I spent a lot of time yesterday reading commentary about the Super Tuesday results, and admit that I spent most of that time focused on the Republican race, about which more in a moment.
On the Democratic side, I started supporting John Edwards last year and continued to support him until he dropped out of the race. His was the most consistently progressive voice of the three major candidates; I am pleased to see that the two candidates who remain have been influenced by his rhetoric, particularly on poverty issues. I wrote last month that all things being equal, I was slightly more inclined to Hillary Clinton than to Barack Obama. That’s more out of admiration for Hillary than dislike of Barack. I don’t accept the “suffering Olympics” model that posits either sexism or racism as worse than the other; the election of either a woman or a black man to the most powerful office on the globe would be equally revolutionary. What matters to me is simple: I want each candidate’s voters to pledge unequivocal support to the party’s nominee. If Clinton does end up with the nomination — and I give her about a 60% chance of doing so — Obama will need to urge his supporters, particularly the young ones, not to be disheartened. If he doesn’t get the nomination in 2008, the chances are excellent he will someday.
But of course, I changed my registration to Republican last year. It’s not that I am ideologically comfortable with today’s GOP. On virtually every major issue, the Democratic party is a better fit for me. But that’s less because I am particularly left-wing and more because the GOP has, since my childhood, moved farther and farther right. The GOP of my childhood included not just moderates, but genuine progressives, especially on environmental issues. The GOP was never just the party of the right; it was also the party of Pete McCloskey and Millicent Fenwick.
There are fewer and fewer moderate and progressive Republicans in elected office these days. Most have been beaten in party primaries by vocal conservatives. Many moderate Republicans have switched their party allegiances (McCloskey became a Democrat last year at age 77), further diminishing the influence of centrists and liberals in the primaries. But the rise of John McCain, and his stunning success in the face of hysterical opprobrium from the conservative elite, gives hope that all is not lost for the “sensible center” in the Grand Old Party.
John McCain is not a liberal Republican. His voting record in the Senate isn’t that of Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe. He’s firmly anti-abortion, though he has supported stem cell research (a position adopted by Orrin Hatch, hardly anyone’s idea of a progressive.) But he’s been very good on the environment; indeed, he was the only Republican in the race to take global warming seriously, the only candidate for president in the GOP to work hard to stop drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He’s not exactly a Green, but the McCain positions on a host of environmental issues put him in the sensible center of the debate.
But as good as McCain is on the enviroment, he isn’t demonstrably better than Obama or Clinton. At best, even on Green issues, it’s a wash among them. So why support a Republican at all? Why not work to raise environmental consciousness in a party where the majority of voters and elected leaders are sympathetic? Being a liberal, Green, Republican seems quixotic at best and a waste of needed energy and money at worst.
The preservation of natural resources and the protection of the earth is the greatest challenge of our time. Most of the time, I’m a single issue voter, and that issue is environmental protection. Protecting natural resources (including all living creatures within the vast global ecosystem) ought not to be a partisan issue. If the Republican party also embraces at least some Green principles, it will be a huge step forward. When the voices of those who think global warming is a hoax have been marginalized (rather than embraced by one political party), the planet will be better off. If we can move both parties to more progressive positions on a variety of issues, then we change the conversation.
It’s axiomatic that throughout the 1980s and 1990s, both political parties moved right. On an issue like welfare, Bill Clinton was to the right of Richard Nixon! Now, the Democrats are starting to rediscover their progressive roots, and there’s a growing sense that the country as a whole may be ready for a shift back to the left. Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson have done all they could to deny John McCain the nomination, but with the news today that Mitt Romney has dropped out, McCain has the GOP locked up. The voters who voted for McCain were not misled about his progressive environmental positions or his open quarrels with the right-wing establishment. Bottom line, the “red-meat right” doesn’t have the influence it once did in the GOP. Now is the moment to pour time, money, and energy into helping build up centrist and progressive voices in the Republican party. The rise of McCain opens the window to do just that.
When John McCain debates Obama or Clinton in the autumn, neither candidate on the stage will support drilling in the Arctic. Neither will deny that global warming has — in part — a manmade cause. That is reason to rejoice. McCain, if he wins, will be a huge improvement over President Bush on environmental issues. The planet wins either way this fall.
If you like, join me in supporting Republicans for Environmental Protection. REPAmerica endorsed McCain last year. You can also support the Republican Leadership Council, Republicans for Choice, or the Mainstreet Partnership.
Which is the great bright spot of a McCain nomination - a fracturing of one of the two parties is going to create a chain reaction in the other, as opportunistic voices will become convinced it is time to “seize power.”
Which will result in their marginalization.
Beware of unintended consequences. The center of the nation is a lot further rightwards than you’d probably like to believe.
//The center of the nation is a lot further rightwards than you’d probably like to believe.//
Right, but the coasts are still pretty far left.
(I know that’s now what you meant, just having a bit of fun.)
Out of curiosity, since I couldn’t really tell from the post: I see that you’re supporting McCain as the Republican nominee, but do you support him for President, over Clinton or Obama?
