PoliticsUSA: Campaign Presidency: Why Obama zigs and zags his attempt for another victory
-
-
-
John Harwood, New York Times (December9,2k11)
— Reposted here by Politicarp
refWrite comment: We've reached the point of tedium this campaign, regarding Republicans and the Democrat alike, info-alerts about flipflops and zigzags. Here in a brilliant news analysis John Howard (NYT) sorts thru instances of President Barack Obama's campaign where his zigzag strategy is in evidence. Harwood does so to help us understand how and why the presumed head of the Democrat ticket has finessed the art of electioneering, by placating often his most steadfast and activist wing of the Democrat Party, while yet making concessions a bit to his Republican opponents (not to placate them, but to prevent losing too many independent and undecided voters who otherwise may move themselves decidedly to the Republican Party column on election day). Such too many moves coud bode ill for Democrats up for re-election in the Senate and ill as swell for the project of Democrats regaining a majority in the House of Representatives. An excellent read in full, and very much worth your reflection.
Making occasional concessions to Republicans dialectically advances the Democrat campaigners cawz in that on each such occasion, he can revert to programme of regaining hegemony over the narrative of seeking national political unity between the Reds (a colour code ironically attached to Republicans) and the Blues (Democrats). This is confusing to me personally becawz in Canada, the colour code here is reversed: Conservatives are Blues (altho there is or was a faction labelled "Red Tories"), while Liberals got the the Red coding. But I stray.
In the USA, my native land and where I hold citizenship by birthright, the Republican search for control of the national narrative of unity remains unsettled: there are among the candidates for the Republican nomination to the Presidency in 2012, those — like Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum — who disdain a narrative of national unity altogether. They think like Crusaders. They fantasize total hegemony, where the entire historical spectrum other than "the Right" (a reification to be sure) they woud neglect or repress were they to gain the White House (this is what Obama tries to avoid in his zigzagging). In comparison to the Crusaders (they seem all of them to be of qualifying weight by my standards, as is the zigzagger Romney), there are the principled artists of political compromise, chiefly Romney and the Gingrich (he unfortunately seems to be the last of the Overweights to still be trying; Politico actually refers to him thus: "Newt looks like a sack of doorknobs...," while lauding him profusely. But by my own standards, like Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, and Donald Trump, Gingrich does not qualify due to the curse of obesity).
On the other hand, Gingrich is the only candidate who is creatively conservative and who yet is the demonstrable master of compromise at critical junctures. His most dramatic stance along this line, so far, is his dismissal of the dogmatism evident among his counterparts concerning issues around illegal immigration. He has spoken up for cases where illegal immigrants have been in the country for a long time, have integrated into society, and coud be granted Permanent Resident status by local boards set up by national legislation for that purpose (similar to the military draft boards of long ago). To me personally, the field boils down to Romney or Gingrich. I think I coud reconsider Obama, were a Crusader incapable of principled compromising (which translates to something like zigzagging and evidences some flipflopping in any given candidates political development). But I don't see much of the sawt-for quality among the Crusaders — perhaps Rich Santorum, where nevertheless I don't like his across-the-board dismissal of all abortions. His position requires that he support enforcement of an anti-abortion law were Congress to send one to his desk. Santorum raises spectres in my mind of an agency of birth-cops who woud penalize women and medical abortionists, in any case where a pregnancy were aborted (no compromise here, or on a whole array of social-conservative absolutes).
So for me, it's back to Gingrich or Romney — unless Santorum explains his philosophy regarding compromise to the benefit of all Americans, with some compassionate concessions, at the very least, for certain classes of illegal immigrants and women who refuse to carry early-stage preborn to term.
— Politicarp
-
No comments:
Post a Comment