A Mish Mash of Good Stuff

It's "Random Observations" Harvest Time

by Patrick J. Shanahan
02/16/04

Anybody who writes on a periodic basis has a list of stuff that never quite qualifies for the full-blown column treatment. While I would like to think I could write a column on anything, anytime, good judgment generally prevails and many things remain on my "random observations list." Lately the list has been piling up, and it has become necessary to harvest it.

A New Political Model: I generally get very irritated with our current political cartography. The very notions of "extremes" vs. "moderation" are senseless in modern American politics and seem to be an unfortunate side effect of using the "left-right" political model. By definition, if one starts with a straight line and defines the extremes as the left edge and right edge, than anything in the middle must be non-extreme, i.e. moderate. Right? Wrong! If one uses a different model (like the one I have created, below) it becomes clear how inadequate our current ways of thinking about political alignment have become.

This model illustrates, among other things, why it is that liberals are closer to fascists than are conservatives. It also is the only one which accurately places communists and fascists next to each other. Anyone who falls "outside the circle" can safely be defined as a radical. Not as an absolute term, just insofar as they are sufficiently outside the accepted boundaries. Especially in the post-Cold War era, we need to use tools that get us beyond the tired old left wing-right wing dichotomy. Perhaps we could use clock terminology instead. Twelve O' Clock High would put you in commieville. Seven O'Clock would make one an O'Rourkean Republican Party Reptile. While Bill Buckley would be a middling Four O'Clocker, Pat Buchanan would be a solid Two O'Clock (oddly enough, very close to Howard Dean's campaign persona).

What Use Are Moderates? As we gear up for the general election season, prepare to hear more and more about "moderates," whom the candidates will need to win over if they are to win (according to accepted wisdom). I have several problems with the very idea of "Moderates," the first of which is that it has no meaning. It means nothing. Think about it: what is a "moderate"? The press generally uses the term as a synonym for "liberal Republican," while pretending it means something else. As far as I can tell, the only other possible definitions are a) people who have no idea what they actually believe, b) people who just don't care/don't think abut politics, or c) people who wish to pose as being above the fray. As soon as one buys into an actual set of political/social/economic beliefs, one is by definition kicked off Moderation Island. I completely fail to see what moderates have to offer or how they can possibly be considered superior to those with a coherent belief system. Can one have a "moderate" yet clear belief set?

Media Bias on Parade. Want to have some fun sometime? Check out the Time.com website and go to the "Covers" tab. For starters, check out the two most recent covers.

If you were a Martian, who would you vote for based on these images? And given that the average American voter is just about as up to speed on politics as a Martian we should not underestimate the impact this sort of thing has.

There's really not much else one can say. Except to ask when it became acceptable for major news magazines to refer to the President of the United States as "Bush," rather than as President Bush? Seems to me to be an egregious slam.

Military Service and Qualifications to be President. I served my time in the military. The closest I ever got to combat was when I was attacked by a seagull who wanted my pretzels and beer, but I served. When do I get to be President? Isn't that how the career path works? Kerry served in combat. Bush served in the Guard. Dean skied in Aspen. Clinton toked up in Oxford. So what? What has military service got to do with serving in any public office. The only thing that makes me crazier than politicians who want your vote because they served, is veterans who think that only veterans should be elected. It's nuts.

President Bush & Conservatives: President Bush has been catching some well deserved heat from the right lately. While conservatives are solidly behind the Prez on foreign policy, his domestic stuff is starting to look like the Rove-inspired warmed over liberal hash that many of us feared.

Two questions:

• 1. Why is it that conservatives can say that we support the President on foreign policy yet respectfully hammer him on domestic policy, but liberals cannot admit that they like any aspect of his policy? Except for the tax cut, there is a great deal for liberals to like about President Bush. And yet they hate him with a spittle-dripping fury. I think I agree with those who claim that this is more of a aesthetic judgment than an ideological one. He's just too much of a Texas redneck (or rich boy simpleton, depending on who is talking) for their taste. This probably also explains why conservatives cut him slack despite ideological differences. We like Texas rednecks.

• 2. Why do some Republican ideologues cringe at the criticism directing from the right? To hear Hugh Hewitt talk, for example, one would think we are urging people to vote for Kerry. We can never expect the President to behave like William F. Buckley , Jr. He isn't that. We know he is a big-government social conservative at heart. We know he is the "rightward-most electable candidate." But that doesn't mean that we should stop calling it like it is. He - and his handlers - need to hear that we are upset by, for example, the proposed spending increase for the NEA.

He's our guy. We like him. And we'll never stop seeking to educate him.