Daisy, it’s too soon to tell. If the election were held now, and the polls showed California too close to call, I would vote for Clinton or Obama over McCain. McCain is still too conservative on a number of issues for me, but he’s a darned sight better than any of his GOP rivals were.
On the other hand, if McCain goes down to a massive defeat this fall, it will only embolden the far right to say “See, we can’t win without someone who is a bedrock conservative.” So if California is reasonably safe Democratic territory in November (which it looks like at this point), I’ll vote for McCain in order to strengthen the hand of GOP moderates for future campaigns.
I see your point in supporting a more progressive Republican Party, but there is no way in hell I’m voting for a Republican after eight years of the Bush administration. McCain has also stated that he does not have the same sense of urgency to end the war in Iraq as the Democratic candidates. Both Hillary and Obama want to pull the troops out, though their plans are slightly different. I can’t stand the thought of us dragging on this war any longer. Obama was against it from the start, and I admire that. As a first-time voter in a presidential election, Obama appeals to me on numerous levels. I am not an “Obama girl,” meaning, I don’t support him because he’s hot and young (though I do have a bit of a crush on him). I support him because this country needs unity and a sense of direction. Hillary doesn’t have much of a vision. And McCain just… doesn’t seem like the right fit after all the hell the Republicans have put us through for nearly half my life.
I think my main worry is that on one of, if not the, most important issue facing us as a nation - the war in Iraq and broader issues of war and peace - McCain is anything but a moderate. He is to the “right” of even George Bush and it seems he never saw a military conflict he didn’t want the U.S. to jump into. He undoubtedly has some admirable qualities, including his good-for-a-Republican stance on global warming, but this is, in my view, far outweighed by his militarism.
The great majority of people are not really left or right; they’re what’s best for them, and if that means ideological inconsistency, well, whatever.
Obama has said that the slaughter of Iraqis which will follow a precipitate US withdrawal is a price we need to be prepared to pay.
If it happens, y’all voted for it.
Don’t think you’ll be allowed to pretend otherwise.
I am neither a leftist nor a rightist but a libertarian, so it isn’t surprising that I don’t agree with the opinions expressed here, but I am surprised that someone would associate McCain with progress. On the war he is at least as bad as Bush. This is a guy who said that we could stay in Iraq for a hundred years as far as he is concerned, who supported the war with a prediction that it would be “easy” — and stands by that judgment today! You seem to be rating “global warming” a more important issue than war and peace.
As a progressive, here’s my best case scenario for the next 2 elections:
In 2008, McCain beats Clinton and has to do his best to clean up this Republican-made mess. He will fail, as this is an impossible task, and will lose in 2012. Clinton will be an also-ran at that point (like Kerry’s loss in 2004 took him out of the race for 2008), and Obama will sail into office under mildly better conditions. Hooray!
I’m a lifelong Republican, and I can say with as near certainty as anything can be said in politics that McCain is being handed a ‘poisoned chalice’. He’s this year’s Bob Dole. He’s spent years sticking his thumb in the eyes of his own party on issue after issue. Campaign finance, amnesty, taxes. The best that I’ve heard any Republican say about him is that we have to “stick with the party” and “you want four years of Hillary?” Under those circumstances, yes. We get the chance every four years to tell them who we want, not to be told who they want. I’ll take four years of a Democrat at least to see the Republican party regain its backbone and its principles. I won’t vote for him, nor will I send him a nickel, and most Republicans I know feel the same way.
That’s why the media and the left have been pushing him so hard. They can treat him decently and as a “man of honor” because they know that he has no chance. (though I’d expect to start hearing noises about the “Keating 5″ and about his temper from the NY Times and the other usual suspects right after the convention) Those dems, leftists and “independents” supporting him for the nomination will be pulling the lever for Hillary or Obama come November.
Incidentally, on the environment, he proves his point that he really doesn ‘t know much about the economy, given that he’s prepared to permanently hobble it and cede economic superpower status to Kyoto-free China and India (if you believe that either of those countries will ever accept being classified as “developed nations” under Kyoto, I got a nice bridge you should take a look at).
Welcome back, Hugo (I think.)
I’ve been a long time reader and infrequent poster, but I’ve got to say something here.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
McCain v. Clinton is frightening. I wouldn’t count on her, even with Mike Ditka as her running mate. The Clinton Smear Machine was never really put on mothballs.
Listen to Mermade. You were a mentor to her, but it’s time for the teacher to listen to the pupil.
Mermade, it makes me feel old when you say “nearly half my life,” and it sort of freaks me out to have voted for a presidential candidate younger than me, but it’s incredibly encouraging to see how many young adults are inspired by Obama, as well as believing they can make a difference. I remember where I was when I heard President Kennedy was shot, so when I heard that Caroline Kennedy (Good Lord..she’s all grown up - only a couple years younger than me!) was endorsing Obama, I thought: “Another Torch, Another Generation.” I’ve voted since 1972, and have never been close to shedding tears of joy, relief, and pride as I was this week after voting for Obama.
Hugo, maybe I should realize that you have just one vote, but I hope you’ll ask your Millions of Minions who have yet to vote in their primary to vote for Obama. The Future of Humanity and the Destiny of Planet Earth depends on it.
