about your longing for a centrist independent presidential candidate?"
Guilty, and that brings me to another point. The parties have now become so polarized that even centrists have to discover their spines to announce their beliefs. You see, people like John Breaux in the Democratic Party have to go against the grain of their own liberal leadership, in order to state the heretically obvious, that Medicare costs are spinning out of control, and that private sector HMO-style changes must happen to save the program. People like Arlen Specter in the Republican Party have to go against the grain of their own right-wing leadership, in order to state the heretically obvious, that a nation drowning in debt cannot afford a tax cut for the rich. In other words, centrists these days are liable to be as prickly and principled as the most dedicated ultra-liberal or -conservative. Curiously, the advent of polarized politics has forced all politicians across the spectrum to take riskier higher profile stands on most of the issues. As a result, voices are louder, and debates more contentious. Very confusing and unsettling for our ignorant and reflexively cynical media, who can't handle the concept of true principles, but manna from Heaven for someone like me, whose political beliefs and instincts were born in the fires of the activist, anti-war protest movement of the 60s and 70s. This is why I can not only admire a leftist like Jerry Brown for his castigation of the free and easy acceptance of legalized bribery by his Democratic Party, but also celebrate the spunk and guts of a Lowell Weicker for plucking the beard of the Republicrat autocracy in this country, and the grit and moral strength of a Jack Kemp for standing up for private sector enterprise zones for blighted inner cities as an alternative to government involvement, and also against Prop 187 style scapegoating. This is a time when leaders the nation over are being forced to stand up and be counted. For that, I say yea.
And whether you wish to say yea or nay, you may comment by writing to