Pragmatism and Reality v. Idealism and Populism

As we approach the beginning of the voting frenzy, I wanted to share with you my view of what the criteria you might consider using when you head to the polls. Throughout this campaign, it has been suggested that a divisive candidate simply cannot lead America at such a critical juncture. It has also been suggested that America cannot stand for another candidate who represents more of the same status quo. I take exception to both of these suggestions because of the reality of our country’s situation and the pragmatism we need in our decisions.

I have thoroughly seen, read and analyzed the argument put forward that what America needs is a leader that can bring about the much needed change to Washington. I don’t disagree with the notion that change in Washington from rancid hyper-partisanship to a more genial style of politics is necessary and neither should anyone else. But I hope you will take a step backward and look at the picture that currently confronts us. The hyper-partisanship that exists today, exists because the flanks of both parties want it that way. The social conservatives are as combative as the liberals are. Consider that there has been very little action regarding the war in Iraq or other major pieces of legislation that Democrats are concerned about because neither side is willing to compromise (Washington Post).

All of the candidate’s who have stood up and proclaimed that they have the ability to change the ways of Washington, should be carefully scrutinized. Regardless of whether we believe that they believe what they’re actually saying. George W. Bush believed that he could and has changed the partisanship by making it combative, un-relenting and uncompromising.

I cannot, in good conscience vote for a populist candidate who lacks the experience and judgment to effectively govern. First, I believe that history is self-repeating and that any candidate who believes this will only make the situation more dire. Moderates such as myself don’t believe this, although we desire it, but we’re pragmatic in our habits. People who fall for the idea that a candidate with few ties to the establishment can bring about change, are at extreme ends of both parties. The change they seek is the change we have, and in the end, what they’re really voting for is the current status quo.

I have also noticed that one of the leading attack dog candidates, mainly John Edwards and Barack Obama conducting a populist campaign. I am very wary, and so should you, of any populist. A real leader doesn’t tell you what you want to hear, but tells you what you need to hear.

If you believe, like I do, that history tends to repeat itself, look back at not only our own history, but also around the world. It’s an extremely rare occasion when America elects populists to the highest office in the land. William Jennings Bryan (D-1896, 1900), Thomas Watson (D-1904), Hubert Humphrey (D-1968), and Pat Buchanon (R-1996) were all populists and never made it to the White House. On the global front, populists have had much more success. Like Obama and Edwards; Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro are all populists who made it to the top by appealing to people’s most basic desires and needs. You be the judge of the end result.

Change doesn’t come about overnight. Most of the candidates who are fighting for universal healthcare realize that it’s not going to be easy. But when John Edwards goes on television and says that if universal healthcare isn’t passed within 6 months of his inauguration, he’ll take away the Congressional health plans, he should be laughingly criticized for being so far out of touch with reality. Such a massive change is going to require months if not a year or more of debate about how to structure it, how to implement it and how to make sure its working. Similarly, any candidate who says that after they are sworn in, they’ll bring the troops home right away is also out of touch. “Peace with dignity” means that you bring about peace in a manner that doesn’t tarnish the stature and image of America. Any candidate who withdraws the all of the troops without first stabilizing Iraq will do untold damage to American integrity.

I’m casting my vote for Hillary Clinton because I know she can govern. She has more experience in government than Obama and Edwards combined. Hillary’s very wonkish and knows and cares about the specific issues of many policy issues. Not only that, but Hillary’s pragmatic. She isn’t campaigning on the idea that she can single handedly change Washington (although being the first female elected to the presidency will undoubtedly change Washington) or telling America that she will bring all the troops home.

Hillary may be pragmatic, but I don’t believe she’s the divisive candidate that everyone makes her out to be. She’s being relentlessly attacked because she’s the biggest and easiest target and because she’s the most serious threat. She’s the only candidate that is not on ;the defense about their ability to govern. When political scientists agree that she was the de facto chief of staff in Bill Clinton’s White House, involved in most of the major decisions that were made, I would confidently argue that she knows how to make deals in order to get things done.

In 2004, Democrats went with the candidate we thought could defeat George Bush. We were wrong, but not because we had the wrong candidate (Bush won with 51%, hardly a sweep). We lost because of the situation we were faced with; opposition to the war wasn’t as high as it is today; more people thought America was headed in the right direction than in the wrong direction; the economy was doing good; unemployment was down; and everyone was able to get a loan and buy a house. Everything (except unemployment which is at its lowest point in 6 years) is the reverse and a Democrat is favored to win the White House. But only if we don’t screw up and take the chance we have and use it to zealously change the country before it’s ready for it. We Democrats can’t afford to nominate someone who makes outrageous claims or believes that they have what it takes to change Washington single handedly. If we do, we risk losing the independents and moderates like myself who would rather vote for a pragmatist like Giuliani, than a populist like Edwards or Obama.

What we Democrats need is someone with deep institutional connections that can shape Washington from the inside instead of the outside. We need someone who has the connections, has the understanding, and has a history of getting legislation passed by working with both parties. We need Hillary.

Please consider this when you go out and vote.

Sincerely,

Tony - Tony can be reached at Tonylnbv@Gmail.com

---

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.

Political Grind | Powered by WordPress | ElegantBlue is a custom theme by Nathan Rice