Michelle, I’m truly not getting why that is supposed to be a “progressive” stance. It sounds to me like a supremely privilege stance: hey, I have enough juice that a disastrous Presidency through to 2012 isn’t going to affect MY life, so I’m okay with four bad years.
Mythago,
I think that whoever is the next president is going to fail. She/he is going to be limited to one disastrous term in which she/he will not be able to accomplish major policy initiatives (healthcare, education reform, etc.) because of Iraq/Iran/the recession/the Bush-Cheney legacy. If the next president is a Democrat and gets voted out after 1 terrible term, she/he will be followed by several terms of Republican presidents. If the next president is McCain, Obama or another Democrat will win in 2012 and will be able to better implement a more progressive agenda since McCain will have done unpopular things that probably need to get done, like raise taxes and deal with stabilizing Iraq.
Here are just 2 examples:
After Koch, a conservative Democrat, left office, he handed David Dinkins a huge mess called New York City. Dinkins did his best with what he had, but he had to enact some very unpopular measures and was voted out after 1 term. He was followed by 2 terms of Giuliani, who was followed by 2 terms of Bloomberg.
Similar things happened with the NJ governorship. Tom Kean handed Jim Florio a mess in 1990. Florio tried to restructure the tax system for more equitable funding of schools, appointed a state prosecutor for environmental damage, etc., and got kicked out after 1 terms, to be followed by Christine Todd Whitman, who is not *so* terrible, but who testified that post-9/11 air quality posed no threat.
So I’m saying this: The next president will probably only serve 1 term. The party that loses the presidency in 2008 will win it in 2012 and 2016. So, while I don’t want anyone to get screwed over, getting a little screwed for 4 years (2008-2012) is better than getting *really* screwed for 8 years.
I think that whoever is the next president is going to fail.
Do you know, that is word for word what I said to myself back when it was Bush vs. Gore? I was right, too. I can’t repeat that enough–I was right. I thought to myself, whoever is president is going to be a disaster, and as a Democrat, I don’t want a Democrat associated with disaster. It made sense, you know? And I was right.
And here you are, eight years later, saying this.
This kind of thinking is dangerous, but ultimately just sad and stupid. And I say that as someone who fell victim to it once upon a time eight years ago. It might seem like losing on purpose and pretending to be crafty about it is less humiliating than doing our best to win and still losing, but it’s not. It’s worse in every way, and it’s never ever going to work. People have had your bright idea before, and look at us now.
I’m not a republican so I can’t really understand the obligation some may feel to vote republican for the good of society, but I know there are SEVERAL reasons I could never get behind McCain. For one, I’m a feminist and I believe in bodily autonomy. McCain has made anti-choice statements and has also spoken about putting people in the supreme court who definately would overturn Roe v. Wade. I think any woman or anyone who claims to care about women should really take that into consideration when they’re voting. Another issue is, of course, Iraq. I know getting out will probably be difficult and complicated, but at least Clinton and Obama have acknowledged that we need to get out and going in was a mistake. My last issue (that I’ll discuss here, at least) is healthcare. Since I’m disabled and have a chronic condition, healthcare is a serious concern for me–the democratic party is the only party that has ever even bothered to address the need for serious healthcare reform. The republicans keep on telling me to pull myself up by my bootstraps (that’s hard when you can’t afford boots). Of course, there are other issues like gay rights and workplace discrimination that I think the democrats can better address, but I just don’t want to go on and on and on.
Richard,
And this would be different from the slaughter of Iraqis that began after we invaded Iraq how?
Strange, no one wants to talk about what’s happened to the Iraqi Christian minority under the American occupation…
sophonisba,
What was the big disaster that set up the winner of the 2000 election to fail? I’m not a Clinton superfan, but in 2000, we had a budget surplus, were not explicitly involved in any wars, had 2 fewer right-wing supreme court justices, etc. I understand the idea is out there that “there’s no difference between Bush and Gore,” but that is not the type of argument I’m making.
I think there are plenty of differences between Obama/Clinton and McCain. I’m just saying that the next president is going to be limited to 1 term due to circumstances beyond her/his control. This will swing the pendulum back, hard, to the losers of the 2008 election.
I think the Republicans know this, and that’s why Frist, Jeb Bush, or any of the Rove-ian crew aren’t running. They’re sitting this one out because whoever’s next is not going to be there long.
I’m voting for Obama either way, though. I’m just going to feel less bad when the Democrats lose this election.
Being better than Bush on the environment is very different from being “very good on the environment.” The League of Conservation Voters, though they endorsed him, gives McCain only a 26% lifetime score. He talks perfectly good talk on prioritizing climate and energy policy, but his proposed solutions are vague (he doesn’t explain how he plans to wean America from “foreign oil”) and weak (his climate bill called for slower emissions reductions than competing bills — much too slow to do much good). The environment is more than just something to proclaim support for, and the GOP cannot be said to be “embracing … Green principles” until it’s willing to side with the public’s environmental interests instead of corporations’ financial interests.